Opinions on the "historical-critical method"?

[patrick457]

Exactly how is my view of biblical scholarship MINIMAL when “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one” are supported by the translation teams that came up with the text of the NAB?

Wouldn’t anyone say that those translation teams should be a broad based composite of
Modern Catholic biblical scholarship?

Now I’m not saying that dogmatically the Catholic Church teaches “A young woman will conceive” or “Hail favored one” but I am saying that apparently the MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARS who made up the biblical translation team of the NAB believe that those translations are supported by MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP in CONTRADICTION to biblical scholarship in the Catholic Church over the first 19 centuries!

Try to attend an American Catholic seminary and dispute the accuracy of Q and see how far that will get you! Are there American Catholic seminaries that wouldn’t mind if you didn’t believe in Q? Of course! Are there others who would think bad of you and possibly negatively impact you if you didn’t accept Q as accepted biblical scholaraship truth?

Of course!

So see–we are not exclusively talking about Jesus seminar fringe here.

We’re talking about American Catholic biblical scholarship as of today that is accepted by many in American Catholic seminaries who SUPPOSEDLY know what real modern biblical scholarship is all about.

Now I’m not saying that EVERY American Catholic seminary or every American Catholic professor at every American Catholic seminary supports that scholarship–or that all translators of the NAB support that scholarship but let’s be intellectually honest and not PRETEND that a great number of professors at American Catholic seminaries and NAB translators do support that kind of scholarship!

And at least a majority of the translators of the NAB agreed with that type of scholarship when it came to “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one”!

Can there be Modern Catholic Biblical Scholarship that wouldn’t agree with “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored on” and the notion of Q?

Of course!

But if that kind of scholarship isn’t seen in American Catholic seminary curricula or the text of the NAB then exactly which side has the upper hand?

And one last thing–the APOSTLE John WROTE John and he was an eye witness to what he wrote about!

That is exactly what I’m talking about–and if you don’t believe me that that is true ASK the first 1900 years of Catholic biblical scholarship–ask the Pontifical biblical commssion which was asked that very question in the early 1900s under St. Pope Pius X!

They held against those who didn’t believe that the apostle John wrote John!

Name One POPE who says that John didn’t write John! Ask Pope Benedict XVI if John wrote John!

I guarantee you that he will not side with the MODERNISTS who say that the person who wrote John was NOT an eye witness to the events in that gospel!

That’s what INAUTHENIC Modern biblical scholarship says.

It should be opposed!

Now I have to eat my words and deliver a few brief comments before going away again.

I mostly agree with you in essence, although I do still feel uncomfortable with your choosing to indict “modern biblical scholarship,” which again is very broad, ranging from the good to the bad to the rubbish to the utterly silly. (I mean, this is the field where now and again you have ideas like “Paul actually meant ‘testicle’ when he said ‘covering’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15.” ) Again, it kinda feels to me like attacking “the Catholic Church” in general for pedophile or corrupt priests or blaming “America” or “the Americans” as a whole for whatever atrocities certain people who happen to be Americans have committed. As I’ve said, what is it exactly in ‘modern biblical scholarship’ are you attacking? The two-source hypothesis? If so, then good. But just because Q or JEDP or whatever are widely-held opinions does not automatically mean that ‘modern biblical scholarship’ (you know, I’m getting tired of typing it ) stands or falls with them.

 

[patrick457]

Were “his secretaries” inspired by the Holy Spirit too?

There is absolutely no good reason to doubt what the Bible says.

You do have to remember that when people wanted to ‘write’ something down formally and professionally in those days they were usually not the ones who did the actual writing (even if they could write), instead they made use of amanuenses, professional scribes who jotted down what was dictated to them. After all, in an age where you do not have Microsoft Word or any other word processing software (or even typewriters) you do not have much of a recourse to write professional-looking documents, especially if your personal handwriting is very sloppy or if you are only “semi-literate.”

We know for instance that St. Paul employed a guy named Tertius to write the letter to the Romans (16:22 “I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord”), and we can infer from some of his other letters that he was not the one who was personally writing them as well (cf. Galatians 6:11). IMHO it is reasonable to assume that maybe the other NT authors also have had scribes handy: there is in fact a tradition that the apostle St. John had one (St. Prochorus, identified with the Prochorus in Acts 6:5).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patrick457]

Exactly. Limiting myself to (a small fraction of) the current generation of New Testament/‘historical Jesus’/Christian origins scholars:

