The "Reliability" Of Bible Scholars

Started by Jagella, April 06, 2020, 09:39:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jagella

How much can we rely on Bible scholars to provide us with sound information about the Bible and its historicity? One of the main reasons I'm asking this question is because Bible scholars are very often cited in debates about the historicity of Jesus. It is often asserted that the "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are very sure that there was a real Jesus--they just can't agree on who or what he was and what he did.

Baruch

Quote from: Jagella on April 06, 2020, 09:39:03 PM
How much can we rely on Bible scholars to provide us with sound information about the Bible and its historicity? One of the main reasons I'm asking this question is because Bible scholars are very often cited in debates about the historicity of Jesus. It is often asserted that the "overwhelming majority of Bible scholars" are very sure that there was a real Jesus--they just can't agree on who or what he was and what he did.

Are the scholars secular?  Are they professional?  Some are believers of course, other scholars are graduates of Bible colleges.  Secular/professional scholars are neutral, and are reliable as far as superficial analysis is concerned.  Like determining the "most likely" text (manuscripts have many variations).  This happens with the Talmud as well, for example.

I would say, a secular/professional scholar would say that the Bible, extra-biblical writings, church documents etc have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus.  Only Tacitus and Josephus.  And the interpretation of those two sources, is unclear.  IMHO ... no text can have any bearing on the historicity of anyone, even a "secular" Jesus.  Historical writing is "creative".  Even Churchill's history of WW II is biased and leaves out Ultra completely.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible.  So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity.  When I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2020, 10:25:28 PM
Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible.  So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity.  When I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.

There are few books/essays that deal with this problem honestly (take a 3rd party view).  I would suggest that seekers use common sense.  Also I don't think that the debates over the particular "grammar" or "vocabulary" variance of a particular verse is worth worrying about anyway.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools.  I don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda. I think the big question is whether or not God exists.  No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.

aitm

In so much as all scholars of a religion seek to support said religion is Not surprising they all make a living from same. Football manufacturers will tell you football is the greatest game evah!
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 05:23:22 AM
I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools.  I don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda. I think the big question is whether or not God exists.  No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.
I see your point.  But I must disagree, in that calling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god.  For many, many christians, demonstrating that Jesus is a total myth and fiction is also demonstrating that god most likely is too.  After all, the movement is called Christ-ian, not godian.  Christ (Jesus) is the kernel in the center of their thinking.  And I think we need to question everything about all religions.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 07, 2020, 09:09:26 AM
I see your point.  But I must disagree, in that calling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god.  For many, many christians, demonstrating that Jesus is a total myth and fiction is also demonstrating that god most likely is too.  After all, the movement is called Christ-ian, not godian.  Christ (Jesus) is the kernel in the center of their thinking.  And I think we need to question everything about all religions.
I question those things too, and I think the academic discussion about the existence of Jesus is fun.  In fact, I have wondered if there could have been a Jesus, not the son of God, who didn't do actual miracles, that roamed the desert, and was eventually raised to an absurd poster child for a cause he never intended?  Whereas considering if there was a historical person who rose to the status of Paul Bunyan, wouldn't seem worthwhile.

But I confess to a bias.  God to me has always been numero uno and the big Kahuna of Christianity or any other religion.  As a little kid, I never understood why people prayed to Jesus.  It was like begging the gal at the reception desk to change company policy.  God hears our prayers, and he's the one who can answer them.  Who needs Jesus when God can speak to anyone through a burning bush?  And supposedly, he hears all our prayers and even reads our minds and our hearts.  If you are going to debate Jesus, it seems to me you must then debate whether Mary was a Virgin, and then the parting of the seas.  It goes on and on forever.  And I've done these things with myself and even enjoyed it.  But for me the big question has always been about God.  Even before I resolved that to my satisfaction, Jesus was always just a spin off, something added to the Bible, almost as an afterthought.

Quotecalling Jesus' historicity into question, is just another avenue of attack on the lack of evidence for god.
Definitely agree, but when debating a Christian, it seems as equally ineffectual as debating God.  He's not going to buy it, and if he does, you still have to resolve the God issue.  Why have two debates when one will do?

SGOS

Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist.  But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 10:03:37 AM
Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist.  But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.
I am on your bandwagon.  Just adding another seat for me. I did the deepest part of my study of the christian religion centered around Jesus/myth because it interested me more on a personal level.  And I found that most people in my last church would be more willing to discuss that topic than on whether or not a god existed.  I also found that the more I offered certain people the facts of Jesus and his being real, the more they bought that he was a myth, the easier it was for them to entertain the idea that god did not exist.  Yet, I also realize that one cannot convince a typical christian using logic and reasoning.  So, I hear what you are saying and I agree.  When all is said and done, show me any evidence of any god existing; that is the real main question.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#10
Most Western people aren't interested in abstract ontology (does G-d exist).  You are more likely to find such people in Buddhist or Hindu cultures.  Abrahamic religions are completely dependent on false historical claims.  Yes, Muhammad existed (probably) ... but he was just a crazy Arab, not a prophet of Allah (who one can deny existence of).  The idea of Mecca as presently understood, has been debunked as a post-Muhammad invention.  A historical Jesus is like an early pacifist version of Muhammad, but that is completely inadequate to sustain Christianity.

