Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[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...

?? Rhetoric? Sheesh.

A key issue about scholarship of a historical jesus is that all these people do not apply the historical method - they come from the separate category of biblical studies and continue to apply the methodology of that category; they fail to enter the category of historical methodology and that is the foundation of their bias.

[toejam]

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

Yes. Many Christians say they believe Jesus was God in human form (or at least that God was working through him) but recognise that he probably didn't magically multiply bread or walk on water. Many don't believe the dead saints actually rose from the grave and wandered the streets of Jerusalem etc. They see these events as allegories and metaphors. Sign posts, not to be taken literally.

[MrMacSon]

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

all?? all ???????

We see levels of plausibility.

The more speculative the less plausible.

but there are plenty of figures from times before the alleged Jesus we are less speculative about.

[toejam]

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

all?? all ???????

In the philosophical sense that we can't go back in time to verify our conclusions with absolute certainty.

[toejam]

there are plenty of figures from times before the alleged Jesus we are less speculative about.

So?

[MrMacSon]

there are plenty of figures from times before the alleged Jesus we are less speculative about.

So?

I was merely trying to succinctly address a red-herring of yours

and your reference to

• "Many Christians say they believe Jesus was God in human form (or at least that God was working through him) but recognise that he probably didn't magically multiply bread or walk on water. Many don't believe the dead saints actually rose from the grave and wandered the streets of Jerusalem etc. They see these events as allegories and metaphors."

is also a red-herring to the core point that scholarship is biased in favor of historicity b/c scholars who favor Jesus historicity are almost all biblical scholars undertaking "biblical scholarship and not doing history via the historical method.

[toejam]

^Red-herring?? Seriously??? You asked me a question: "So you think there is a proportion of Christians who believe Jesus [the man] was God, but don't take the gospels literally?" and I responded: "Yes. Many Christians say they believe Jesus was God in human form but [don't take the gospels literally] (etc.)"

You ask a question about my thoughts, and then when I say my thoughts, you claim they're a red-herring. Wow.

[MrMacSon]

^ that I asked you a question about your red herring doesn't negate that fact that it is a red-herring to (i) the topic of this thread; (ii) the issue of biased scholarship about the historicity of Jesus; and (iii) the historicity of Jesus.

Furthermore, it seems contradictory for "Christians [to] believe Jesus [the man] was God, but don't take the gospels literally", and weird "many" think like that.

[Peter Kirby]

^ that I asked you a question about your red herring doesn't negate that fact that it is a red-herring to (i) the topic of this thread; (ii) the issue of biased scholarship about the historicity of Jesus; and (iii) the historicity of Jesus.

Nothing negates facts. But is it a fact? The fact that it is a response to your direct question tends to suggest that it was not a red herring. Moreover, if it is a red herring, the person who asked the question is the one to be held responsible for the red herring.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red%20herring

something unimportant that is used to stop people from noticing or thinking about something important

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/red+herring

something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

[MrMacSon]

The fact that it is a response to your direct question tends to suggest that it was not a red herring. Moreover, if it is a red herring, the person who asked the question is the one to be held responsible for the red herring.

I asked a question about a previously posited red-herring, but yes I have contributed to it.