Bible and false scholarship

[patg]

What I mean is, what you are making such scholarly articles of importance in modern critical/historical analysis, was just as important (although undefined) in the Ancient world. Therefore the quality of the eyewitnesses, and the independent evidence was plentiful and convincing for them. If you deny this, then you are basically claiming that the Ancient world was populated by simpletons that would believe anything. But we know that is not the case. They required strong evidences and reliable witness reports just as much as we still do today.

I don’t agree - the ancient world had a vastly different understanding of their gods’ roles in their lives than we do. They worshipped hundreds of gods and believed that every event in life was caused by the direct involvement of one or more gods - from storms and earthquakes to disease, famine, and the outcome of wars. the quality of eyewitness accounts was a product of this culture. Whole nations would change religions because a conqueror ordered them to. Switching to a new religion because of a very charismatic preacher who spoke of a leader who rose from the dead was no big deal those days. There was a demon or spirit under every rock and behind every bush.

 

[simspt]

I think that is a very superficial analysis that ignores the most significant points. “Independent attestations” have to be more than third hand accounts made only by the “insiders” - those who already followed Jesus.

Suppose you read a variety of “independent” reports by a tobacco company that all praised cigarettes as having no harmful effects whatsoever. Would you take that as the believable independent attestation or would want to see what people who were outsiders to the companies had to say?

Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Most would probably agree.

Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.

True these sources are from believers but it seems that the early and multiple attestation of these sources would give credibility. History cannot by itself establish things like Jesus making himself present in the Eucharist but I don’t think you can separate totally between history and faith. Most Christians profess various facts about the earthly Jesus. There must be some continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This is where I find difficulty accepting the presuppositions of scholars like Meier that the resurrection falls beyond the scope of historical study of Jesus. Obviously history alone cannot fully grasp the resurrection but nevertheless the resurrection has a historical aspect. Therefore history can be used to study it. PAT would you the believer disagree with PAT the historian? PAT how would your account of the history of Jesus differ if you completely bracketed out your faith?

 

[simspt]

PAT
Does not historical investigation establish rational foundations for the commitment of Christian faith? Is this not the basis for so many Protestants converting to Catholicism? Or non-believers becoming believers? I agree with you that historical arguments for the divinity of Jesus will not provide the full assurance of faith but will certainly provide great value.

 

[Abu]

The seeker after truth will not find Christ or His Church in Brown’s assumptions on the NT.

Protestant converts come home because they see the historical and infallible truth in Christ’s Church which gave us the inspired Word of God.

Rene Laurentin, a peritus at Vatican II, who once referred to Brown as “an exegete of great importance”, comments on Brown’s Birth of the Messiah:

1. Historico-Criticism is a limited method
2. Brown’s method leads him to an ambiguous position toward doctrine
3. Brown’s assumptions are dubious
4. Brown’s ecumenical dialogue is defective
5. The Catholic faith is damaged by irresponsible biblical speculation
   The New Biblical Theorists Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books 1983, p 8, 64-67].

In 1978, R. H. Fuller, one of the chief form critics, wrote in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, “It is ironic that just at the time when the limitations of the historical-critical method are being discovered in Protestantism, Roman Catholic scholars should be bent on pursuing that method so relentlessly.” By 1980, the same R. H. Fuller considered the method they followed so relentlessly to be “bankrupt.” [See Fr William G Most, *Catholic Apologetics Today, TAN, 1986, p 237].

Brown alleges that the priesthood is not intended by Christ or found in the NT: “Cultic priesthood is never presented as a Christian institution in the New Testament.” Further, that the ordained priest is “commissioned by the whole Church, including the people.” (See Emmanuel, June 1980, pp 314-322).

Rebutting this, on the Mass, theologian Donald Keefe, S.J., points out: “Only the dehistorization of the Church and its worship, through their subordination to some ideological nonhistorical abstraction, will suffice to displace this centre.”
[Cited in *The New Biblical Theorists Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books 1983, p 94-96].

 

[patg]

True these sources are from believers but it seems that the early and multiple attestation of these sources would give credibility. History cannot by itself establish things like Jesus making himself present in the Eucharist but I don’t think you can separate totally between history and faith.

I agree that there is some historical core to much of what is in the gospels. The issue to remember though is that all religions have the same feeling and the point I am making is that while insiders and outsiders may read the same stories, they will use very different standards in evaluating their historical reliability. Imagine that another religion had a story about how their God had worked mighty miracles that demonstrated the truth of that religion. Imagine also that there were several versions of this story and that these versions had numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Wouldn’t you, a Christian and thus an outsider to this religion, point to those disparities as evidence for the unreliability of these stories? People on these forums do it constantly when discussing Mormonism, Islam, etc. People are naturally more charitably inclined to their own stories than they are to those of outsiders.

Most Christians profess various facts about the earthly Jesus. There must be some continuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.

I agree.

This is where I find difficulty accepting the presuppositions of scholars like Meier that the resurrection falls beyond the scope of historical study of Jesus.

I think it is nearly impossible and probably unreasonable to try to extend historical analysis to the supernatural, which by its very nature is beyond the reach of human experience.

Obviously history alone cannot fully grasp the resurrection but nevertheless the resurrection has a historical aspect.

It has a historical aspect to those with the faith to believe in it. I doubt it does to anyone else.

Therefore history can be used to study it.

Only in a very limited way. The tools of academic historical analysis are based on pretty serious standards and rules and the result is always a statement of probability, not guaranteed fact. Think about how many historians have studied various subjects, even recent events, and been unable to exactly define what happened. Did Shakespeare write all the plays atrributed to him?, was he homosexual?, did Nero burn Rome?,…it goes on and on. Some people today don’t believe we went to the moon.

If there was any significant evidence that the science of history could find for the miracles or the resurrection, every history text would include these events. The fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily significant to anyone else (refer back to my previous comments about other religions).

PAT would you the believer disagree with PAT the historian?

I would not disagree - I would state that the historian cannot determine the answer and that it is a matter of faith.

PAT how would your account of the history of Jesus differ if you completely bracketed out your faith?

There’s a pretty long answer to that one but it basically comes down to a very charismatic healer who performed significant signs and who was killed for causing problems with the status quo. He wasn’t extremely different from other documented Jewish Holy men of the time. His followers eventually used standard literary forms of the time to write about him, including the common “Infancy Narrative” which was mostly fictional.

 

[BouncingBall]

I’m going to throw my hat in with the Lord Jesus Christ because I love Him…

The miracles and the Resurrection of Jesus really did happen. Otherwise there’s no difference between someone who puts their faith in Jesus Christ or Thor or Zeus or Toyota Prius.

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (I Corinthians 1:18, 21-24, ESV).

 

[Aquinas29]

"the following quote from Christopher Hitchens referring to Biblical times: “If we knew then what we now know, would we have ever become religious?”

I wouldn’t worry too much about Hitchens - his understanding of what God is is so wrong headed, his criticisms become sophistry. clever and seductive, but sophistry nonetheless.

the nature of the Bible, and of God, is rooted in human nature - fallen, absurd human nature and natural law. There is an essential way our reality is constructed, time included, that this is the work of God. Though our civilization has become a technological marvel, our basic humanness remains the same. (For example, we have our smartphones, touch screens and wireless internet. what is the #1 import of all this? Pornography.)

That is why these books written thousands of years ago are relevant today. The struggle of humanity to merge with that objective reality, God. And failing. Nothing new under the sun.