Do scholars assume the gospels contain history?

[unkleE]

I am discussing with a Jesus mythist. He asked me: "Which gospel(s) claim that Jesus really existed as a historical person?" I of course said all of them - two of them mention his birth, all mention his death, etc. He replied that fiction and myths do the same.

My standard response is to say I'm not an expert, but I trust the consensus of those who are, and that consensus seems to be that at least some aspects of the recorded life of Jesus are historical. He responded that the scholars just assumed the gospels were historical, but had no reasons to do so. He then said: "Historians in non-biblical subjects that I have explored are very careful about ascertaining the provenance of sources before deciding what historical value they contain. Forgery and fiction needs to be sifted out because they are all too common in the real world."

I'm not a historian, but I like to understand. Can anyone tell me please:

1. Is it important that the gospels don't actually say "This is the history of a real person" in so many words? I would have thought that (1) even if they did, his response could still be that fiction sometimes does the same (e.g. The Da Vinci Code), and (2) I doubt many historical documents have exactly what he expects.

2. Do historians "ascertain the provenance of sources" more for other historical documents than for the gospels? What does that actually mean?

3. Do historians really assume the historicity of the gospels? I would have thought they subject it to a barrage of tests, using the various criteria like multiple sources, embarrassment, consistency (internal, with other documents and with archaeology), etc - M Grant suggests they do this more with the gospels than do other historians.

Can anyone give me a little more background please, or point me to a source of information on these things please? Thanks.

[James Hannam]

Hi UnkleE,

Here's a few thoughts.

1) Actually the Gospels do say this. See Luke 1:1 to 5 and John 19:35.

2) There are no documents for which the provenance has been more closely examined than the Gospels. Any textbook on the NT contains loads of stuff about where the Gospels came from etc. They have been examined far more rigorously than anything else.

3) Historians use methods to try to get to the truth. My opinion is that they tend to be more sceptical about the Gospels than comparable documents. Here's an essay I did a while ago on historical methodology as it applies to the NT:

www.bede.org.uk/methodologies.htm

I hope this helps. Of course, you are arguing with a myther, so I doubt anything you say will make any difference.

Best wishes

James

[unkleE]

James, thanks for the link, and for the amazingly prompt reply. That is a useful summary, and I notice that you reference many of the people I tend to reference - Crossan, Sanders, Meier & Wright.

That summary sounds a little more pessimistic than I expected about our ability to recover history from the gospels, and probably a little more pessimistic than other scholars I have been reading lately.

Do you agree personally with the methods and conclusions you summarise? Do you think Sanders' summary (which I have seen) of known facts about Jesus is sufficient for us to believe in Jesus? What do you think about all the other apparently historic events and the teachings recorded in the gospels - can we be justified in believing them to be generally historic?

Thanks.

[acornuser]

Another approach would be to ask what the genre of the gospels is. I would argue that they are ancient biography, or similar, and that the goal is to provide factual information on Jesus life.

Also, a lot of the historical methods assume that the oral tradition the evangelists used was some kind of anonymous, amorphous blob of stories handed down. Richard Bauckham, Samuel Byrskog and a few others have started looking at the provenance of the oral stories, and have suggested (compellingly, in my mind) that we are dealing with oral history, not tradition, and that the history was compiled by talking to eye witnesses. If only we had a full copy of Papias!

[James Hannam]

Hi UnkleE,

I think that Sanders' list is what we can know with certainty rather than the maximum a historian would say we can be reasonable sure about. But it is sufficient to deal with a myther.

But I would add to the list and regard the Empty Tomb as having a strong historical grounding as does the trial before both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Best wishes

James

[joel]

I'm no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that the ancients generally did not write fiction that took place in a specific place and time in recent history, in contrast to modern historical fiction such as The Count of Monte Cristo. The Gospels contain historical figures such as Herod, Pilate, and John the Baptist (though recently it's become fashionable among mythers to label Josephus's passage on John a forgery!). They clearly have a specific historical setting that is fairly recent.

Even the Gnostic Gospels, which portray Jesus as only appearing to be human, still put him on earth (not some vague "mythical realm") and agree that Pilate had some role in Jesus's crucifixion.

Now this does not mean in itself they are reliable history or that later legendary development has not been added. But it does indicate the authors are telling about someone who they believe was a real person. To say "Well Forrest Gump has JFK and Nixon, does that mean Forrest was real?" is an anachronism.

But like I said, I'll admit that I haven't studied this much. I've heard that Richard Burridge's What are the Gospels? is a good book arguing that the Gospels fall in the genre of ancient biography.

[irukandji]

Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses gives a good comparison of especially Luke with other ancient historians and argues, convincingly IMO, that Luke at least followed standard historiographical practice of the time.

[unkleE]

I have another (related) question of the historians here please. I am still discussing with some Jesus mythers, not so much because I think I can change their minds, but because I want to understand what they think and test it out against what I believe.

