Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[MrMacSon]

^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...

Those people are outliers; despite their pontifications, the vast majority believe Jesus was God in the form of a man; they conclude Jesus was a real man.

[toejam]

^Believing that Jesus was God in the form of a man is not the same as taking the gospels literally though. That was my point. Many see the gospels as full of allegory and legend, and perhaps even some lies or cover-ups. But they still believe Jesus was God. Hooey for them. Kind of silly if you ask me. But I'll stick up for them when they are incorrectly told that they take the gospels literally when they don't. It's debatable whether or not some of the gospels even portray Jesus as "God".

[toejam]

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.

Well, that's somewhat normal. "Must" is a bit strong though. I've never looked into Mormonism in any depth, but I have some initial assumptions about what I might expect to find about the historical Joseph Smith. Don't make the mistake of assuming that non-believers don't do the same when it comes to investigating other religions. Many Christians do change their views of Jesus as they study Christian Origins. To complain that they start with some idea of what Jesus "must" have been like is over-stating it. Many think they have an idea of what Jesus was like, but not "must".

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.

I disagree. Ehrman didn't come to a conclusion that was compatible with his belief system. Nor Bob Price. Nor Maurice Casey. Nope. They lost their initial belief system.

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.

I think it really depends on what we mean by "assumption" here. You seem to be portraying it as just a total leap into the dark. I think there are good reasons for suspecting / "assuming" there was a historical Jesus, even if I acknowledge it can't be proven with absolute certainty. I think Allison and Davies - as well as atheist/agnostic scholars like Ehrman, Crossley, Casey, etc. - would say something similar about their acknowledged "assumption" of a historical Jesus. It's not an assumption based on nothing.

When it comes to constructing history, you have to do it by building up from reasonable assumptions. To pretend one can construct history without making some assumptions is very naive.

[neilgodfrey]

To complain that they start with some idea of what Jesus "must" have been like is over-stating it. Many think they have an idea of what Jesus was like, but not "must".

The point is not to complain about having a preconception: the point is the failure (as is acknowledged by a few in the field but not recognized by all) to recognize how this preconception guides the specific research and its results.

I disagree. Ehrman didn't come to a conclusion that was compatible with his belief system. Nor Bob Price. Nor Maurice Casey. Nope. They lost their initial belief system.

I'm talking about the guild as a whole as I'm sure you must realize. Most scholars retain some belief in Christianity -- many will move from fundamentalism to something much more liberal but they'll remain Christians. The Ehrman's are held up as token "proof" that they are not all religious and therefore as some sort of testimony, supposedly, to their "objective" status. Conversely, perversely, perhaps, the atheists in the guild point to the personal religiosity of many of their peers as some sort of indirect indicator that they, too, are especially "objective".

I think it really depends on what we mean by "assumption" here. You seem to be portraying it as just a total leap into the dark. I think there are good reasons for suspecting / "assuming" there was a historical Jesus, even if I acknowledge it can't be proven with absolute certainty. I think Allison and Davies - as well as atheist/agnostic scholars like Ehrman, Crossley, Casey, etc. - would say something similar about their acknowledged "assumption" of a historical Jesus. It's not an assumption based on nothing.

When it comes to constructing history, you have to do it by building up from reasonable assumptions. To pretend one can construct history without making some assumptions is very naive.

I'm thinking of what Allison, Davies, et al have themselves said. They speak about circularity. You don't seem to accept that their argument at base is circular -- that's fine, since most biblical scholars probably don't either. I'm sure Hurtado, Wright, McGrath would never think that. I was trying to cover as broad a lump of the academy as I could by adding in names like Allison who do take this view.

I'm not arguing how history should be done. I was simply trying to pass on what I have come to think critics within the guild have said about their bias towards historicity. I agree with them -- but they seem to be the minority of voices. I think many prominent scholars would deny any sort of bias that invalidates their project.

(Personally I agree that all historical research must proceed from subjective biases and all selections of evidence etc are embedded in our values. But I'm not nihilistic, either. But this thread is not about historical methods.)

[toejam]

The point is not to complain about having a preconception: the point is the failure (as is acknowledged by a few in the field but not recognized by all) to recognise how this preconception guides the specific research and its results.

