Are you smarter than the experts?

[historia]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

[TRANSPONDER]

I know. But I can't help it. When I started on this (by an accident of being challenged to 'really read the Bible', comparison was the method I started with to eliminate the 'errors' and get to the real story. And was stonished to find how little was left. I was even more astonished to find that the experts on either side seemed to never look at or care about this. The Biblical experts relied on faith and dug deep research to confirm their faith and the Bible skeptic experts seemed to come with a 'real Jesus' theory and cherry pick interpreted Gospel passages to support their theory.

I have occasionally come across some experts who saw this or that - Jesus is Barrabbas. The Tombs cannot be in the city and of course the hosannah procession was at Sukkhot, not Passover. I've learned a lot, too. Paul was the first Christian, Herod died in 4 BC not 3 or later, Nazareth may not have existed and Mark never had a resurrection sighting. some realised that the gospels used the Septuagint, but went for 'shows it's all nonsense' rather than integrate it into a total explanation. Someone else saw that John denies the Bethlehem birth. But there seems no integrated total overview of the Gospels, just odd quibbles and doubts. And yet the whole thing fits very well.

Q document is like an old discarded theory, and yet the evidence that there was one is plain as a pikestaff. What's more I never saw anyone note that Mark and Matthew have a 'Q', of their own dismissed as the 'great omission' by the Bible experts (as though Luke saw it and couldn't be bothered) and none of the experts care.

I would love nothing better than for the experts to get their act together and take this over, but since none of them do, I just have to push on my own and hope the ideas get out there to be tested by the experts.

Now, this general theory of Gospel redaction I'm pretty sure of, but the Special theory or Pet theory (of the rebel messiah Jesus who is Barrabbas, and was fought with his followers by Pilate in the temple (Luke 13.1) I would hardly dare to say is true and the faked miracles and plot to save Jesus is material for a detective novel, But to heck with false modesty. This General theory works, makes predictions that consistently pan out and can't just be coincidence or my preferences. If the Experts haven't twigged this yet (and i haven't seen it in forty years folks (1) what can I do but think that the Experts haven't got a clue yet?. I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant but this is true, and it looks like the authorities haven't seen it. Not in 100 years of Bible study.

(1) call me methuselah.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

Well after my personal apologia, your questions.

1 everyone is open to question, even the experts. And you know one thing I've learned in debating religion is that Experts are trotted out as Authorities and it may be in a related field but may not be the actual field. That's aside from some who are experts in the field but sideline it in favour of faith. There are a couple of creationists who write perfectly good science papers but dismiss the science of their field when doing Creationism.
Bottom line, Experts carry weight but they are not beyond question.

2 And yes that applies to the gospel, too. I need hardly refer to those Bible experts who insist that Mark was written by AD 50. From what I can tell, Bible critics are willing to take Mark as the original for Matthew and Luke and perhaps even 50 A.D. But it can't be because it also had additional elements not found in Matthew or Luke who are supposed to have used Mark. And they either haven't noticed this, ignored it or excused with with the 'fatigue' excuse. which does not work. Not for both Matthew AND Luke. This is so obvious that you say 'Expert opinion', and I'm inclined to say 'Oh yeah?' This is not hard (though it took me several decades before someone explained it to me) and aside from doubts of prophecy being real, one has to place not only Mark after the Jewish war, not only the unedited synoptic original, but the original with the Matthew and Mark material copied in (Q -document style) but not used (any of it) by Luke, with Mark adding extras into his version. We are looking at a sight later than 50 AD, folks.

3. Testing. Verification, prediction and panning out. For example, Q material. Luke uses only half the material that Matthew uses in the sermon. Where is the rest of it? Well it is found along the road from Galilee to Peraea from the Lord's prayer before they set out (Luke 11.1) to the jot and tittle of the law (Luke 17,17) and verily, I say unto you, if you seek the parts of the sermon that were lost, in the trip to Jerusalem, you will find them, and I would predict in the same order, too.

And many other things they do. Luke uses familiar points in different places like divorce Law and I recall eternal life. Which I think Matthew puts in the Temple wrangles. So that looks like "Q" as well and I'd predict you would find them in different places (the 'Jesus said the same thing twice' excuse wears very thin) if they are not in Mark, If they are in Mark (as original material) one ought to find them in the same place in the gospel, give or take additional and shifted material (1). This is the case with the salt and lamp analogies which are in the same place in Mark and Luke, but Matthew shifts them to his sermon, but they are not "Q". material.

There are some oddities of Mark and Luke having common material not in Matthew, which shouldn't happen. That's a bit of a problem but once or twice could be that he didn't like it. But there are problems that could floor the whole system. I need it tested.

(1) Luke's calling of disciples is in a different place, as is his rejection at Nazareth.

