Imagine listening to a lecture about the historical Osiris by a noted scholar who finishes with an invitation to take part in a voluntary prayer to Osiris in which the scholar asks him bless us and keep us safe as we drive home. Who could blame us if we wondered whether the scholar’s views on the historical Osiris were somehow colored by his belief that Osiris is his “personal savior”?Scholarly Consensus in Biblical Studies — Does It Mean Anything?, Tim Widowfield
This dilemma is the crux of the matter. How can the consensus on the existence of the historical Jesus ever change if the majority of scholars are confessing Christians and if the majority of institutions who employ those scholars depend on money from confessing Christians?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Quote of the Day: Questioning the Consensus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
And what if the noted scholar giving you a lecture on Christ myth theory (if this is not a contradiction in terms) turns out to be a staunch atheist?
ReplyDeleteIs it only theists who might allow their philosophical position on the existence of deities to colour their historical views, or might atheists sometimes be guilty of this too?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSince there are atheists on both sides of the historicity debate, that bit of information wouldn't tell me anything about his willingness to consider evidence that undermines his position. There are also some people who are not philosophically opposed to deities who question whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus.
Everyone has biases that shape their interpretation of the evidence, however, critical methodology and peer review have the potential to minimize the effect of those biases. However, part of critical thinking is a commitment to go where the evidence leads. In historical Jesus studies, certain conclusion are verboten for some scholars because their employers require them to subscribe to a statement of faith. I have even heard that some institutions still conduct heresy trials. I don’t think that there is any comparable institutional bias on the mythicist side of the debate.
VINNY
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that there is any comparable institutional bias on the mythicist side of the debate.
CARR
Yes there is. Mythicists are lambasted by many, many atheists, who compare them to Holocaust-deniers, people who deny that America landed on the moon etc etc.
“Since there are atheists on both sides of the historicity debate, that bit of information wouldn't tell me anything about his willingness to consider evidence that undermines his position.”
ReplyDeleteApplying the same logic Vinny, the fact that there are Christians supporting both sides of the debate on evolution means that we should not be somewhat suspicious when a Christian fundamentalist gives a lecture on why Darwin got it wrong?
“In historical Jesus studies, certain conclusion are verboten for some scholars”.
You haven’t shown why the question of Jesus existence is taboo, when in many other cases, scholarly conclusions which are damaging to Christian beliefs are part of the mainstream view.
And you could argue that certain conclusions are verboten in other areas too. In the UK a few years back, the director of education at the Royal Society had to resign after suggesting that Creationism should be discussed (not taught, simply discussed) in school science lessons. While in many European countries, denying that the holocaust took place is not merely taboo but actually illegal and people have gone to prison for it.
In either of these cases would you be willing to say that researchers are being prevented from going where the evidence takes them?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe curriculum of school science classes should be determined by the best conclusions produced by peer reviewed research in the field. Creationism, like phrenology, alchemy, and astrology, does not meet the relevant standards for inclusion and I would expect a director of education to understand that.
Criminalizing Holocaust denial does seem problematic to me.