Objectivity and the Quests for the Historical Jesus
Posted on: March 20, 2008 - 8:19am
Offline
Objectivity and the Quests for the Historical Jesus
The 'results' of the quests for the historical Jesus was that the 'Jesus' each scholar ended up with did not seem to be objective, but rather reflected the beliefs and agendas of each respective scholar.
What support do you give to distinguish yourself from the rest of these scholars as uniquely objective, and untainted by your atheological predilections? Is it not a bit ironic that you--a person dedicated to the propagation of belief in the non-existence of God--assert the position that this "historical Jesus" never existed?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Which "you" are you addressing? The majority here are Jesus mythicists but not all of us are.
As far as I know, there were hundreds of guys named Jesus running around at that time (Yeshua was as common of a name as John is in America). Were some of them tricksters who performed "miracles" and claimed Messiah-ship? Sure. Again, this was a popular occupation.
Were any of them the son of Yahweh as claimed in the Bible? No, that's a myth.
"You" meaning particularly Rook.
And I'm talking about the allegedly historical individual named Jesus of whom the Gospel writers speak--the same "historical Jesus" that the "quests" have been aiming for--not Jesus son of Bubba Joe and Nadine or any other person named "Jesus." I assumed that much was obvious.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
That Jesus was a character created to drive the plot of the Gospels and put a human face on the Christ construct Paul created approximately two decades earlier.
If he was a historical figure and the guy who wrote the gospel knew him (were eyewitnesses), why wait 40 years to write things down? Why wait twenty years after Paul constructed his theology?
Thanks for the responses.
I'd rather not get distracted by that before I get my own question answered. My concern is that Rook (and others) have pointed to the ineptitude of the quests for the historical Jesus because these "Jesuses" just reflect the scholars constructing this Jesus. My question is how does the "Mythisist" scholars distinguish themselves and their non-Jesus as truly objective, and unbiased vis a vis the other historical Jesus scholars.
An even more interesting question, I think, is the question: is it even possible to achieve an "objective" picture of history?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
I'm not sure if it is possible to get an objective picture of anything that humans do because I doubt that it is possible for any human to be truly objective.
I do think that people can greatly reduce the effects of their biases on their research if they work at it. I also think that holding the Christian (or Jewsh, or Muslim, etc.) faith is a strong bias that needs to be overcome.
Most of us are ex christians of one sort or another, we were brought up believing in the christian god, jesus, moses etc. Our atheism simply meant we could research jesus' life without the theistic goggles, we could look at things objectively which allowed note to be taken of the contemporary and non biblical sources (of which there are none). Most of us started this research under the belief there was a real jesus and were only expecting to find him as being more of a normal person, not so special. Finding objectively that there's more evidence to suggest a lack of existance was unexpected.
pm9347 is the Lord my God, I shall have no other gods before him.
jcgadfly wrote: I'm not sure if it is possible to get an objective picture of anything that humans do because I doubt that it is possible for any human to be truly objective.
I do think that people can greatly reduce the effects of their biases on their research if they work at it. I also think that holding the Christian (or Jewsh, or Muslim, etc.) faith is a strong bias that needs to be overcome.
I would pretty much agree with all of your thoughts here, except for the last.
I suppose that is part of my question: What constitutes a bias that should be overcome? and which biased person gets to decide what we should overcome? If true objectivity is not achievable, how do you objectively determine what objectivity looks like? How do you find that location of objectivity to which we should be moving as close as possible? Would not that ideal of objectivity inevitably be muddied by your own biases?
EDIT: Quote added
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Thanks for the response. I really can understand why such a process might lead you to believe that your conclusion was objective. Thing is, I think we always wear goggles of some kind, whether we realize it or not. To take off theistic goggles just means another pair of goggles takes its place--in this case, atheism. The supposition "God is not there" could very easily and naturally lead to the bias of thinking "Jesus was not there"--especially with a person coming from a Christian background or social context in which Jesus is considered to be God.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
When you believe in the existence of something, you are more likely to steer your research towards what supports your conclusion. If you want to get closer to an objective view, all of the available information must be considered.
In the case of a historical Jesus, the christian faith might lead the researcher from working from conclusion to evidence instead of the other way round.
Atheism is just the lack of theism, though. It is the lack of the theistic goggles. Say you have two people doing research on Abraham Lincoln and what kind of person he was outside of the public eye. Would you think a person who already knows about Mr Lincoln and adores him would be more subjective, or a person from another country who has never heard of Mr Lincoln before would be more subjective?