[Willum]

I posted a similar, if more pugnacious subject, where I stated if their opinion about god was better than the church’s, the Bible, etc., how could they know?

It seemed to me, if one’s own interpretation is better than all others’, then they must be making it up…

[theophile]

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

Maybe the obvious (if oversimplified) answer is the Swiss patent clerk who blew up scholarly consensus on classical mechanics.

But that's a rare thing, so the rest of us should probably defer to expert consensus when and where it exists.

[historia]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

I'm having a hard time following your arguments here, TRANSPONDER.

It might be useful if you could briefly summarize your "take on the gospels" so we can have that as background knowledge to your comments.

(I don't mean for this thread to be just about your "take" or even just about the gospels, since the questions posed in the OP are much broader. But it seems to me your views here are a useful example of the phenomenon I want to discuss, so, if you are willing, it's worth exploring your theory a little, I think.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #1

Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

No. Ever see how far off economists and political pundits have been? Medical experts once believed in curing certain illnesses by removing bad blood from the body with leeches. As for the Bible, experts may tell us when a book was written or by whom but when we find texts on the same subject and their assertions are in clear mutual opposition, it's hardly necessary for an expert to weigh in and tell us that something is amiss.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we should never defer to experts. When we see expert advice working, that's a pretty good indication that the expert is worthy of trust.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

I'm having a hard time following your arguments here, TRANSPONDER.

It might be useful if you could briefly summarize your "take on the gospels" so we can have that as background knowledge to your comments.

(I don't mean for this thread to be just about your "take" or even just about the gospels, since the questions posed in the OP are much broader. But it seems to me your views here are a useful example of the phenomenon I want to discuss, so, if you are willing, it's worth exploring your theory a little, I think.)

Sure. But it may not be so brief. I did touch on the process above, I believe. The was an original Jesus story. Maybe just a messianic Jewish idea that became a myth and mixed up with the trauma of the Jewish war and the many crucifixions that were dished out then and before. But I suspect there was a real Jesus who was a Pharisee zealot and tried to bring about the messianic event which restored the rule of God and did away with Roman rule.

Whichever it was, Paul took the idea (that he originally opposed) and adapted it to suit gentiles by dropping the Mosaic laws. His Christians took his ideas further, such as turning a man -messiah into a demi - god, and turning his dispute with the observing Jews into real antipathy (plus blaming the Roman crucifixion on the Jews). The original of the synoptics post - dated the Jewish war as predictions of the temple destruction were part of the story, together with promises of Jesus returning and bringing about the Last Days. Then the different writers produced their own version with their own additions.

This is where the method of contradictions indicating separate editing comes in. The two nativities cannot both be true and neither actually work. That point made, the resurrections are almost as bad. My case is, that if it was based on a common story, they wouldn't contradict so totally. Additionally, Mark not having one, gives the game away. He only has the empty tomb claim plus the angel explaining everything, which John contradicts.

From there the whole Gospel - material falls apart with contradiction after contradiction, and the only answer the Bible apologists have is to excuse, deny or ignore.

[JehovahsWitness]

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

Absolutely not! Everyone has the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what to believe ; this cannot be delegated. If "experts" make a good enough case, then the choice will be easy.

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

See above


3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

If the evidence is non-conclusive (which, in my opinion, it usually is) and or cannot be harmonised with that which is proven to be true.

NOTE: The Christian religion was started by a "non-expert" challenging the establishment. If the present pandemic has taught us anything, it is to "question the science" and "challenge the experts!"

That said there is a difference between going against the grain and unfounded claims based on nothing but wild speculation and confirmation bais.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to historia in post #1

Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

No. Ever see how far off economists and political pundits have been? Medical experts once believed in curing certain illnesses by removing bad blood from the body with leeches. As for the Bible, experts may tell us when a book was written or by whom but when we find texts on the same subject and their assertions are in clear mutual opposition, it's hardly necessary for an expert to weigh in and tell us that something is amiss.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we should never defer to experts. When we see expert advice working, that's a pretty good indication that the expert is worthy of trust.

This is one of those semi points that are valid, but can be overdone. We ideally would like to have the Authorities discover the truth, put it in the books and nobody ever rewrites them. Unfortunately we have ongoing debate and the recurring clickbait headline 'Shock Discovery rewrites the history books'. This is easy to manipulate by those who want to debunk any expert they don't agree with. It's also a misrepresentation of Authority by Bible believers who have their heads filled with Dogma - but has to be the right kind. Thus they twit 'science' as always changing its' mind/getting things wrong. They think if it was worth anything it should be unchanging Dogma like the Bible. They do not understand that science always arguing things out avoids the mistakes of Dogma. On the other hand they attack science for being Dogma (a religion - sciencism), but Dogma is good, isn't it? But only if it's the right kind. Thus the religious bring Bible -study thinking to the debate, and it's messed up from the start.