Marcus Borg = Episcopalian (raised Lutheran)
Robert M. Price = ‘Christian atheist’ (former Baptist)
John Dominic Crossan = Catholic (former priest)
John Shelby Spong = Episcopalian
Bart Ehrman = Agnostic (former Evangelical)
E.P. (Ed) Sanders = Methodist
Geza Vermes = Jewish (revert; briefly Catholic)
Burton L. Mack = Methodist
Helmut Koester = Lutheran
James Dunn = Methodist
Raymond E. Brown = Catholic
John P. Meier = Catholic
Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. = Catholic
F. Dale Bruner = Presbyterian
Bruce M. Metzger = Presbyterian
Bruce Chilton = Episcopalian/Anglican
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P. = Catholic
Benedict T. Viviano, O.P. = Catholic
Craig Blomberg = Evangelical
N.T. (Tom) Wright = Anglican
Richard Bauckham = Anglican
Bernard Orchard, O.S.B. = Catholic
R.T. France = Anglican
Luke Timothy Johnson = Catholic
Edwin M. Yamauchi = Evangelical
Ben Witherington III = Methodist
F.F. Bruce = Evangelical
William Lane Craig = Evangelical
Michael R. Licona = Evangelical
Gary Habermas = Evangelical

Not all are in ‘liberal’ side of the spectum (God forbid someone call Dom Bernard or Gary Habermas or Tom Wright that! ).

 

[patrick457]

historical-critial is probably, no it *is *the weakest of the three forms that I know that are used (Theological, Historical and Literary) not much has been hammered out conclusively re historical critical other than Matt and Luke used some material from Mark.

Before I go…
Thanks! I’m really glad you reminded us of this.

 

[steve53]

Steve53, come come. You 'gave up reading them"? Really? Name the scholars you have read, please. And while you’re at it, the arguments you found “a waste of time” /

I double dog dare you. I triple dog dare you.

And may God grant you miracles and light, Annem

OK. Give me a name. Or, give me a name of someone whose book I can download and I will read it and give you my thoughts. Or send me a PDF of it.

 

[minichibi]

OK. Give me a name. Or, give me a name of someone whose book I can download and I will read it and give you my thoughts. Or send me a PDF of it.

That’s not fair… s/he asked you first what scholers you have read that made you give them up…
I don’t want to be mean, but I think in all honesty you overestimate Hagan too much that you closed your mind to other possibilities.

 

[steve53]

Hagan uses the sources as a historian should. And even then admits it is all speculative.

I’ve been down this road. Read a famous “historical Jesus” guy and it is usually bunk.

You cannot make more accurate conclusions than the sources merit.

10 divided by 3 is not 3.33333333333333333333333.

It is 3.4

Suggest someone. I am not taking the bait.

 

[annem]

Steve53: Hagan uses the sources as a historian should. And even then admits it is all speculative.

I’ve been down this road. Read a famous “historical Jesus” guy and it is usually bunk.

You cannot make more accurate conclusions than the sources merit.

Hi, sorry I am late getting back to this. What is it about Hagan’s arguments you find so valuable?

I am pretty familiar with all current biblical scholars. The arguments about a
‘historical Jesus’ have, in many ways, fallen apart, don’t you think? The hunt by Bultmann and the rest to find the true historical Jesus hidden behind layers of religion has hardly resulted in anything other than the refutation of the arguments of Bultmann and all the others.

Long, long ago Albert Schwitzer famously announced that the hunt for the historical Jesus had resulted in nothing other than liberal scholars staring into a mirror and proclaiming what they saw as Jesus. It was an excellent insight.

Bultmann was influenced by being close friends with Heidegger. Heidegger= Existentialism and Bultmannn–shocker–discovered the historical Existential Jesus.

Then came the era of the hippies and fallen away now atheist Dom Crossan announced he had, at last found the historical Jesus! And he was a hippie! And after that the feminist Jesus. And then the New Age Jesus.

Yes, it was all that stupid. Really. I am not making it up.

So, please explain what authors you have read and why you find their arguments correct.

Or, if you want, I can list some general books on the subject of biblical scholarship.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

 

[patrick457]

Alright, I am going to eat my words (just goes to show how much - or rather less - you can trust me; in other words, don’t trust me ) and post a few further comments for a moment.

Hi, sorry I am late getting back to this. What is it about Hagan’s arguments you find so valuable?

I am pretty familiar with all current biblical scholars. The arguments about a
‘historical Jesus’ have, in many ways, fallen apart, don’t you think? The hunt by Bultmann and the rest to find the true historical Jesus hidden behind layers of religion has hardly resulted in anything other than the refutation of the arguments of Bultmann and all the others.

