Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[Peter Kirby]

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

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.

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'.

I already had evidence of your misgivings about the use of the word evidence. Thus my comments. And then there were comments after those comments.

[neilgodfrey]

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

But here we do have outhouse to keep us all honest -- if only we would listen to him more:

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.

[neilgodfrey]

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

It is surprisingly not accepted by a good number of scholars, however. Hurtado, for example, will tell you he is only trying to seek the truth -- no other motive.

Of course that's what we all believe and it's what we are for most part consciously working at.

Daniel Boyarin is one scholar who sees all this proclamation of innocence for what it really is:

I disengaged from the question that was being asked, falling on the last resort of the scholarly scoundrel: “I’m just trying to figure out what really happened!“

There is a "new wave" of biblical scholars now who seem to be saying that they are the ones who have discovered how confused and self-deceived their forebears were for failing to recognize they could never be truly objective (straw man here for starters) and that they are somehow stepping outside the realm of subjectivity and hidden biases by assessing what they call approximations of the past.

[Stephan Huller]

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

I want to remind the participants that when I had control of the thread it was a little more nuanced. My original point was only that scholars of early Christianity prefer an existent Jesus over non-existent Jesus because it would transform the value of their field of study. That's different than saying merely that everyone has biases. Everyone likes to think that what they do matters and contributes to the greater good. It is hard to see what value the study of a 2000 year old comic book would have for society at large. It changes those studying this comic book from authorities on something important and the foundation of western civilization into authorities on complete nonsense, a useful lie for maintaining western cultural hegemony.

[neilgodfrey]

I think it has been inevitable that "serious scholarship" has been "biased in favour of historicity".

Firstly, until Reimarus and Strauss Jesus was considered as nothing more or less than how he appeared in the gospels. The first studies (Reimarus and Strauss) were undertaken in order to bring that Jesus within the ambit of historical study -- to assess him as a historical person according to the new rules of historical inquiry that were emerging.

Those with the most vested interest in this question have been believers, of course -- and the fundamental proposition of their faith has been that God acted in history. Jesus is by faith a historical figure -- that's dogma for the believers. And it's been part of the wider cultural thought-system as a result.

The idea that there was no Jesus at all was never a possibility that was ever raised -- the social/cultural/personal interests (biases) have for most part been "what was Jesus like if he was not exactly as he is presented in the gospels?"

The idea of explaining or understanding Christianity from a completely fresh perspective without the figure of Jesus as a given has never been part of the exercise for the same reason. Such thoughts have always (as if inevitably) been from the margins.

That is, serious scholarship is fundamentally about the historicity of Jesus -- all the questions are related to how to deal with this, the historical question of Jesus.

Those questioning the historicity of Jesus are really questioning the entire rationale for the whole enterprise as it's been from the beginning.

[toejam]

That is, serious scholarship is fundamentally about the historicity of Jesus -- all the questions are related to how to deal with this, the historical question of Jesus.

This strikes me as a really empty statement. It's like saying "all serious scholarship on apples is fundamentally about apples"... well, yeah! that's right! Serious scholarship about the historicity of Jesus is about the historicity of Jesus. But be careful not to imagine that there isn't any serious scholarship on other issues of early Christianity that isn't "fundamentally about" the historicity of Jesus. Sure there is. Take, for a small example, Elaine Pagel's work on early Christian Gnosticism. Or take Claudia Setzer's work on Jewish responses to early Christianity. Or Candida Moss' work on Christian polemics and the growing persecution narrative. Or Bob Price's work on the authenticity of the Pauline corpus, etc. Each serious scholars tackling key components of the question of Christian Origins that isn't fundamentally about the historical Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

Those with the most vested interest in this question have been believers, of course -- and the fundamental proposition of their faith has been that God acted in history. Jesus is, by faith, a historical figure -- that's dogma for the believers. And it's been part of the wider cultural thought-system as a result.

The idea that there was no Jesus at all was never a possibility that was ever raised -- the social/cultural/personal interests (biases) have for most part been "what was Jesus like if he was not exactly as he is presented in the gospels?"

and theological interests & beliefs: believers believe it was all ordained. They believe God is real, & historical. They believe the biblical accounts are literal.

