Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[Stephan Huller]

Here is a thought I've been having for a while watching young academics enter the field of Biblical studies - why do it? There has to be a better way to make a living. My answer to the question - from watching academics interact on Facebook - is that the scholars themselves individually and collectively want to be taken seriously, they want their opinions to be heard. So they get a degree in something that has a massive amount written already. All you have to do is pick a narrow field within the broad spectrum of possibilities develop your bullshitting skills that you developed in the latter parts of high school and then undergraduate studies so as to 'take seriously' a particular school of thought in this narrow field within this broad spectrum of possibilities. So, while nothing you will ever say is really interesting you quickly become 'an authority' on a particular sliver of the spectrum of things written in the original field of study in academia.

But the worth of any of this 'small sliver' is dependent on the idea that at the bottom of this massive literary experience (think for a moment of the gospels, letters of Paul, Patristic writings, medieval writings, early Protestant scholarship, modern scholarship) that has been rolling about throughout the ages there is an actual 'real thing' worth studying and rewarding with a salary. If this massive literary 'blob' stretching from the second to twenty first centuries was based on a lie or a make believe 'thing' - it's not just the biggest lie in history, it is - at bottom - something which no longer deserves to be studied except as an intellectual abstraction.

And then at the end of the day, no one should take seriously the opinions of someone who spends his life studying an intellectual abstraction. That wasn't the reason they got into the field in the first place. So the question of whether or not any of this is actually true, is well, an inconvenience ...

[Ulan]

Certainly. All this money spent on religious studies for centuries, and then you go and take some of this money to prove it's all based on a lie. This has a certain suicidal aspect to it, even if the suicide remains financial.

I think that's the main reason why there are so few "mythicists" in proper employment. The big exception is Robert M. Price, and when I read some of his later stuff, I get the creeping feeling that he sees the whole field of Biblical Studies as a big joke and is now just taking everyone, including his readers, for a ride into la la land.

[MrMacSon]

Biblical scholarship has been a protected domain. I understand Robert M Price is not very well of financially - there was some crowd-source funding recently for some medical treatments he needed, and I'm pretty sure that was not initiated by him or at his request. I got the impression he'd now be dead, otherwise.

[Clive]

Yup - everyone else has a serious going over on this - Romulus, Socrates, ...but a son of a god gets a get out of jail free card?

Isn't it a common comment by for example Chinese scholars that Westerners do not understand myth?
And maybe part of the problem is going to extreme language like "lie"? What was that comment about art being more true?

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”


― Pablo Picasso

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/67884-w ... uth-art-is

[The Crow]

If scholars were to get over themselves it might be different. Problem being here abouts is that everyone in this field thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong. Its a head up your ass field. They stick their heads up their ass so they do not have to hear anyones opinion but their own. I see some of that here by a few. This field will never be anything more than a one sided circus hell bent on brain washing those who don't know any better. My suggestion. This field should start by accepting views and being more open to those who have opinions that are outside this joke they call "Biblical Studies!"

Biased in favor of historicity? Hell its biased on everything. Christianity has spent 2000 years covering their lies.

[Stephan Huller]

But I think I meant it more as a psychological observation, sort of like why you had to be a property owner to vote in Athens and the U.S. I think Biblical studies does this unconsciously. But just as excluding renters (not to mention minorities, women etc) reshaped the electorate in favor of the values of the traditional bourgeoisie, "the system" in Biblical scholarship preserves biases in favor of a historical Jesus at least unconsciously. That questioning the existence of Jesus is a "silly question" - yes it certainly is for those part of the system. It is as "silly" as the idea of sharing all property in common for the bourgeoisie.

[The Crow]

But I think I meant it more as a psychological observation, sort of like why you had to be a property owner to vote in Athens and the U.S. I think Biblical studies does this unconsciously. But just as excluding renters (not to mention minorities, women etc) reshaped the electorate in favor of the values of the traditional bourgeoisie, "the system" in Biblical scholarship preserves biases in favor of a historical Jesus at least unconsciously. That questioning the existence of Jesus is a "silly question" - yes it certainly is for those part of the system. It is as "silly" as the idea of sharing all property in common for the bourgeoisie.

Don't know Stephan. This is why I stopped debating this stuff years ago and only show up here off and on. Frankly the entire jesus lived or not debate is a farce.

[Stephan Huller]

But the question of self-interest guiding and shaping perspective IS fascinating. An athlete has to believe chasing a stupid ball around the field matters. No matter what God-given talent one possesses it all comes down to wanting the ball.

[Stephan Huller]

And ... let's be real ... the historists accuse "mythicists" of having psychological "issues" which reinforced their POV.

[Stephan Huller]

I just think being a "professional" scholars depends on maintaining a "profession" viz. something worthy of being studied. I think there is an unconscious conspiracy in favor of a "real" Jesus because it means professionals have a "real" field of study (as opposed to being professional Ghostbusters, para-psychologists, body language analysts, dream interpreters, astrologists, telekinesis etc)