Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[Stephan Huller]

Isn't this a little like asking "Is mainstream science biased in favor of physics and chemistry?" Duh ... YEAH!

But surely you would agree DCH that 'mainstream science' in physics and chemistry can replicate its findings. With the gospel you have a book which is either:

1. filled with lies
2. filled with exaggerations

Do we agree on 1 and/or 2? Nietzsche asked what's the difference between a presupposition and a lie. I ask what confidence should one have choosing between 1 and/or 2? This is certainly not the same thing as knowing there are six valence electrons in oxygen.

[Stephan Huller]

Another example - all the scholars who've 'investigated' the Mar Saba document. Would we agree that predictable biases emerge there? What qualifications do any of these people have for determining what isn't and isn't possible to discover in a monastery, how likely it would be to replicate 18th century handwriting from scratch and detailed precision? Whether or not 'forger's tremors' exist in a low grade printed image of a black and white photograph at the back of Smith's book. But somehow these people are 'certain' that the text is a forgery because ...

1. a book about discovering a new gospel at Mar Saba was published years earlier.
2. Morton Smith never got married.
3. he didn't steal the manuscript when he first found it etc.
4. Aleister Crowley had an interest in magic and Morton Smith thought Jesus was a magician

These are the people who we should trust to tell us that the evidence 'stacks up' in favor of the existence of a historical Jesus? They might be right about the Mar Saba document being a forgery. They might be right about Jesus being a historical person. But the way they behaved with the Mar Saba document, the pettiness, the dishonesty, the overstatement of 'fact' and 'certainty' surely makes it fair to question their 'certainty' with the other.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Bernard, have you ever considered that your website might be a load of good intentioned but methodologically unsustainable crap?

Why would it be methodologically unsustainable crap? Where did you see that in my website? Can you explain? And what method are you talking about?

Do you have the mental agility to see why someone else would see it that way?

I got that kind of comment from fundies, but also of lot of excellent ones from some of my readers (http://historical-jesus.info/50.html), including those who studied my whole website:
See below for examples.

Basically I know you mean well, but don't tell me about what you BELIEVE as if that settles anything.

Yes, that would settle everything in my view. I addressed through my website and my blog most, maybe all, the major issues (which put together, explain without "holes", the beginning of Christianity in a coherent & comprehensive way). Tell me what critical point my website does not address and offer a well evidenced solution.

And fuck you for imputing bad intentions to me and my investigation of Christian origins. That is completely fucked up.

It was not my purpose and I do not see where I imputed bad intentions to you and your investigation.
Where did I say that?
Did your investigation include my web site & blog? or will they be considered in the future? or are you only interested by a non existing Jesus?

Here are the examples:
* "... Truly, thank you for being so kind and taking the time to help me find answers to the questions I have never been able to resolve on my own. Your scholasticism simply amazes me. It is so honest and pure. Yes, I am very familiar with the works of other scholars who begin with a "belief" and are "bent" on proving it ...
Sorry, but so little information is available to me. I go on line to find information, and it is almost like "mission impossible". Now, you see why I am so intrigued by your web site. I am still stunned and amazed by the hours of research you invested in making this knowledge available. Thank you, again ...
Time for me to get back to your site and uncover more of the truth that I have been searching for."

* "... I feel I have wasted much time and energy piecing ideas together from my own readings, when you have done such a thorough job already!
... these [3-4] years have given me an appreciation of the work you must have put in, both in painstakingly reading, re-reading and comparing, as well as scrupulously arranging your material into coherent topics and valid conclusions.
So this sums up my second amazement, which is my real joy at seeing the elegant, lucid and compelling arguments you make - 'arguments' is almost the wrong word: since you rely so much on primary sources to tell the story, your own interpretations are almost unnecessary. The texts, when arranged and compared as you do, reveal their secrets quite readily for those with eyes to see. I ... had cause to laugh out loud in pleasure at the novel (to me anyway) but straightforward and undeniable conclusions that your patient research has yielded.
And for this, I thank you.
... I shall sign off there. Once again, let me register my deep admiration and appreciation for your wonderful work, which is at the same time so unlike any of the other Jesus resources available on the web, and so reassuringly transparent despite the obvious weight of reading and careful scholarship behind it."

* "... I suspect that you, as I, dislike the intellectual shallowness, strident vulgarity of expression and bad mannered tactlessness of the "New Atheists".
What really provoked this e-mail, however, was your clear concise and commonsensical methodological rules of thumb. I had to drop a line saying how much I was enjoying your work.
Many thanks"

* "... I found your site a few years ago and was very impressed. I remember it being one of the best "historical Jesus" sites I've seen on the web... And I think you've come up with one of the most plausible reconstructions of a possible historical Jesus that I've seen.
To everyone else here, I would say that Mr. Muller's site is well worth reading whether or not you buy into all of his conclusions. He brings in a wide range of sources (apocryphal accounts, writings of early church fathers, etc.) which are not often discussed in one place, and provides some excellent deconstructions and analyses of the primary texts..."

About the epistles of Ignatius:

* "I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."
(the above from Hermann Detering)

* "I discovered your admirable essay only yesterday. Your methodology is impeccable, your points are apropos & well explicated, your research is thorough and satisfying, and your speculative reconstruction of the writing of the epistles is persuasive and imho very likely to be true. I'm eager to explore & learn from the rest of your site. Thanks again, Bernard, for the opportunity to think with you on this fascinating episode!"

