Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[The Crow]

Up to you. Sooner or later all heads are going to bleed and crack open.

It only happens here, and a few other select forums.

Having debated with most here for 4-5 years, I wear a helmet

Having debated with most here for 4-5 years, I wear a helmet

Jolly good idea.

[MrMacSon]

But as it stands the most educated here are pretty much on the same path as I am on. And I hope to learn as much as them.

Path? Like a road to Damascus ??

[toejam]

Some Egyptologists spend their whole professional lives studying the beliefs and mythology of Ancient Egypt despite the fact that no one today actually believes that there was a historical Horus, a historical Isis and Osiris etc. Are they just wasting their time too on an intellectual abstraction? Isn't the entirety of humanity's desire for knowledge simply an intellectual abstraction? Do we really need to know what the ancient Egyptians believed? Do we really need to know what the age of the universe is? Should anyone care whether there was a historical Romulus or not? One could just as easily write these questions off as intellectual abstractions.

Whether there was a historical Jesus or not, the question of Christian Origins is a fascinating and important historical question. That is, if we care about history. I think history matters. If one doesn't, then that's cool. If someone thinks Jesus didn't exist, I want to see their argument. If someone thinks Jesus existed as a charlatan magician, I want to see their argument. If some think he existed as a failed doomsday prophet, I want to see their argument. That the current consensus of those who study Christian Origins is that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core instigation of the religion - a character who fulfills a list of what Dale Allison describes as "boring facts" (his baptism/association with John the Baptist, his faith-healing ministry, arrest and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate etc.) - I'm not sure why this bothers some people so much. Even as a historicist, I'm not convinced some of these "facts" are "facts", but they are certainly not unreasonable historical conclusions.

[Stephan Huller]

But we don't start with a belief in Egyptian religion. We have always assumed its bullshit. It's a collective cultural assumption. Not the same with the gospel.

[Peter Kirby]

You can see this at work in the reception of the books of someone (like Robert Price) by most reviewers. It's not just a different idea, to be considered just like any other 'yahoo theory' that the beloved disciple was Lazarus or that Luke wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews or that Mark abridged Matthew and Luke. No. It has to be "debunked." It needs to be labeled ("mythicism" ... and they still need a good one word label for questioning the authenticity of letters of Paul). There needs to be disapproval of the questions being asked, questioning of motives, impugning of credentials, and a general air of indignation. This is not just exploration of ideas. These ideas are undoubtedly considered in connection with their impact on common, shared cultural assumptions. Of course it takes a special kind of person to question whether faith commitments and cultural assumptions are affecting the investigation regarding Jesus (but they'll often do that too, when not at their most calm and collected, while at the same time holding out that bitter personal vendettas and polemical purposes are all that is at work in others). It's an ugly spectacle, and for some observers it can reinforce belief, but for more critical and impartial persons it is just a huge turnoff.

[toejam]

But we don't start with a belief in Egyptian religion. We have always assumed its bullshit. It's a collective cultural assumption. Not the same with the gospel.

That's my point. That no one actually believes in the reality of the ancient Egyptian religions doesn't mean studying them is meaningless. That's was the conclusion I read from your initial post - that if there's no historical core then it's not worth studying.

[MrMacSon]

But we don't start with a belief in Egyptian religion. We have always assumed its bullshit. It's a collective cultural assumption.

... That no one actually believes in the reality of the ancient Egyptian religions doesn't mean studying them is meaningless ...

I saw an archaeology documentary recently that showed how a US researcher was using satellites to assess topography and she had identified 5,000+ sites to look at in recent yrs, but can't b/c of the recent & current politico-religious upheaval in Egypt.

They reckon Egypt and it's ancient religions have hardly been studied to the extent it & they deserve.

[The Crow]

Some Egyptologists spend their whole professional lives studying the beliefs and mythology of Ancient Egypt despite the fact that no one today actually believes that there was a historical Horus, a historical Isis and Osiris etc. Are they just wasting their time too on an intellectual abstraction? Isn't the entirety of humanity's desire for knowledge simply an intellectual abstraction? Do we really need to know what the ancient Egyptians believed? Do we really need to know what the age of the universe is? Should anyone care whether there was a historical Romulus or not? One could just as easily write these questions off as intellectual abstractions.

Whether there was a historical Jesus or not, the question of Christian Origins is a fascinating and important historical question. That is, if we care about history. I think history matters. If one doesn't, then that's cool. If someone thinks Jesus didn't exist, I want to see their argument. If someone thinks Jesus existed as a charlatan magician, I want to see their argument. If some think he existed as a failed doomsday prophet, I want to see their argument. That the current consensus of those who study Christian Origins is that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core instigation of the religion - a character who fulfills a list of what Dale Allison describes as "boring facts" (his baptism/association with John the Baptist, his faith-healing ministry, arrest and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate etc.) - I'm not sure why this bothers some people so much. Even as a historicist, I'm not convinced some of these "facts" are "facts", but they are certainly not unreasonable historical conclusions.

the question of Christian Origins is a fascinating and important historical question.

In what way?

That the current consensus of those who study Christian Origins is that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core instigation of the religion -

Is this based on conformation biased or independent researchers who have no dog in the fight?

[toejam]

the question of Christian Origins is a fascinating and important historical question.

In what way?

Christianity has been the dominant religion in the West for almost 2,000yrs. If there was ever such a thing as an important historical question, I think the question of its origin qualifies! If you disagree, why are you on this board?

That the current consensus of those who study Christian Origins is that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core instigation of the religion -

Is this based on conformation biased or independent researchers who have no dog in the fight?

Bias, life experiences, and probably even genetics, will always be a potential stumbling block in EVERYONE's conclusions. Don't pretend that those "independent researchers" who conclude that Jesus likely didn't exist are immune from it and don't have their own dog in the fight. We all have our dogs. It's about trying to keep them at bay as much as possible. I would say that most scholars who study Christian Origins end up changing their minds on various things over the years of their study. Even many Christian ones come to conclusions they would rather have not. I'd encourage you to read Dale Allison's "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus" in which he documents his own frustrations of trying desperately to rid himself of personal bias and be as objective as possible (Allison considers himself a Christian, though his historical investigation has led him to the view of a Jesus not that dissimilar to Ehrman / Schweitzer / Fredriksen etc.). This idea that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Jesus existed must be doing so solely as a result of confirmation bias and fear of not getting a job is overblown. It always reminds me of creationists complaining that the scientific community are only pro-evolution due to confirmation bias and fear of not getting a job.

[Peter Kirby]

It is overblown. On the other hand the creationism reference is the most soiled smelly condom in the top shelf of historicity fallacies. All non consensus persons will show rhetorical similarities in general when compelled to speak on the question of consensus rather than the issue itself.

I think a fair minded observer could give the historicity of Jesus somewhere roughly between 30% and 90% likelihood more or less.

And evolution somewhere between 99.9% and 99.9999% roughly.

I don't think the historicity of Jesus is a horrible inference to make based on the evidence. But we have not yet reached the point where we, most if us, are being forthright about the true nature of the evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus. Most are still stuck with 'the question is retarded'.

The real problem with the state of the discussion is not that some lean pro historicity or that some lean against. The problem is how the evidence is misrepresented in the quest to overemphasize how good the evidence is for their preferred conclusion. This does not just affect our opinion of the historicity of Jesus but also a host of attendant issues and interpretations.

Someone once said that Crossan may often be wrong but at least he is wrong productively. I feel the same about non historicity. It is definitely not an 'assured conclusion' but allowing ourselves to consider it as a plausible hypothesis opens up interesting avenues if investigation that might otherwise be prematurely closed off by the opposite assumption.