The idea of explaining or understanding Christianity from a completely fresh perspective - without the figure of Jesus as a given - has never been part of the exercise for the same reason. Such thoughts have always (as if inevitably) been from the margins.

[toejam]

^Not all believers in God take the accounts literally.

Many believe something along the lines of the naturalistic conclusions of what Ehrman might say, or Borg/Crossan, or Reza Aslan etc. But they believe that God was somehow still involved and is recognizable in the events. It's wrong to say that believes take the gospels literally. Many don't. Think of someone like John Shelby Spong...

[neilgodfrey]

That is, serious scholarship is fundamentally about the historicity of Jesus -- all the questions are related to how to deal with this, the historical question of Jesus.

This strikes me as a really empty statement. It's like saying "all serious scholarship on apples is fundamentally about apples"... well, yeah! that's right! Serious scholarship about the historicity of Jesus is about the historicity of Jesus. But be careful not to imagine that there isn't any serious scholarship on other issues of early Christianity that isn't "fundamentally about" the historicity of Jesus. Sure there is. Take, for a small example, Elaine Pagel's work on early Christian Gnosticism. Or take Claudia Setzer's work on Jewish responses to early Christianity. Or Candida Moss' work on Christian polemics and the growing persecution narrative. Or Bob Price's work on the authenticity of the Pauline corpus, etc. Each serious scholars tackling key components of the question of Christian Origins that isn't fundamentally about the historical Jesus.

ADDED LATER:
The bias lies in the question of "What is an apple?" Is it known only as a theological fruit in ancient texts or is there really such a thing as real apple trees? What questions should an objective study ask? Should they be only about the nature and function of apples as known from the theological texts as if they really were real fruit?

ORIGINAL COMMENT:

Of course there is lots of scholarship on issues other than the historical Jesus and Christianity's origins per se. Hell, most of my posts are about that other stuff. I took the question being addressed, however, to be the question of the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus. Yes?

And the question of bias here is built into several scholarly studies quite openly. I am in the middle of reading Childs' work on the "myth of historicity" now and scholarly historical methods and he is pointing out (as if it really does indeed need pointing out and explication) that the primary drivers are questions that are ultimately theological. What point of a historical Jesus if he cannot be related to theological needs or hopes? That's where the heat is hottest.

And the idea that the historical Jesus is an inbuilt bias in the whole discipline is the theme of a book by Dennis Nineham, "The Use and Abuse of the Bible".

The question of the very existence of this bias and the rationale for it and the reasons for it is addressed by the scholars themselves so it's not something that is such a truism as we might think. The Hurtado's don't get the message of people like Nineham or Childs --- and I can mention several other scholars whom I have alluded to already who fail completely to see the bias of this Jesus historicity assumption themselves.

Thomas Thompson has only to suggest that the HJ is an assumption underlying studies and he's howled down by so many NT scholars crying out how methodical and objective and well grounded their work is. Many simply don't see their interest or bias.

[neilgodfrey]

^Not all believers in God take the accounts literally.

Many believe something along the lines of the naturalistic conclusions of what Ehrman might say, or Borg/Crossan, or Reza Aslan etc. But they believe that God was somehow still involved and is recognizable in the events. It's wrong to say that believes take the gospels literally. Many don't. Think of someone like John Shelby Spong...

They don't take them literally but they all begin with some idea of what "Jesus" must have been like or would be like if they dug into the evidence. They don't all come up with their presuppositions confirmed, but they do come up with some idea that is compatible with their belief system (whatever that is) and ideological outlooks. But suggest that they are beginning with an unfounded assumption and few will accept that.

Dale Allison does accept that he is beginning with the assumption, and Stevan Davies and a few others, but they live with it - they simply say we have to jump into the circle at some point. There is no pretence their reasoning at the foundation is not circular. But they then go on to rationalize that decision anyway by saying that their HJ assumption or bias best explains the evidence anyway.