I have deployed my growing arsenal of quotes from established scholars to the effect that Jesus was a historical figure, some facts can be "certainly" known about him, that the Gospels are useful historical sources (not necessarily without their problems of course), etc. I have learnt that they don't like scholars being quoted at them, they prefer their own versions of history, and perhaps their major riposte to a scholarly quote is to accuse them of:

• all being christian apologists;
  
• assuming Jesus lived rather than proving it (the original subject of this thread), in fact never having considered the question (despite the "quest for the historical Jesus); and
  
• almost all of the scholars are theologians and not historians.
  

(Consequently they all hate it when I quote Michael Grant, because he doesn't fit their mould at all!)

So this leads me to my question - is there any objective way to say or determine who is a historian and who is not?

I would have thought that:

1. This isn't a fully objective matter, so there is no objective way for them to make those claims nor for me to refute them.

2. The most important criteria is current work, publications and peer review. If you are working on historical questions, if your publications are accepted in historical journals, and if they are referenced by other historians, then you are a historian. And the more favourable citations, then the more respected you are. (But they base it all on the degrees held.)

3. If one considers academic degrees, then many different disciplines might be relevant to the study of history - archaeology, anthropology, NT studies, classics, as well as history. But they argue that only PhDs obtained in a history faculty can make a person a historian. This works well for them because most NT scholars obtained their degrees in NT studies faculties.

Thus they can write off people like Sanders, Wright, Evans, Fredriksen, Meier, etc, as being "theologians" (though I wouldn't call many of them that). On the same basis, Price & Ehrman also miss the cut (though they don't speak about that so much!). Grant, Fox & Sherwin-White are all "too old" or in some other way unfit, and it turns out that Richard Carrier is the only "true historian" doing Jesus studies today.

Now I know a lot of this is nonsense, and I know that we can't be cut and dried about all this, but is there anything objective that can be said in response?

Ancillary questions: Are there a few pre-eminent history journals? Is there an easy way to look up scholars' degrees including the topic of the PhDs? Is there any way to determine if NT Studies schools are doing history or theology or both?

Dumb questions, I know, but in the never-ending thirst for understanding .......

Thanks

[merkavah12]

A suggestion:

Ask why Richard Carrier is considered a "True Historian".

[unkleE]

Dec 14, 2009 22:51:30 GMT merkavah12 said:

A suggestion:

Ask why Richard Carrier is considered a "True Historian".

I think I've heard the answer to that one:

1. He's unbiased!!!
2. He's actually studied history and obtained his PhD in history.
3. He's right.

But the purpose of my question is not to put Carrier down - I am quite happy to accept his expertise. My issue is the validity or otherwise of so easily dismissing nearly everyone else.

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2009 23:29:20 GMT unkleE said:

I think I've heard the answer to that one:

1. He's unbiased!!!
2. He's actually studied history and obtained his PhD in history.
3. He's right.

4. He's an atheist.

[unkleE]

Now that the Xmas rush is over, I would like to raise again the question I asked in this post please. The basic question is: is there any objective way to say or determine who is a competent historian and who is not?

To spell it out a little, when you historians make a judgment on how much credibility to give some writing or author, do you use any of all of the following criteria:

• subject area or faculty of PhD?
  
• current research and publications?
  
• current employment (which university)?
  
• respect and recognition from peers?
  
• your own assessment based on your own knowledge of the topic they are writing about?
  
• their religious beliefs or lack thereof?
  

Do you give greatest weight to any particular one? Is there any objectivity in all this?

Thanks (in hope!).

[eckadimmock]

From my own experience of academe (albeit not in history) I'd say it is based on position in an academic position in a recognized institution and number of publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. neither criterion is entirely objective, but there is usually consensus as to which journals are A- B- and C-list. University departments often tell staff which journals to shoot for.

Regards,

Colin

[James Hannam]

Hi Unlkee,

This is a very hard question to answer. You may have seen Zameel and I arguing over Islamic science and strongly disagreeing which scholars we should rely on and which we cannot.

And just because someone is at a prestigious university and publishes in the best journals does not mean that they are right. It only means that their peers have elevated them to a certain position.

But I'd say that a relevant PhD from a proper university, some publications and preferably a current academic post definitely makes for a real historian. Political and religious affiliations are utterly irrelevant but 'respect of peers' always a clincher. But this last point can be difficult for an outsider to establish.

And beware of academics writing outside their own field and claiming expertise. You can be a master of more than one field, but it is hard work.

Best wishes

James

[zameel]

Dec 28, 2009 10:29:10 GMT James Hannam said:

And beware of academics writing outside their own field and claiming expertise

That was one of my main criticisms; you seem to rely on scholars who have no qualifications in Arabic or Arabic science or Islamic history for information on them - sure, they (like Huff and Newman) rely on secondary sources (from individuals who are expert in these fields) but will not be familiar with any controversy surrounding it unless they engross themselves in it and may only selectively quote from those that they believe provides support for their preconceptions. My recommendation is simply that you rely on historians on Arabic science, like AI Sabra, Emilie Smith, George Saliba, Donald Hill, AY al-Hassan (all recognised by each other as eminent historians in the field) for information on that subject. Surely, Newman and Huff are "writing outside their own field" when they write about Arabic science while Saliba and al-Hassan are not? I'm not claiming that you should not read Newman for his view on the sources he has read but not to take it as the final word until you consult the original sources of historians of Arabic science yourself.