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

I think religious scholarship works when it limits its focus to very specific minutiae. It's not so good at painting the big picture. I think the scholarship of a century ago was better with the big picture because I think the scholars themselves have become little office workers, holding on to their jobs, complaining about how underpaid they are etc (I see this on Facebook everyday, how they interact). They remind me of bureaucrats in a Kafka novel. I am not so sure that the top academics make any less than they did relative to a century ago (relative to inflation). What's changed is that there are all these little ants building up little anthills all over the place all trying to get published - all thinking they have a right to get published and to keep pursuing a career in a field that has very little relevance to the ordinary person. Who among these little ants in all these anthills is going to spend a lot of time figuring out a new paradigm for Christian origins? They seem all too content filling out the academic equivalent of TPS reports.

[Peter Kirby]

And what method are you talking about?

Exactly.

or are you only interested by a non existing Jesus?

No. But this is what I'm talking about. How can you even say that? Do you realize how much I've read on the historical Jesus, including much but not all of your website, even though your website is by no means top shelf material here? How can you not realize that? And if so, how can you say that?

Perhaps you've noticed the existence of this webpage? Notice how much and how widely I've read?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

And you may have not known this... but I've transcribed entire books, edited by hand, with potential arguments for a historical Jesus.

http://www.christianorigins.com/case/
http://www.christianorigins.com/goguel/

Or maybe you noticed my website and blog, where I actually don't feature the historical Jesus debate that much at all, relative to the actual documents we actually have and don't need to make-believe we know existed? And that I'm interested in a wide range of questions?

So how can you even say that?

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Bernard Muller wrote:

And what method are you talking about?

Exactly.

What do you mean by "exactly"? Anyway, I took the trouble to lay out my methodology here:
http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
It is not simple and attractive, but so be it. No BS, just the facts.
My mini bio is out of date now: I am retired, and traveling & the great outdoors are out of question now due to a severe heart condition.

No. But this is what I'm talking about. How can you even say that? Do you realize how much I've read on the historical Jesus, including much but not all of your website, even though your website is by no means top shelf material here?

What would be top shelf material? Some of my readers think my website should be there.

Yes, I know you read a lot but after reading so many books, from both sides, where are you at, after so many years?

I did the same when I started my inquiry, including the three early books of G. A. Wells. But none would pass my scrutiny when I started to check their contents: bias, misinformation, conflict, assumptions, agenda driven, ignored counter evidence, etc.

That's when I decided to do my own research from scratch. I understood that reading more of these books (which I still do occasionally: Wells, Crossan, Ehrman, Doherty, Carrier, etc.) would just be a very confusing exercise, boggling the mind and leading nowhere (and certainly not satisfying my curiosity).

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

Some of my readers think my website should be there.

Come on Bernard. If you had so many readers why are you wasting your time with us? We all know each other pretty well at this forum. I don't think you're stupid but let's be honest - you overstate your abilities (you have little or no familiarity with Greek working in a field that demands it) and you have all the insight and imagination of a watermelon. The bottom line is that you spend time here because you have nowhere else to go. If there were 'all these readers' of your website you would make your own forum instead of pimping your webpages to people who really aren't that into you.

[MrMacSon]

... I took the trouble to lay out my methodology here: http://historical-jesus.info/author.html

As far as

d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all primary sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.

There do not appear to be any primary (ie. contemporaneous) sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels and Pauline epistles are not primary sources.

Re ...

e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works) ...

... a/ what are the sequences of events?

... b/ what are the datings of the writings?

... c/ why are they lacking in many scholarly works?

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

Bernard Muller wrote:

And what method are you talking about?

Exactly.

What do you mean by "exactly"? Anyway, I took the trouble to lay out my methodology here:
http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
It is not simple and attractive, but so be it. No BS, just the facts.
My mini bio is out of date now: I am retired, and traveling & the great outdoors are out of question now due to a severe heart condition.

No. But this is what I'm talking about. How can you even say that? Do you realize how much I've read on the historical Jesus, including much but not all of your website, even though your website is by no means top shelf material here?

What would be top shelf material? Some of my readers think my website should be there.

Yes, I know you read a lot but after reading so many books, from both sides, where are you at, after so many years?

I did the same when I started my inquiry, including the three early books of G. A. Wells. But none would pass my scrutiny when I started to check their contents: bias, misinformation, conflict, assumptions, agenda driven, ignored counter evidence, etc.

That's when I decided to do my own research from scratch. I understood that reading more of these books (which I still do occasionally: Wells, Crossan, Ehrman, Doherty, Carrier, etc.) would just be a very confusing exercise, boggling the mind and leading nowhere (and certainly not satisfying my curiosity).

Cordially, Bernard

Well I think we're just rambling now, Bernard. Let's try to keep it above the belt. If you have a problem with something I've said about the topics, specifically, then call me out on that. You must know that I care about the truth more than anything.

[Stephan Huller]

And again - back to the original point to the thread - it's like scholars have this blind spot. They try to start (like DCH) with:

This is a reliable historical account of a man named Jesus ...

Err. No not exactly. Little separates the gospel from the later hagiographies. It's filled with exaggeration at best, outright lies and invention at worst. How does one reliably navigate between invention and lies? How do we know what separates 'exaggeration' and 'lies' two thousand years after the fact ... and what fact(s) are we dealing with? I think the most important questions about the gospel are:

was the narrative written by (an) eyewitness(es)?

The Marcionites said (a) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were NOT written by eyewitnesses and (b) Paul was the author of the first gospel

If that's the case either (1) Paul was an eyewitness and the orthodox tradition separated him from the events of the gospel for unknown reason(s) or (2) he takes on the character of Simon Magus in the Clementines - i.e. a visionary 'seeing' events generations in the past according to the Holy Spirit. Either way its a more difficult climb toward 'history' than most people are willing to admit.