Early Christianity was unsustainable as a state-religion since it was pacifist.  Joseph Smith was a real person, but I don't think the Book of Mormon came from some angel (which is basically a New York 19th century borrowing from the Quran).  Brigham Young made Mormonism into the state religion of Utah, and thus saved it.  Islam would have been nothing much, if it had remained a dissident movement among pagan Arabs.  Caliph Umar started making it into an imperial religion, which was completed under the early Umayyads (by 700 CE).

The original (multiple) Jewish messianic movements were dead by 135 CE.  Gentile messianic movements continued as Christian Gnosticism for another 200 years, until marginalized by Constantine.  Of course Jewish messianic and Gentile messianic movements all owed much of their content to Hellenistic Mystery Cults (as influenced by various pagan, Babylonian, Persian and Indian influences).  Given all that, if Jesus existed as a man, or what he may have actually been like, is irrelevant.  Then add 1300 years of Church history on top of that.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aitm

Getting any believer to accept the possibility that their chosen one may not have existed bores heavy on their psyche, an admittance of not just being wrong but being gullible is something many people, regardless of the  topic, are loath to do. Toss in the small fortune they may have squandered and it may be too much for them to handle. Better to just go with their beliefs...after all...”what if you’re wrong”?
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Jagella

Quote from: Baruch on April 06, 2020, 10:21:31 PM
Are the scholars secular?  Are they professional?  Some are believers of course, other scholars are graduates of Bible colleges.  Secular/professional scholars are neutral, and are reliable as far as superficial analysis is concerned.  Like determining the "most likely" text (manuscripts have many variations).  This happens with the Talmud as well, for example.

I honestly cannot agree with everything you're saying here about "secular" scholars. Atheists can be as biased as any Christian. Oddly enough, some purported atheists who hold degrees in Biblical studies have a pro-Jesus bias and will fight for the historicity of Jesus with as much passion as any Christian apologist. I'm not sure why--maybe they fear that if they question the historicity of Christ, then they may jeopardize their careers.

QuoteI would say, a secular/professional scholar would say that the Bible, extra-biblical writings, church documents etc have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus.

I can think of at least two exceptions: Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey. Both men are atheists and are Bible scholars, and both rely almost completely on the Bible to make their cases for a historical Christ. They argue that they can "tease out" the truth from all the baloney in the Gospels. Of course, they cannot demonstrate that they can sift the truth from the lies--they just write a lot of books to impress us that they know the "real Jesus."

Quote... no text can have any bearing on the historicity of anyone, even a "secular" Jesus.  Historical writing is "creative".  Even Churchill's history of WW II is biased and leaves out Ultra completely.

I wouldn't go quite that far. The documentation we have about Jesus is not worthless. The gospels may be based on a real person, but I'm just not sure if they are based in reality.

Jagella

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 06, 2020, 10:25:28 PM
Usually Bible Scholars have an agenda--they get paid in some way if they defend the historicity of Jesus and the KJ Bible.  So, it is to their benefit to defend the tradition of christianity.

Some critics of real-Jesus apologists have alleged that if such scholars entertain Jesus-mythicism, then they may lose their jobs. I'm not sure if that's true, but scholar Hector Avalos has written that Biblical studies is essentially a "liberal-Christian apologetic." If Avalos is correct, then Bible scholars must kowtow to liberal Christianity. They may question the resurrection or the virgin birth, but questioning the historicity of Christ is going too far.

QuoteWhen I was deeply into my study of the religion, I chose several 'traditional' scholars to read, several scholars who don't believe in any of the christian propaganda and the most difficult group to find, those who did not have a dog in any of the fights, neutral.

I understand that such scholars have cropped-up on occasion, but their work did not endure long in the scholarly community supposedly because it was of poor quality and refuted. Either that was the reason for their work getting the big heave-ho, or those dissenting scholars just weren't toeing the party line.

Jagella

Quote from: SGOS on April 07, 2020, 05:23:22 AM
I've always assumed that 90% of so called Bible Scholars have been trained in Divinity Schools.

That sounds about right although it's important to note that some divinity schools have been secularized. There's a joke that you must be an atheist to get into some of them!

QuoteI don't think it's a big leap to guess whether or not they have an agenda.

That agenda may well be the survival of their profession. If more people realize that the Bible is basically irrelevant to modern life, then Bible scholarship is not of much utility to them except perhaps as the study of entertaining fiction from antiquity.

QuoteI think the big question is whether or not God exists.  No scholar knows that for sure, and until that question is answered, talking about Jesus, Mohammad, angels, and Satan is pointless masturbation.

Again, there is a place for the Bible. We can place it on library shelves next to tomes on King Arthur, Robin Hood, and the pantheon atop Mount Olympus.