Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[neilgodfrey]

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.

Oh come on toejam, what's the matter with you? I said from the outset that there were a minority of scholars who complained about the predominance of the unrecognized bias among their peers.

You're the one trying to create the all black or all white picture here, not me.

Does the OP ask if every single scholar is biased in favour of historicity or does it ask if this is the general picture?

[toejam]

^I just think it's loaded of you to say there's been a "failure to recognise" problems of bias when probably the most influential work of the entire span of historical Jesus research - Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus - was dedicated to this very problem. Sure, many scholars don't recognise their bias. But I would say that as a whole, the field is very aware of the problem of bias. More so than any other field of research I've looked into.

[MrMacSon]

^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 ... I'll stick up for them when they are incorrectly told that they take the gospels literally when they don't ...

So you think there is a proportion of Christians who believe Jesus [the man] was God, but don't take the gospels literally?

[MrMacSon]

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.

That is such empty rhetoric, especially when you conclude -

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.

FFS. Doing history properly involves a methodological analysis from a foundation of reasonable primary contemporaneous sources. Anything else is speculation.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "extraordinary mortal claims require good evidence".

I don't like the phrases "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism", but you seem to be special pleading for 'reverse theology'

[toejam]

^? I don't make theological claims. I don't believe in God, nor see any way to determine the likelihood of theological claim x on the assumption there is one. So I'm not seeing how my views are "reverse theology".

[toejam]

FFS. Doing history properly involves a methodological analysis from a foundation of reasonable primary contemporaneous sources. Anything else is speculation.

Not all history is reconstructed from primary contemporaneous sources. I would say that all ancient history is somewhat speculative.

[outhouse]

^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 ... I'll stick up for them when they are incorrectly told that they take the gospels literally when they don't ...

So you think there is a proportion of Christians who believe Jesus [the man] was God, but don't take the gospels literally?

I know many Christians that eat you alive in biblical knowledge, yet keep their faith, and produce some very good work. Much resembles secular work.

Sojourner and Angellous are both now scholars, and I only find fault in ones work by dating traditions a little early.

Many educated Christians are not literalist.

[toejam]

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.

That is such empty rhetoric...

?? Rhetoric? Sheesh.

[outhouse]

FFS. Doing history properly involves a methodological analysis from a foundation of reasonable primary contemporaneous sources. Anything else is speculation.

Factually incorrect.

When we get to a period where little writing exist, do we stop trying to figure out what happened in the past?????????????????

Or does it change how we study the time period?????????????????

[outhouse]

. I would say that all ancient history is somewhat speculative.

Correct again.

We see levels of plausibility.