Long, long ago Albert Schwitzer famously announced that the hunt for the historical Jesus had resulted in nothing other than liberal scholars staring into a mirror and proclaiming what they saw as Jesus. It was an excellent insight.

The ironic thing is, Bultmann is actually a representative the period of the “no quest.” Schweitzer’s critiques were so effective that it really delivered the final blow to the two-century-old attempt to discover a historical Jesus who conformed to the tenets of Enlightenment-era rationalism. In fact, Bultmann did not believe that the ‘historical Jesus’ was something recoverable at all and chose to downplay history in favor of faith.

Then came the era of the hippies and fallen away now atheist Dom Crossan announced he had, at last found the historical Jesus! And he was a hippie! And after that the feminist Jesus. And then the New Age Jesus.

I don’t think Crossan is formally an atheist. He’s a former priest (he retired his priesthood in 1969 in order to marry and for more academic freedom, or so he claims), sure, and he may seem to act and talk like one, but I think he’s still Catholic (nominally?), albeit one that many people (especially most of us here in CAF) would find to be extremely liberal. But I understand why people would think this: heck, I was shocked when I found out his colleague Marcus Borg is an active Episcopalian (he’s currently the first canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral)!

In fact, as I believe I mentioned earlier, the only ones I’m aware of who explicitly identify themselves as ‘atheist’ are Robert M. Price and the Japanese scholar Kenzo Tagawa, and even then, they apply to themselves the somewhat rather oxymoronic title of ‘Christian atheist’. (Tagawa, originally raised in a Protestant background, is very much more vocal about his de facto atheism - to the point that he says that true Christianity entails not believing in a God.)

 

[farpinho]

I believe that, unless archaeology finds something as utterly extraordinary as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we aren’t expected to get anything genuinely new in the light of the quest to a “historical Jesus”, whatever we can have are speculative creative hypothesis from “scholars” trying to decide what Jesus might have and have not said or done. The written sources we have from that time are scarce, and each tries to formulate different hypothesis to assemble them into an incomplete piece of puzzle. How do people “reconstruct” History if History itself is a 1,000 pieces puzzle, from which we have only 10 or so pieces?
In the end, the reconstruction of historical facts many times is much more influenced by hypothesis than facts, and the “Historical Jesus” is one of them, since the “secular” sources are scarce and the “non-secular” are overwhelming.
I’ll prefer to stick to the authenticity of the pauline/apostolic epistles and early date of Luke/Apostles (60s) until indisputably proven otherwise.

 

[patrick457]

I believe that, unless archaeology finds something as utterly extraordinary as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we aren’t expected to get anything genuinely new in the light of the quest to a “historical Jesus”, whatever we can have are speculative creative hypothesis from “scholars” trying to decide what Jesus might have and have not said or done. The written sources we have from that time are scarce, and each tries to formulate different hypothesis to assemble them into an incomplete piece of puzzle. How do people “reconstruct” History if History itself is a 1,000 pieces puzzle, from which we have only 10 or so pieces?
In the end, the reconstruction of historical facts many times is much more influenced by hypothesis than facts, and the “Historical Jesus” is one of them, since the “secular” sources are scarce and the “non-secular” are overwhelming.
I’ll prefer to stick to the authenticity of the pauline/apostolic epistles and early date of Luke/Apostles (60s) until indisputably proven otherwise.

Personally, I’m not as pessimistic. While I do agree that historical Jesus studies are still far from satisfactory, the good thing about the current quest (the so-called ‘third quest’) is that it brought us a better awareness of Jesus’ original context: the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. Whereas the previous quests were characterized by looking for the discontinuity that Jesus might have had with Judaism, early Christianity, and human culture, third-quest scholars are now seeking the opposite: continuities. I think this in itself is a step forward. You can say that the third quest does not focus so much on Jesus Himself (as the earlier quests have done), but rather on His social environment: while in earlier studies, the time and culture where Jesus lived only served as a backdrop where you can throw the person of Jesus in, current studies are focusing more on studying precisely those same things. You first study the context, and only then investigate how Jesus fits in all that.

 

[steve53]

Hi, sorry I am late getting back to this. What is it about Hagan’s arguments you find so valuable?

I am pretty familiar with all current biblical scholars. The arguments about a
‘historical Jesus’ have, in many ways, fallen apart, don’t you think? The hunt by Bultmann and the rest to find the true historical Jesus hidden behind layers of religion has hardly resulted in anything other than the refutation of the arguments of Bultmann and all the others.

Long, long ago Albert Schwitzer famously announced that the hunt for the historical Jesus had resulted in nothing other than liberal scholars staring into a mirror and proclaiming what they saw as Jesus. It was an excellent insight.