The second person doesn't have anti Lincoln goggles on, he simply doesn't have the pro Lincoln goggles of the first person.
pm9347 is the Lord my God, I shall have no other gods before him.
See, but the thing is, you aren't just taking off God-goggles and seeing objectively. In fact the ethos of this site is one quite belligerent to the idea of God. As such, you are not really seeing with naked eyes sans God-goggles, but are looking through anti-God goggles.
When you have already made up your mind that there is no God, that makes a rather forceful impact on the way you read the putative biographies of Jesus. You are not looking without bias at all. You are automatically rejecting every miracle and supernatural event, as well as every reference made to God, as being without any kind of substance or ontological truth. That is quite a few exits past being truly "objective", wouldn't you say?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
First, a conclusion of no credible evidence for god is not the same as.."there is no god"..
Second...,does objectivity begin with...There is no god but mine ?
That is the mantra of nearly every theist on the planet. That would include "rejecting every miracle, supernatural event and substance of ontological truth" of "god" just so long as it wasn't performed or stated by my god.
How about we apply the same skepticism to everyone's god, that we apply to anything else in the natural world and stop allowing our own ego to pretend that we have or can have some special insight into that which is supernatural.
How's that for objectivity ?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
That's kinda my point: no one can speak truly objectively--not me, not you, not anyone.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
I'm not? Prove it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that looking at the evidence and only at the evidence, in a rational manner, is belligerent to the idea of god?
Show me where I made up my mind that there is no god.
Miracles and supernatural events have no evidence. I am only accepting that which has evidence. Any scientific study that is done without evidence would be thrown out. Any trial that convicted someone of a crime without evidence would be retried due to be a mistrial. Any historian who wrote on history without any evidence for what he writes would be laughed at. So why then should I include events that have no evidence of even being possible, let alone events that do have evidence that are possible but have no contemporary third party evidence but rather have conflicting contemporary third party evidence? What you're suggesting or requesting is quite a few exits prior to being remotely "objective", let alone truly objective, wouldn't you say?
But it's better to get off 1 stop too late than 10 stops too early as you're begging us to do.
pm9347 is the Lord my God, I shall have no other gods before him.
The ancient J is me as you, Christ in me/you .... what is there to prove ? ME ? GOD ?
I AM JESUS/GOD , ONE with the father/mother cosmos, AS YOU. ZERO Separation ......
If you ain't Jesus , what are you ? ummm oh yes , an Idol worshiper or a hater ..... that is a sin , that is religion ......
All is ONE ..... most still don't fucking get it , SO .... put love on the enemy of "separation dogma thinkers", to heal them, the blind God of Abe thinkers, of Devil shit.
What da ya think, A team, another 2000 yrs ????? shezzzz ????? ..... ummm, another 100 WARS ?
The religious are the godless ....................... there is god , then there is god .....
..... what a fucking mess , what to do with this G O D w o r d ???
One cannot of course exclude from bias these same biographies that clearly have the purpose in mind to spread the belief in the Jesus cult. One has to consider the writers of these biographies used the examples of miracles to suitably impress persons that might eventually read them. The same consideration of bias by the wrirer should exist when considering any of the gospel biograhies as well as Philostratus the author of "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" another miracle worker healer in 1st century Palestine.
As you yourself wrote:
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
You are right that we should consider other ancient biographies. As far as I see it, it seems to be the case that even the gospel writers themselves did not seem to be under the illusion that they were giving an entirely objective-literal-factual account of Jesus' life. Papias, in his first century "fragments" for example, noted that Mark was not attempting to provide a "chronological" account of Jesus' life.
In fact from what I understand (according to Richard Burridge in Four Gospels, One Jesus), most ancient Greco-Roman biographies look very much like what we see in the Gospels, and it was not unusual for the biographer to interpolate events in the story of the person in order to better communicate the character of the individual. Biographies back then were apparently not the same kind of effort that modern biographies are: they are not chronological, absolutely factual accounts, but are instead efforts to catch the personality and "Truth" behind the person they are speaking of. We see in his preface that Luke was aware that other biographies had been written; indeed it looks as though he had access to at least Mark and Q, perhaps even Matthew; yet he does not dismiss these as "false", or even "inferior" to his own. As such, it didn't seem to be a problem for the purposes of these ancient minds that their biographies "contradicted" in the sense that we think of "contradiction".
