Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[outhouse]

Robert Webb, "Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Significance"

This one is online:
https://bible.org/article/jesus-baptism ... plications

This is a good read.

While I cannot do work like that, I do understand it well.


It does follow many of the accretions im well aware of and understand well.

This was a profound statement.

It is quite evident from Mark 1:9–11 through GNaz §2 that there is a developing trajectory in which the baptism by John is downplayed (and then ultimately denied), and the theophany is emphasized.

I think the author did a great job, BUT I also think he overestimates much of the text he is dealing with attributing possible traditions that could be literary in creation. While he questions the Theophany im not sure a prophetic vision ever occurred as much as the Jesus character just took over Johns movement after death. Its my opinion the authors were to far removed from these events to over attribute the textual traditions. To me it is a mistake I see in much of mainstream scholars opinion. Took this up with Anthony L once but it was a brief conversation and went nowhere.

[neilgodfrey]

I'm not sure we should be calling stuff 'evidence' - a lot of it is information that may be evidence [for a proposition or an argument; and it seems most arguments around inquiry into these texts are not deductive arguments].

I agree and it is indeed important to distinguish between terms like data and evidence.

I regret that I was being a little lazy and trying to keep my comment a bit too brief by not stopping to explain why I used the word "evidence", knowing I was opening up myself to a valid objection like yours. (I personally think the details about JtB can be explained through reference to the textual material surrounding their accounts and with reference to other texts known to have influenced these or within the wider structures of the surrounding texts.)

[outhouse]

I'm not sure we should be calling stuff 'evidence' - a lot of it is information that may be evidence [for a proposition or an argument; and it seems most arguments around inquiry into these texts are not deductive arguments].

I agree and it is indeed important to distinguish between terms like data and evidence.

I regret that I was being a little lazy and trying to keep my comment a bit too brief by not stopping to explain why I used the word "evidence", knowing I was opening up myself to a valid objection like yours. (I personally think the details about JtB can be explained through reference to the textual material surrounding their accounts and with reference to other texts known to have influenced these or within the wider structures of the surrounding texts.)

You don't think there was an Aramaic Jew named John, teaching Apocalyptic Judaism and baptizing in the Jordan?

[MrMacSon]

I'm not sure we should be calling stuff 'evidence' - a lot of it is information that may be evidence [for a proposition, or an argument; and it seems most 'arguments' around inquiry into these texts are not deductive arguments].

I agree and it is indeed important to distinguish between terms like data and evidence.

I regret that I was being a little lazy and trying to keep my comment a bit too brief by not stopping to explain why I used the word "evidence", knowing I was opening up myself to a valid objection like yours.

cheers; yet to clarify, I wasn't having a dig at you, Neil; I was just seeking, more generally, to reflect on and elaborate the terminology of 'information' v 'data' v 'evidence' as a foundation for what we are all seeking to address: a clearer understanding of the history of early Christianity.

In the context of the title of this thread, loose use of the term 'evidence' is biased in favor of historicity.

[Peter Kirby]

Some people are biased in favor of historicity. Some people are biased in favor of non-historicity. Neither thing says anything about the truth of the matter, but we've pushed this thread forward for 23 pages anyway. Are we biased in our evaluation of the truth value of statements by the influence of a focus on biases? Given the non-probative nature of discourse on biases, combined with the ever-recurring focus on them, it might seem reasonable to say that we are and that we allow ourselves to be disproportionately affected by the distribution of biases among peer or specialist populations when it comes to forming conclusions. Which is to say, many of us might have a bias bias (whether that bias bias is 'pro' or 'anti' seems to depend on personal psychology--some favor swimming with the more common bias, some favor swimming against, more or less reflexively--although not everyone may be so affected by the bias bias, or to the same degree).

[outhouse]

Some people are biased in favor of historicity. Some people are biased in favor of non-historicity. .

As a strong atheist knowing exactly how man has plagiarized deities and redefined then too meet changing cultural needs, I feel I am in search of the truth.

I only require evidence to point the arrow in the compass one way or the other.

Given the non-probative nature of discourse on biases, combined with the ever-recurring focus on them, it might seem reasonable to say that we are and that we allow ourselves to be disproportionately affected by the distribution of biases among peer or specialist populations when it comes to forming conclusions

Probably so.

Not even recognizing said bias, in others work.

[toejam]

^It's the same old story. Most people can acknowledge they probably have some underlying subconscious biases. But everyone thinks they have their biases in better check than those whom they disagree with. I think the accusation that we tend to make of those whom we disagree with - that their different opinion is the result of motivational biases (e.g. the accusation that "you only believe it's true because you want/need it to be true to feel comfortable") is well over played in discussions on history, religion, philosophy. That's not to say it's not a factor. And I'll certainly call it out when I perceive it to be affecting someone's judgement. But I think most disagreements on these issues have a lot more to do with our understanding of the world, our upbringing, genetics (e.g. whether we're naturally more trusting or distrusting of people*) etc. than we tend to admit.


*to give a really lame example: I feed two wild birds each morning. One is really confident and trusting of me. The other is always more easily scared and less trusting. I put this down to genetics. I think genetics plays something of our role in our perceptions of whether someone is trustworthy or not. Some of us are more naturally trusting of people's testimonies, others are more skeptical. One has to find the correct balance. I.e. It's not always the result of a traumatic life experience.

[MrMacSon]

Are we biased in our evaluation of the truth value of statements by the influence of a focus on biases? ... it might seem reasonable to say that we are and that we allow ourselves to be disproportionately affected by the distribution of biases among peer or specialist populations ...

I think we are disproportionately affected by terminology, especially terminology that disproportionately attributes 'value'.

[Peter Kirby]

Ultimately this whole thread is just muckraking. We all know how fallible people are. We're not 15 years old. This is not news.

In agreement with:

^It's the same old story. Most people can acknowledge they probably have some underlying subconscious biases. But everyone thinks they have their biases in better check than those whom they disagree with. I think the accusation that we tend to make of those whom we disagree with - that their different opinion is the result of motivational biases (e.g. the accusation that "you only believe it's true because you want/need it to be true to feel comfortable") is well over played

And regarding:

affected by terminology

I have seen a very few people make this a mistake systematically. (Some have done this at times--thoroughly confusing the terms text, statement, and evidence.)

For most people, though, I can't see this accusation really sticking very well.

There are also countless other "factors" at play, which vary based on the individual, and dissecting them all is very ugly business. I am sure you would not enjoy being put on the chair in a full public spectacle cataloging your personal foibles and weaknesses of thought, as indeed I would not enjoy it either.

The only thing yet more worthless than a history of scholarship and more worthless than a study in the development of a particular scholar's thought is a thorough expose of the biases that could possibly be a factor in forming judgments on a the subject. At a certain point we're looking so intently up the navel that we see nothing else but the various, useless pocket lint of our own minds.

[MrMacSon]

And regarding:

affected by terminology

I have seen a very few people make this a mistake systematically ...

For most people, though, I can't see this accusation really sticking very well.

There are also countless other "factors" at play, which vary based on the individual, and dissecting them all is very ugly business. I am sure you would not enjoy being put on the chair in a full public spectacle cataloging your personal foibles and weaknesses of thought, as indeed I would not enjoy it either.

I wasn't seeking to accuse anyone, or put anyone "on the chair"; I'm just hoping for a bit of reflection, and care in use of terminology.

eta: especially care in the use of the word 'evidence'.