Bultmann was influenced by being close friends with Heidegger. Heidegger= Existentialism and Bultmannn–shocker–discovered the historical Existential Jesus.

Then came the era of the hippies and fallen away now atheist Dom Crossan announced he had, at last found the historical Jesus! And he was a hippie! And after that the feminist Jesus. And then the New Age Jesus.

Yes, it was all that stupid. Really. I am not making it up.

So, please explain what authors you have read and why you find their arguments correct.

Or, if you want, I can list some general books on the subject of biblical scholarship.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

Hagan sets up the Roman and Jewish history first, a timeline, then fits in the Canon, and uses Eusebius to get a better perspective on Jesus and the early church.
He concludes that Josephus has been unjustly discounted as a source for political reasons, and finds that the Jewish High Priesthood was behind all of the early Christian persecutions all the way through to Nero.
He does not claim to be religious.

 

[steve53]

As far as the historical Jesus goes, Hagan makes no claims. But he presents a range of scenarios. You can go on one extreme to a divinely inspired Essene and maybe the son of god, to the other extreme of Jesus being an opportunistic Zealot who got fatally caught up in his own delusions. Or in between somewhere.

 

[annem]

Patrick457 I don’t think Crossan is formally an atheist. He’s a former priest (he retired his priesthood in 1969 in order to marry and for more academic freedom, or so he claims), sure, and he may seem to act and talk like one, but I think he’s still Catholic (nominally?)

Sorry, but on this one, I have to disagree. Crossan says dogs ate the body after the crucifixion and that there was no resurrection. Pretty hard to be a Catholic without believing in the risen Christ or that Christ was God.

Also, I find him a deliberately malicious person. He appears on TV show after TV show, usually on the History Channel but other places as well, sigh, and calls himself, in his sweet Irish lilt, a “Christian”, just before he goes on to try and destroy the belief of any Christians. What Crossan means by calling himself a “Christian” is that the Cynic/hippie/revolutionary Jesus he found just wanted the Romans to stop being mean to the Jews and the poor in general.

Personally, I would call him not only an atheist but also a liar and someone who is trying to harm Christianity.

Bultmann, on the other hand, was a believer. But a dimwitted one, who kept saying that, no, one didn’t need to actually believe all that nonsense about miracles. I find Bultmann
s arguments sadly lacking in logic.

As for those who are modern scholars, what do you think of the diversity Jesus of Ehrman and Pagels? Pagels I find a nitwit-she gushes on about her feelings in the silliest way=, but Ehrman is something else entirely. He is a passionate and angry man, who detests Christianity to the core of him. And he is perfectly willing to lie.

Yeah, that’s how badly I see them. What about you?

May God bless you and fill your life with miracles, Anne m

 

[annem]

Patrick457 Robert M. Price and the Japanese scholar Kenzo Tagawa,

I have never even heard of Tagawa, so I will have to pick up a book by him. Price I have read. He is the only person I know of with any real background in biblical studies who believes Jesus was a myth. Ehrman just wrote a book recently -the first polite book I have ever read by him- talking about how, yes, Jesus was a real person. So he went through all the Jesus-was-a-myth books and was politely but highly critical of them.

May God bless you utterly and send you mircles, Anne m

 

[annem]

Steve53 finds that the Jewish High Priesthood was behind all of the early Christian persecutions all the way through to Nero.

Hi, thanks for replying.

So why does Hagan think the Jewish High Priesthood was angry with the earliest Christian Catholics? Because they were proclaiming Jesus was God?

May God flood you with joy and light and miracles, Anne m

 

[steve53]

Hi, thanks for replying.

So why does Hagan think the Jewish High Priesthood was angry with the earliest Christian Catholics? Because they were proclaiming Jesus was God?

May God flood you with joy and light and miracles, Anne m

Wow.

Big subject.

The High Priesthood ran the Second Temple, and became rich off the festivals. Plus, they had the backing of the Romans, and ruled Judea. So Jesus was upsetting their sweet theocratic set-up.

He had to go, and all of his followers.

Money and politics. Same old story.

 

[annem]

Steve53 The High Priesthood ran the Second Temple, and became rich off the festivals. Plus, they had the backing of the Romans, and ruled Judea. So Jesus was upsetting their sweet theocratic set-up.

He had to go, and all of his followers.

Money and politics. Same old story.

Steve, sorry, but money doesn’t really seem to have been central to Second Temple Jews, the priestly caste included. By the mid 60s a goodly number of them were giving up their lives in a gallant but utterly idiotic war against the chief power of the time, the Evil Romans, and they ended up starved to death, crucified, or roasted alive for their efforts.

