Historical Jesus scholarship

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Peter Kirby »

Robert Tulip
Peter Kirby does not understand what ad hominem reasoning is. The discussion here is about how going to pastor school trains you to be a pastor, not a historian, and how there is an actual difference, which perhaps Peter Kirby does not comprehend. Are you a pastor, Peter Kirby?

We do not ask a dentist to fix a car, and nor should we ask a pastor for reliable information about history. If we do talk to pastors about history, we will find the information is corrupted by mumbo jumbo such as Erhman's Wheaton College mission statement with its assertions of the existence of Satan, evil powers, and that Jesus was true God and true man.

Erhman's Did Jesus Exist? is an exercise in homiletic politics, and is not intended to be read. Rather, it is a magic talisman that ignorant evangelists can wave at rationalists to ward off discussion.

If Ehrman chose to be trained at institutions that placed faith above reason, it is not unreasonable to expect the views he formed during his training might inform his books. Did Jesus Exist confirms that supposition.
There's some unintentional irony here. Asking, "Are you a pastor, Peter Kirby?" No, I'm not. But the question has its own little ad hominem buried in it. Apparently this way of approaching things is like air to certain personalities.

Don't ask a dentist to fix a car? Not on account of being a dentist. But what if he also worked on cars for 10 years? Then that dentist can fix cars. End of story. The fact that he's a dentist doesn't actually count as evidence of anything... except that he's a dentist.

History isn't a trade anyway. It's a description of the past. Anyone can make contributions to that description. There are some skills that are definitely relevant, of course. And you're supposed to pick them up when getting a degree in history. But people with other specializations can do history just as well. And people who have this degree can fail just as badly as anyone else.

The whole obsession with the letters after the name (and what institution they came from), as I have already said, can only be filed under either ad hominem or argument from authority. They are both fallacies. Quite commonly abused, rhetorically, but a complete waste of time really to contemplate as a potential argument for anything.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by outhouse »

Unless bias can be shown, I don't find it credible to denounce someone's work.

I would pick on Ben Witherington as he follows a apologetic version of Jesus.

Example, places Jesus as a middle class citizen, ignoring modern work in archeology that shows the agrarian peasant class had no middle class what so ever.
bskeptic
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:42 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by bskeptic »

Peter Kirby wrote: History isn't a trade anyway. It's a description of the past. Anyone can make contributions to that description. There are some skills that are definitely relevant, of course. And you're supposed to pick them up when getting a degree in history. But people with other specializations can do history just as well. And people who have this degree can fail just as badly as anyone else.
Sure.
The whole obsession with the letters after the name (and what institution they came from), as I have already said, can only be filed under either ad hominem or argument from authority. They are both fallacies. Quite commonly abused, rhetorically, but a complete waste of time really to contemplate as a potential argument for anything.
Argument from authority is sometimes useful. e.g. I think it can help indicate if someone's position is likely a crank theory. "You can't find scholarly support for your position likely because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously".

Argument from authority is indeed recognized as a fallacy; but it's also recognized as having a certain legitimacy depending on the situation and the exact argument being made.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Peter Kirby »

bskeptic wrote:Argument from authority is sometimes useful. e.g. I think it can help indicate if someone's position is likely a crank theory. "You can't find scholarly support for your position likely because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously".

Argument from authority is indeed recognized as a fallacy; but it's also recognized as having a certain legitimacy depending on the situation and the exact argument being made.
Yes, it does have legitimacy in some contexts. If people don't have the time or the tools to dig into something, for example, they might have the time and the tools to try to determine what the experts think.

But when actually contributing to a discussion of what happened in the past, it's not the time or the place.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Taws
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:08 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Taws »

Not sure what is being said; but, first empression is that the weight of an opinion may or may not be equal; depending on your personal status and viewpoint. Having made an equally questionable statement as the former posts; I feel more inclined to accept the writings of someone who has provided some qualifications over someone like myself who has none in this field of study.

As for the works of Bart Ehrman, I find it refreshing for someone who has spent his life studying and teaching about evangelical christianity, to open his mind to the possibililty that he was wrong for so long a time; and share his new views on the subject of the historical Jesus.

I also have resently been introduced to Robert Eisenman's views of James the brother of Jesus; and his findings and opinions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Without these learned men; whether we agree or disagree with their findings; we would still be in the pews, drinking the blood and eating the flesh of someone we know very little about.

Taws
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by MrMacSon »

'Authorities' generally have greater capacity to provide an overview of information in subjects they are authorities in, and to generally make better arguments around that information.

