Jesus, history, faith and integrity

[unkleE]

Obviously, historical matters and personal belief about Jesus are things where people have a wide variety of responses. There is wide variation in opinions on the historical facts to be found in the documents, before we even get to beliefs.

I suppose very few of us in the west can approach this question impartially. Most of us have grown up with some level of belief or disbelief. Most continue with that, but some change. For some the change is traumatic, for others it is easy, almost a relief. But once we come to a convinced view as an adult, whatever it may be, I think we find it even more difficult to be impartial. Most of us tend to look for evidence to support our belief.

Most people pay lip service to the ideal of adjusting our beliefs according to the evidence, but I don't think even scientists can be that impartial (I remember reading one scientist - it may have been John Polkinghorne - saying that few scientists will abandon a hypothesis as soon as conflicting evidence is found, but most will defend their thesis for some time before they give it up - and he argued this was the correct course.)

For me, belief in Jesus is based on both evidence and faith, and I see it as more than a bunch of facts, but as a relationship. So when we are dealing with religious belief, faith, lack of belief, etc, it is unlikely that any of us can and should remain dispassionate. Christians cannot really do so, and it seems clear that high profile atheists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens, etc, are not dispassionate either. Both sides tend to slur the other as lacking intellectual integrity, but I don't think that helps much. We are all human, our intellectual faculties are not perfect and we are affected by emotion.

So how should we (both believers and unbelievers) approach the question of Jesus and history? Or perhaps a better question, how do you approach the question? Do you try to maintain strict intellectual neutrality, and do you think you succeed? Do you feel faith, or a general commitment to the New Testament speaking truly, or not, in any way invalidates your conclusion or your assessment of new evidence? Do you think historians can speak with authority (because of their learning) on matters of faith and the supernatural, or only on factual and natural matters?

I am interested to see how others, believers, non-believers and unbelievers approach these questions. Thanks.

[humphreyclarke]

Well we talk about science - religion a lot but probably a comparable issue (more difficult I would say) is traditional views vs higher criticism of the NT/OT (a major issue at the time of the publication of the origin of species). How do you reconcile a set of 'theological truths' with what New Testament historians have generally concluded. So for me by far the most convincing model for the historical Jesus would be Allison/Ehrman/Schweitzer 'Apocalyptic Prophet'. So the question then become - what implications does that have for the view of the Jesus of faith ? Upon that subject your going to get quite the diversity of opinion. Then there's the problem of what happens when things like the virgin birth or much of John is deemed unhistorical when for a lot of people those are cherished historical truths - especially beyond academia and the cloistered world of NT studies. Best I can do is accept what the best historians in the field have concluded and work from there.

[James Hannam]

Responding to UnkleE's question, I have found history has gven me a fairly conservative view of the NT. So it reinforces my trust in the evangelists as people setting out what they believed, on reasonable grounds, was the truth.

GJohn is primary and based on the apostle's teaching; Mark dates to about 70AD and is a rush job based on recollection of Peter's teaching; Matthew used Mark and Q; Luke did as good a job as can be expected in his two part work which is as reliable as any other piece of ancient history that is not actual reportage.

With my historian's hat on, I take a more sceptical line on some of this because the issue of trust becomes much trickier. But I still think anyone who talks about "literary constructions" or how brilliant Mark's creative powers are needs their BS detectors turned on. Mark is crap as anything except a hodge podge of recollections and no one has ever invented characters like the beloved disciple to place into historical narratives. It reminds me of a post modern scholar who invented a ancient literary device of using the first person plural in ship narratives. His theory was the purest bollocks but it took a lot of people in, including himself.

But the historian must also accept lots of fakery exists and we can't always spot it. So scepticism remains essential and the cast iron facts about Jesus doesn't go much further than EP Sanders famous list.

Best wishes

James

[sandwiches]

According to an oft-repeated saying, books on Jesus tell more about their authors than about Jesus himself. I would like to think that my case is an exception.

Geza Vermes

www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140265248,00.html

But then, I suppose all authors think they are an exception?

