Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[toejam]

^I agree. I like that quote about Crossan!

The analogy with creationists is only a fallacy if it's being used as a reason to be a historicist. I simply use it as an analogy. All analogies fail on some level. I simply said the claim that historicists are only historicists because of confirmation bias and fear of not getting a job reminds me of the way creationists think the same of scientists and their conclusions on evolution. It does remind me of this. Sorry if that's considered a "fallacy".

[toejam]

Most are still stuck with 'the question is retarded'.

Well, for what it's worth, that's not my view at all.

[Ulan]

We still live in a world where articles that claim that we have thousands of pieces of evidence that Jesus historically existed get regularly published. I don't mean articles by church organizations, where this is to be expected to some extent, but also in mainstream media and on "knowledge base"-kind websites. I just noticed this again yesterday when I was searching for actual poll data for a different thread.

In one way, this may actually reflect some kind of self-selection bias regarding people who write about religious themes. There is still a good chance that someone who writes about religion is religious himself, and the non-religious mostly don't care about the topic. Which is probably the constellation you will find at those mainstream media that publish articles like that, where the guy or girl who has some (and not necessarily deep) religious interests heads this topic. In this way, the false perception of how well we actually know these questions gets perpetuated.

So I guess there is no malicious intent involved, it's just the result of widespread disinterest, even from otherwise religious people.

[The Crow]

the question of Christian Origins is a fascinating and important historical question.

In what way?

Christianity has been the dominant religion in the West for almost 2,000yrs. If there was ever such a thing as an important historical question, I think the question of its origin qualifies! If you disagree, why are you on this board?

That the current consensus of those who study Christian Origins is that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core instigation of the religion -

Is this based on conformation biased or independent researchers who have no dog in the fight?

Bias, life experiences, and probably even genetics, will always be a potential stumbling block in EVERYONE's conclusions. Don't pretend that those "independent researchers" who conclude that Jesus likely didn't exist are immune from it and don't have their own dog in the fight. We all have our dogs. It's about trying to keep them at bay as much as possible. I would say that most scholars who study Christian Origins end up changing their minds on various things over the years of their study. Even many Christian ones come to conclusions they would rather have not. I'd encourage you to read Dale Allison's "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus" in which he documents his own frustrations of trying desperately to rid himself of personal bias and be as objective as possible (Allison considers himself a Christian, though his historical investigation has led him to the view of a Jesus not that dissimilar to Ehrman / Schweitzer / Fredriksen etc.). This idea that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Jesus existed must be doing so solely as a result of confirmation bias and fear of not getting a job is overblown. It always reminds me of creationists complaining that the scientific community are only pro-evolution due to confirmation bias and fear of not getting a job.

Christianity has been the dominant religion in the West for almost 2,000yrs. If there was ever such a thing as an important historical question, I think the question of its origin qualifies! If you disagree, why are you on this board?

Do not disagree on the contrary, but I think its importance is over rated. And as far as me being on the board I do not recall seeing anything that says those who disagree stay out! One thing we can be sure of not everyone looks at this the same way as evidenced by the thousands of debates and opinions on this forum. Besides it would be a bore if we all agreed, right?

[Ulan]

Do not disagree on the contrary, but I think its importance is over rated.

I think this is the main reason why the question regarding the historicity of Jesus is so difficult. For most questions of belief and even early Christian development, it doesn't matter one bit whether Jesus was a historical person as blueprint for a literary figure or started as literary figure and got historicized. It's a very interesting question, but there is no stringent requirement that he must have been one or the other to explain the extant evidence.

Assuming historicity just makes your life easier. That's also true for biblical scholarship, and not only in the sense that it may have repercussions for your job if you deviate from the party line. Even for you research, you can just start and say "I base this on the current majority consensus" and will have to do a lot less work than with any other starting point.

[The Crow]

Do not disagree on the contrary, but I think its importance is over rated.

I think this is the main reason why the question regarding the historicity of Jesus is so difficult. For most questions of belief and even early Christian development, it doesn't matter one bit whether Jesus was a historical person as blueprint for a literary figure or started as literary figure and got historicized. It's a very interesting question, but there is no stringent requirement that he must have been one or the other to explain the extant evidence.

Assuming historicity just makes your life easier. That's also true for biblical scholarship, and not only in the sense that it may have repercussions for your job if you deviate from the party line. Even for you research, you can just start and say "I base this on the current majority consensus" and will have to do a lot less work than with any other starting point.

Assuming historicity just makes your life easier.

I guess if you believe that yeah I could see where that would make sense.

That's also true for biblical scholarship, and not only in the sense that it may have repercussions for your job if you deviate from the party line.

Well this could border on conformation biased don't you think?

It's a very interesting question, but there is no stringent requirement that he must have been one or the other to explain the extant evidence.

Glad you brought this up. Got some questions for ya. I have been coming here for a while and have done more reading than posting because I was not really interested in debating this BS any longer. But since you brought up what you did here is the questions:

(1)."How do you conclude some one existed when in all the writings about him no physical description is ever given?" Now I equate this to posting a most wanted poster giving just the offenders name with no picture. How do you know who you are looking for?

(2). "Why does a man supposedly strung up on a stick die and resurrect yet vanishes off the face of the earth?"

(3). "You spoke of extant evidence. Examples of physical evidence would be nice. Where is it?" Now granted I am sure some one will come back with "Well there was no physical evidence of so and so but he existed." Thats all well and good but so and so is not a jesus.

And I believe that in all these questions there is a biased scholarship because no one is willing to look beyond what if.

Thanks for your time.

[toejam]

^Are those questions meant for me, and not Ulan??

[The Crow]

^Are those questions meant for me, and not Ulan??

Either or it does not matter if you want to answer them thats great.

[neilgodfrey]

Biblical Jesus IS NOT historical jesus.

But the "Biblical Jesus" is the only Jesus we have, yes? What other Jesus is there? The Josephus Jesus?

[Ulan]

Assuming historicity just makes your life easier.

I guess if you believe that yeah I could see where that would make sense.

This statement does not depend on whether I believe in historicity or not. It's just stating the obvious: starting from a widespread consensus is easier than presenting a completely different framework of thought. That's the same in all sciences.

Well this could border on conformation biased don't you think?

Maybe, in some specific cases. However, I would assume that more than 99% of everything written in Biblical Studies doesn't depend on this question, which is what I refer to. If you tackle the meaning of some passage in a biblical text, an "and, by the way, I think Jesus was a myth" isn't helpful. It's also superfluous in this context and just distracts from your point. You have to pick your battles when they matter.

But since you brought up what you did here is the questions:
(1)."How do you conclude some one existed when in all the writings about him no physical description is ever given?" Now I equate this to posting a most wanted poster giving just the offenders name with no picture. How do you know who you are looking for?

If you visit a literature course, you will probably learn that the opposite is true: physical descriptions are suspicious. A good text follows a certain guideline and doesn't get clogged up with irrelevant matters. Physical descriptions belong to the realm of dime novels, which tend to provide them extensively. A good book only brings them up if they serve a purpose. The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" for example contain physical descriptions (not of Jesus of course). They also read like a novel.

(2). "Why does a man supposedly strung up on a stick die and resurrect yet vanishes off the face of the earth?"

Most people vanish off the face of Earth. Can you rephrase what the problem with this is?

(3). "You spoke of extant evidence. Examples of physical evidence would be nice. Where is it?" Now granted I am sure some one will come back with "Well there was no physical evidence of so and so but he existed."

Did I claim any physical evidence? You added the "physical". We have textual evidence, and I said that I don't think this forces one conclusion or the other. So yeah, toejam or outhouse may be the guys to ask this.