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
What criteria would you suggest for distinguishing between an ancient biography of an actual historical figure albeit with inaccuracies and contradictions, and a confabulation of a figure who never existed?
Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene!
Yeah , if the Xians could prove J was one real dude that would prove god of abe is real and the bible is his book ..... wow god, drop to your knees ......
What a waste of time religion is ...... except for fucking killing it ....... I AM JESUS as you, get it ?????
The best answer to your question is really to have you read my articles on the subject. However, your concern is right and you should always fact-check me and others on our positions and come to your own conclusions. I would like to note, though, that I am not influenced by dogmatic Christian thinking the same way a Christian scholar like Crossan, Borg or Wright might be. I am also not "fashioning" a historical Jesus, so my personal life does not affect my understanding of the literature of the Gos. Mark and other early Christians. I am reading it, so to speak, without the "Gospel colored glasses" that many of my colleagues do. For a good understanding of this process, I highly recommend The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos.
The best to you,
Rook
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Thanks for the response, Rook.
Certainly I'd agree that you're not wearing "Gospel according to Jesus Christ Glasses" when you look at the historical Jesus. My concern is that, instead, you are wearing "Good news according to Atheism and the falseness of Christianity glasses", because you are obviously tremendously concerned with the propogation of atheism and "Jesus Mythisism".
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
My atheism does not rise or fall with the existence of Jesus, however. I wasn't always a mythicist but became one in my quest to find the historical Jesus. I am simply not convinced by the arguments of historical Jesus scholars, who generally succumb to a fallacy of equivocation. I suggest reading my article on the historical Jesus quest, and also my introduction to my book, to give some more substance to my position. I would still recommend you fact check my conclusions, especially if you feel that I am susceptible to bias.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Rook will tell you they were writing fiction, see his reference. Exactly what Mark was trying to do clearly it wasn't a chronological account.
You seem to be wearing the glasses that say "some of this must be true". As to what part that would be is the question. How could you ever tell? The Gospels are such that you can picture a historical Jesus anyway you'd like. If as you say the authors took liberties and enhanced the stories, what did they add? What was there in the first place? Consider what you just said above. If the account was not absolutely factual, what was added? All of the enhanced miracles maybe? As healers seemed to be found everywhere at the time, wouldn't a Jesus as a healer be extremely attractive to the people in a story about him. Say, he was a real person, and many had heard him speak wise sayings. They may have been impressed with him. If stories are told how he walked on water, drove evil spirits into filthy pigs it would no doubt fit the pattern they knew. Plus stretching the truth some seemed to be the norm as you say.
If as Rook says the Gospels are fiction, then it wouldn't matter if they contradicted one another would it? It could be variations in the stories like Robin Hood. Why would one author complain that he was telling a false story if the whole thing was not true?
The real problem is what has been done with these accounts. People take part of Mark, mix it with Luke and add Matthew. Stir in a little John for extra taste. What do you get? Mainstream Christianity. All of the differences and impossibilities are just accepted as real and true.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Ok, will do Rook. Thanks for the links. How would you prefer I interact with you after I have read them?
Are you familiar with Richard Burridge's analysis of the genre of the Gospels in Four Gospels, One Jesus? I'm curious to hear what your criticism of his theory would be.
Also, I'm curious as to whether or not in your studies you have read Wright's New Testament and the People of God?
Take care.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
big J philosophy said, I AM ONE with the thingy , geeezz wow really ..... da .....
That is not a profound statement, except for the superstitious ancient times it was said,
But for their reasons, we/they rejected and perverted that simple "saving" message ..... so came more stupid greedy religion gov dogma crap ..... thanks to the likes of Paul thinking etc ...... and so the top dogs tried to destroy all the gnostic J books ..... and then and then and then and then and, ..... now we are here this moment ....... and still fucking stupid and twisted ...... We are gawed , we are on our own ..... ask the aliens ......
Wake up the Xains etc ------ >
< -------- 
and so for now I must call my self an ATHEIST, because i am god as you as is all thingy stuff ....... "no god before you / me ", another ancient said ..... well da ........
and boy , did that wisdom get twisted .......
I read the bible like this, no no no yes no no no yes no no no yes , the bible is mostly a lesson of our error ....... so fix it ...... thanks for the lesson ...... now smash god of abe to smithereens ...... as we are .......