But they still have to make good arguments - sound deductive arguments or cogent inductive arguments.

That is where peer-review comes in: formally via referees before publication, or less formally after publication.

The internet has obviously provided a vehicle for peer-review for all to participate in and see, as well as information about peer reviews by 'authorities' via comments or discussions on-line or information about those comments or discussions; or information about subsequent peer-reviewed works by others.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by MrMacSon »

Bart Ehrman has written many well regarded books about early christian writings. He coped a lot of criticism for Did Jesus Exist? including a multi-author book in response.
User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Eric »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Robert Tulip
Peter Kirby does not understand what ad hominem reasoning is. The discussion here is about how going to pastor school trains you to be a pastor, not a historian, and how there is an actual difference, which perhaps Peter Kirby does not comprehend. Are you a pastor, Peter Kirby?

We do not ask a dentist to fix a car, and nor should we ask a pastor for reliable information about history. If we do talk to pastors about history, we will find the information is corrupted by mumbo jumbo such as Erhman's Wheaton College mission statement with its assertions of the existence of Satan, evil powers, and that Jesus was true God and true man.

Erhman's Did Jesus Exist? is an exercise in homiletic politics, and is not intended to be read. Rather, it is a magic talisman that ignorant evangelists can wave at rationalists to ward off discussion.

If Ehrman chose to be trained at institutions that placed faith above reason, it is not unreasonable to expect the views he formed during his training might inform his books. Did Jesus Exist confirms that supposition.
There's some unintentional irony here. Asking, "Are you a pastor, Peter Kirby?" No, I'm not. But the question has its own little ad hominem buried in it. Apparently this way of approaching things is like air to certain personalities.

Don't ask a dentist to fix a car? Not on account of being a dentist. But what if he also worked on cars for 10 years? Then that dentist can fix cars. End of story. The fact that he's a dentist doesn't actually count as evidence of anything... except that he's a dentist.

History isn't a trade anyway. It's a description of the past. Anyone can make contributions to that description. There are some skills that are definitely relevant, of course. And you're supposed to pick them up when getting a degree in history. But people with other specializations can do history just as well. And people who have this degree can fail just as badly as anyone else.

The whole obsession with the letters after the name (and what institution they came from), as I have already said, can only be filed under either ad hominem or argument from authority. They are both fallacies. Quite commonly abused, rhetorically, but a complete waste of time really to contemplate as a potential argument for anything.
With respect to both: Ehrman as a textual critic and very much involved as a historian of that time. To be a Textual Critic in ancient writings you need to study the history of the culture, the politics, the writers, the language, how the language came to be etc. In conclusion, there are historians of the Civil War. Historians of European Development. Ehrman, I would classify as a Historian of Biblical Writings which puts him in the time of the writers and writings which hold evidence.

To Peter, like the analogy that a dentist can be a mechanic. And we, people of faith, can study and seek God for wisdom, (those who seek God, God will not lead blindly) which is another part of the answer to my faith on your question to me in "Faith and Philosophy".
To become fully human is divine.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by MrMacSon »

Hi Eric,
Bart Ehrman has written a number of very good books. He copped a lot of criticism for Did Jesus Exist?, some because he did not seem to appropriate use or address historical methodology and because he made a number of bare assertions.

It was also interesting at the time that book came out a/ he had already written a 'fluff-piece' for the Huffington Post; b/ he blogged that he was not aware there was the degree of promotion of 'mythicism' that he had just found (I tried to find his blog-post to link here, but they all now seem to be behind a log-in); and c/ he used a degree of ad hominem against some more prominent mythicists.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Eric »

MrMacSon wrote:Hi Eric,
Bart Ehrman has written a number of very good books. He coped a lot of criticism for Did Jesus Exist?, some because he did not seem to appropriate use or address historical methodology and because he made a number of bare assertions.

It was also interesting at the time that book came out a/ he had already written a 'fluff-piece' for the Huffington Post; b/ he blogged that he was not aware there was the degree of promotion of 'mythicism' that he had just found (I tried to find his blog-post to link here, but they all now seem to be behind a log-in); and c/ he used a degree of ad hominem against some more prominent mythicists.
Hey MacSon

As far as his promotion techniques used to bring awareness to the book, I would not consider a relevant issue. On Prominent Mythicists, that is a relevant issue to discuss. With Mythics, that is a separate study that plays into the many religions and can show and share common beliefs and practices throughout the ages. But that would not be the only form of research to use for a time period and writings and events when talking about whether there was a true person (Christ) during the claimed time period of his existence or non-existence.
To become fully human is divine.
Post Reply