The temple priests were also hardly a group with a firm grasp on power; they were forever being tossed out.

And the Romans put “King of the Jews” on the cross, indicating they thought of Jesus as a clear threat from the line of David. The other clear mention of the line of David and Jesus was the fact that Domitian had all Jesus’ family dragged to Rome to be examined. The poor dim soul had them released right away, after seeing that they had the calloused hands of poor.

May God flood you with light and miracles, Anne m

 

[patrick457]

Sorry, but on this one, I have to disagree. Crossan says dogs ate the body after the crucifixion and that there was no resurrection. Pretty hard to be a Catholic without believing in the risen Christ or that Christ was God.

Also, I find him a deliberately malicious person. He appears on TV show after TV show, usually on the History Channel but other places as well, sigh, and calls himself, in his sweet Irish lilt, a “Christian”, just before he goes on to try and destroy the belief of any Christians. What Crossan means by calling himself a “Christian” is that the Cynic/hippie/revolutionary Jesus he found just wanted the Romans to stop being mean to the Jews and the poor in general.

Personally, I would call him not only an atheist but also a liar and someone who is trying to harm Christianity.

Well, given how the word ‘Christian’ and ‘Catholic’ could pretty much mean anything these days (like many other labels) I’m not surprised. I mean, look at all those ‘Catholic’ politicians who are Catholic in name only.

As for those who are modern scholars, what do you think of the diversity Jesus of Ehrman and Pagels? Pagels I find a nitwit-she gushes on about her feelings in the silliest way=, but Ehrman is something else entirely. He is a passionate and angry man, who detests Christianity to the core of him. And he is perfectly willing to lie.

Yeah, that’s how badly I see them. What about you?

May God bless you and fill your life with miracles, Anne m

I haven’t read Elaine Pagels yet. As for Ehrman, he stands in the other camp opposite Crossan. Crossan and some others (such as Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack - all of whom are fellows of the Jesus Seminar) envision Jesus as being more of a wandering, peasant wisdom teacher who had a radical, social justice-oriented program for the dregs and outcasts of society a la Gandhi. This egalitarian program is what they think Jesus meant when He talked about “the kingdom of God.” On the other hand, Ehrman’s view is of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (a view originally expressed by Albert Schweitzer), in agreement with people like Ed Sanders, Gerd Theissen, Paula Frederiksen, Geza Vermes, and Fr. John Meier. These scholars interpret Jesus’ message about “the kingdom of God” as an imminent, cataclysmic divine intervention in human affairs, in line with Jewish apocalyptic thinking, with Jesus seeing Himself as its harbinger. This difference between this view and that of Crossan et al.'s idea is that the latter do not see Jesus as being “apocalyptic” in any way (Crossan allows for the possibility that Jesus held such views at an early stage, but he holds the idea that Jesus was non-apocalyptic during His ministry proper).

Now I don’t find Ehrman to be very exceptional. As I’ve said in another place, “I know that some people out there give much hype to Ehrman’s works (including, seemingly, Ehrman himself), but his ideas are hardly original or groundbreaking: if you’ve ever hung around New Testament / historical Jesus / Christian origins academia you’ll find that Ehrman is mainly just rehashing certain ideas that others have already been talking about in journals and scholarly works.” And that’s what probably I dislike about Ehrman: all that hype. He may have exposed a wider audience to these already long-standing ideas (that is something I think one should value in a scholar: the ability to express one’s views into terms that the average joe could understand), but he’s hardly brought anything new to the table. Seriously, I only think that the reason why Ehrman is apparently so into it himself is because he once adhered to a strict, literalist kind of Fundamentalism.

I have never even heard of Tagawa, so I will have to pick up a book by him.

I doubt that you will find a book by Tagawa that’s been written/translated into English. AFAIK Tagawa is more of a local figure, and so his books are only available in Japanese. His scholarly thesis written in 1964 and published in 1966 is AFAIK the only work that’s written in a foreign language, and even then it’s in French (Miracles et Evangile: la Pensée personelle de l’évangéliste Marc).

 

[steve53]

Hagan uses the sources as a historian should. And even then admits it is all speculative.

I’ve been down this road. Read a famous “historical Jesus” guy and it is usually bunk.

You cannot make more accurate conclusions than the sources merit.

10 divided by 3 is not 3.33333333333333333333333.

It is 3.4

Suggest someone. I am not taking the bait.

Actually, it is 3.3, not 3.4

I intentionally made that mistake to see if someone here would pick up on it.

I thought at least Patrick would!