[timoneill]

Apr 8, 2011 16:28:04 GMT sandwiches said:

According to an oft-repeated saying, books on Jesus tell more about their authors than about Jesus himself. I would like to think that my case is an exception.

Geza Vermes

www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140265248,00.html

But then, I suppose all authors think they are an exception?

I tend to think that I'm something of an exception. When noting Schweitzer's observation about the position on Jesus reflecting the person who holds it to an anti-theist Myther he tried to tell me that this applied to me as well. So I replied "That would make me a Jewish preacher and apocalypcist who thinks the end of the world is coming any day now. Does that sound right to you?"

He didn't reply.

[unkleE]

Apr 8, 2011 13:59:55 GMT James Hannam said:

I have found history has gven me a fairly conservative view of the NT. So it reinforces my trust in the evangelists as people setting out what they believed, on reasonable grounds, was the truth.

With my historian's hat on, I take a more sceptical line on some of this because the issue of trust becomes much trickier.<snip>
But the historian must also accept lots of fakery exists and we can't always spot it. So scepticism remains essential and the cast iron facts about Jesus doesn't go much further than EP Sanders famous list.

James, how do you personally reconcile these two views?

You understand I'm not critical of you in this, I think I do much the same (though with less expertise), but I'm interested in your thinking.

[unkleE]

This is how I see it, as very much a historical layperson who needs to rely on others' expertise. There are several levels of understanding:

1.The basic facts. e.g. An early copy of a fragment of John's Gospel has been discovered. Our copies of Josephus include a somewhat detailed reference to Jesus. This archaeology dig found this. Etc. These are facts, almost uncontestable, and we need the experts to tell us about them. (I have never been to the Rylands library to see the fragment, never been on a dig, never seen a Josephus document, I don't know Aramaic or Hebrew and my Greek and Latin are almost nonexistent. Etc.)

2. Interpreting the facts. e.g. The Josephus reference to Jesus is probably genuine but with some interpolations. John couldn't have been written later than the turn of the century because the fragment is dated to about 130 CE. Etc. Again, we need the experts because we probably don't have the historical and cultural perspective. But the experts don't always agree, so we need to apply some of our own judgment, assess the arguments, follow the consensus of the best scholars, etc.

3. Conclusions. e.g. Mark was written in 65 CE (or whatever). Jesus was known at the time as a healer. Jesus didn't exist, or he was an apocalyptic prophet, or a marginal Jew, or whatever. Here we are still dependent to a degree on the experts, because of their greater learning, but there is such diversity of opinion that we have to rely on our own judgment a lot more.

Further, it is here (hopefully not earlier) that assumptions start to play their part. If a historian is a naturalist philosophically (or a supernaturalist), they will bring that belief into their judgments, e.g. about whether the resurrection could have occurred, whether a text could be a genuine prophecy rather than written after the event, etc. This is the trickiest problem I think, because often these assumptions are not made explicit, yet they very much determine some outcomes.

Methodological naturalism seems to be the correct course for steps 1 & 2, but I can't think it should be required here, especially when considering a life like Jesus where the supernatural is allegedly at the core of the story (rather than, say, Alexander, where it makes sense to eliminate a few stray miracle stories).

4. Belief. Finally we move beyond historical analysis to belief - I believe in Jesus, someone else doesn't, or believes something different to me. Here the scholars can't help very much, because they are experts in history, not in faith (in general).

Because that is how I think about it, I try to find the most respected and objective scholars for my conclusions on #1 and #2, but I am far more willing to make my own judgments about #3 and #4. I can use gratefully the writings of Grant, Sanders, Ehrman (or Casey) in matters relating to #1 or #2, even though I disagree with their faith choices, but I will be more wary of them in #3 or #4, where I may prefer Bauckham, Evans, Wright or Charlesworth.

So I feel I have dealt with the facts with integrity (#1 & #2), have made sensible judgments (#3) and have good reason for my faith choice (#4).

I think that sounds a bit like a semi-Aspergers engineer (which I am), I'm sorry, but I'd be interested in further comment from others who know history better.