I'm just not buying this. There is no "failure to recognize" the problem of preconceptions and bias. Since Schweitzer, it's been front and centre of just about every serious scholar's thoughts. Hundreds of books and papers are produced yearly trying to show why scholar x's views are potentially negatively affected by his/her bias etc. I've yet to see a field of research in which the discussion of bias is as common as it is in Christian Origins. Bias exists in the field, as it does in every other field of research. But there is no "failure to recognise" it. I really dislike the way you overstate such things (like before when you stated that Christians who embark on research begin with what they think Jesus "must" have been like). Many historians, professional and amateur, Christian or otherwise, actually think there are good reasons for believing there was a historical Jesus. It's not always some unexamined blind leap of a theologically-and/or-'requirement-for-employment'-based biased assumption.

[outhouse]

.

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

The problem is it has been attacked from every angle. It is played out.

There is much we know, and much we will never know, but no amount of work can be produced at "this point" that will change up much of the foundation as we know it.


Much of the apologetic bias has been worked through, it is not an issue for what most call a historical core anymore. That is not to say it doesn't still pose a problem.


While non historical Jesus followers may grow, the quality of work being produced for such has already peaked as high as it will go. Its not like more education people receive, the more people that will lean one way or the other.

I think there is an increase in atheism and education that will reflect in non historical Jesus numbers, but much of that will be anti theist/theism biased results.

[andrewcriddle]

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.

What I think Allison would accept is that he is methodologically biased towards the position that the origins of Christianty are recoverable.

I.E. Allison might accept that it is formally quite possible that the evidence is too problematic to draw historical conclusions; but he feels that if one is to do profitable work in the field of Christian origins one must treat the available material as being capable of being used for historical purposes.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

The point is not to complain about having a preconception: the point is the failure (as is acknowledged by a few in the field but not recognized by all) to recognise how this preconception guides the specific research and its results.

I'm just not buying this. There is no "failure to recognize" the problem of preconceptions and bias. Since Schweitzer, it's been front and centre of just about every serious scholar's thoughts. Hundreds of books and papers are produced yearly trying to show why scholar x's views are potentially negatively affected by his/her bias etc. I've yet to see a field of research in which the discussion of bias is as common as it is in Christian Origins. Bias exists in the field, as it does in every other field of research. But there is no "failure to recognise" it. I really dislike the way you overstate such things (like before when you stated that Christians who embark on research begin with what they think Jesus "must" have been like). Many historians, professional and amateur, Christian or otherwise, actually think there are good reasons for believing there was a historical Jesus. It's not always some unexamined blind leap of a theologically-and/or-'requirement-for-employment'-based biased assumption.

Fair enough. That's your view. I disagree. I try to avoid posting lengthy comments for the sake of covering every nuance and qualification but perhaps this weekend I might bother to make the time to quote from some of the scholarly works -- from the scholars in the field -- who are making the points I am attempting to relay here in response to the OP. Perhaps you will be more inclined to take them seriously.

The idea that biblical studies is somehow guided by awareness of what is required to remove or allow for ideological bias in historical studies is simply nonsense -- as one can read from a good number of scholars (from Goulder to Avalos and now Crossley) who have lamented the failure of their peers to appear to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

But some of your objections I have already answered so it sometimes seems you are more interested in kicking me than engaging with the OP and what I'm attempting to say anyway.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

What I think Allison would accept is that he is methodologically biased towards the position that the origins of Christianty are recoverable.

I.E. Allison might accept that it is formally quite possible that the evidence is too problematic to draw historical conclusions; but he feels that if one is to do profitable work in the field of Christian origins one must treat the available material as being capable of being used for historical purposes.

Andrew Criddle

He certainly does appear to think that. Agreed. His work is based on that understanding.

[toejam]

The idea that biblical studies is somehow guided by awareness of what is required to remove or allow for ideological bias in historical studies is simply nonsense -- as one can read from a good number of scholars (from Goulder to Avalos and now Crossley) who have lamented the failure of their peers to appear to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

Oh, so what you're saying is that there are scholars who have recognised bias-related problems?? But then that contradicts your earlier statement that there's been a failure to recognise the problem of bias. It's one thing to say an individual scholar has failed to recognise his/her personal bias. It's another to say that the field as a whole isn't doing this. I think it clearly has been. Schweitzer dropped that bombshell over a hundred years ago and it's been a recognised problem ever since.

I think we're arguing more over degrees of the issue than a black-and-white 'yes or no' thing.