Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by stephan happy huller »

Or at the very least may have had a very different literary context than an apostle named 'Paul' sending letters to the various churches.
Everyone loves the happy times
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Adam »

"There is often a tendency to be overawed by the results achieved by scholarly giants of past generations, without careful reevaluation of their operating procedures and presuppositions..." Robert A. Kraft (1976)

I love your signature, Blood.
Thus I direct your attention to Peter's convenient post Oct. 10 stating my thesis that there are seven written eyewitness accounts to Jesus in the gospels.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14#p495
As Peter notes in his subsequent post there on Nov. 8, I'm still waiting for anyone to make a proper response instead of standing pat on Form Criticism and other academic scholarship.
(In spite of appearances, the post does not give Peter's views, but mine. But only he can make that clarifying edit.)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bingo wrote:They said the same thing about the four-minute mile.
Fair enough, but even with an exceptional individual who is able to write what should become a consensus account of Christian origins on account of its proper treatment of the historical evidence, a sequence of historical events that are not at this time in motion would be needed for this to become the consensus account in fact. (That sequence of events would most likely include the academic irrelevance of biblical studies as formerly understood [no more variety for the sake of the Ph.D. thesis], the implosion of popular support for religious beliefs on the question [no more variety from ideology], and the creation of a consensus as the last harrumph of the study of Christian origins as taking place as a branch of ancient history.)

Alternately, some wag might suggest that we'll have consensus when we get to heaven.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Peter Kirby »

I'm impressed with how thoroughly unloved this blog post became. My worst yet. :)

http://peterkirby.com/mission-impossible.html

Pro-mythical stuff gets ~50 shares, pro-historicity stuff gets ~50 shares, this stuff gets... 2!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by andrewcriddle »

Peter Kirby wrote:I'm impressed with how thoroughly unloved this blog post became. My worst yet. :)

http://peterkirby.com/mission-impossible.html

Pro-mythical stuff gets ~50 shares, pro-historicity stuff gets ~50 shares, this stuff gets... 2!
Hi Peter

I found this post very interesting.

My main reservation is the implication that all 9 options occupy the same area of intellectual space. Some of the options may occupy a broad area and some a much narrower one. E.G. Most would feel that one must have very very low regard for the tradition and very very low regard for critical reasoning to end up with a full-blown conspiracy theory while many would feel that Theories about the HJ make sense over a wide range of regard for the tradition and for critical reasoning.

(I think it is clear that a very very high regard for critical reasoning of the post-modernist type makes ancient history as normally understood impossible.)

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thanks, Andrew. That is indeed a helpful distinction to make. It makes clear both the possibility of more results (such as the no-history answer you mention) as well as the fact that some of the results involve a broader area than others.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Peter,

I also doubt if there will ever be a consensus. How can we be sure that for the first time in recorded history a star in the sky stopped moving from East to West and moved from North to South to lead the three Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. After all, this is no more ridiculous and unscientific than Heracles biting the breast of Hera and the resulting squirting milk forming the Milky Way. How can we be sure that Baby Heracles didn't do that?

We will never be sure if zombies rose from their graves when Jesus died, just as we will never be able to know if George Romero was basing his first zombie movie "Night of the Living Dead" on a real historical event that happened in Pittsburgh.

How can we be sure that Jesus never walked on the Sea of Galilee? Is this any less historically plausible than Baron Munchausen sailing a boat to the moon. How are we prove that neither of these events ever happened?

How do we know that Jesus didn't answer the Jewish high priest when asked if he was the Christ by saying (Matt: 26.64), "You have said so,But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Is this any sillier than JFK asking Forrest Gump how he feels and Forest Gump responding, "I got to pee." And nobody can prove that Forrest Gump didn't meet JFK.

And Jesus taking John and Peter onto a mountain top to meet Moses. That is no more historically implausible than Dorothy meeting the Wizard of Oz or Puss in Boots pretending that his master is the Marquis of Carabas.

The Bible is a perplexing mystery. Nobody will ever solve it. Nobody will ever be able to prove it is not relating historical events, just as nobody will ever be able to prove that a girl wearing a red hood did not meet a wily wolf while bringing cookies to her grandmother's house. We just have to let the mystery be.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Peter Kirby wrote:Bultmann is the most famous example of the "bare historicity of Jesus."

Thomas Thompson may be the contemporary example of "minimalist history."

Their methods are largely the same. The major difference noted is that the former includes the historicity of Jesus and that the latter does not (but also does not include the statement that Jesus did not exist). Each side accuses the other of falling into a bias trap in order to explain the difference between them.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Peter Kirby »

It's not so much a question of being "sure," of being able to "solve" things, or of being able to "prove" anything as it is being able to produce a consensus. Not everyone interested in the subject is interested in approaching it rationally (most, in fact, aren't). This reply seems to miss the point (or, worse, seems to accuse me of trying to defend the historicity of something in this essay through obscurantism).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Peter,

I was up till 3. A.M. finishing giving out grades to my students for the semester. Reading and re-reading their papers, it was obvious that about half heard what I was saying all semester about the desirability of critical thought and about half didn't listen to a word. Its frustrating reading papers where students proclaim that they trust their guru/priest/spiritual adviser because he's a good person and good people don't lie. I unfairly took out my frustration on the first thing I read upon waking up which was the consensus stuff.

I actually agree that for the near future there won't be much chance for a consensus. However, I do have hope that a consensus towards historical skepticism will emerge as more rational people study the field and carefully weigh the arguments.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Peter Kirby wrote:It's not so much a question of being "sure," of being able to "solve" things, or of being able to "prove" anything as it is being able to produce a consensus. Not everyone interested in the subject is interested in approaching it rationally (most, in fact, aren't). This reply seems to miss the point (or, worse, seems to accuse me of trying to defend the historicity of something in this essay through obscurantism).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

Post by Peter Kirby »

PhilosopherJay wrote:I actually agree that for the near future there won't be much chance for a consensus. However, I do have hope that a consensus towards historical skepticism will emerge as more rational people study the field and carefully weigh the arguments.
Fair enough. Cheers!
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply