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 don't really care, since (as I say) they all seemed to have missed or ignored what I base my take on.

Which is what, exactly? It's still not clear to me.

Consensus counts for something, but individuals can make discoveries that leave the consensus to catch up. Example, tectonic plate movement.

Again, let me note that the first question is not asking whether experts should always defer to the consensus of (other) experts. I think we would all agree that it is both important and necessary that experts challenge the prevailing consensus when they think it is deficient, since in some cases their research causes the consensus to change.

The first question instead asks if non-experts should always defer to the consensus of experts.

My particular take is that comparing the differences in the gospels can tell what has been altered or added and often, why. I mentioned that various commentators have noted some of the things, (e.g John refuted the Nativities, Barrabbas may be identical with Jesus) but I haven't seen an integrated overview of all 4 gospels.

I don't see a point in getting my opinion of how some expert consensus should deal with others. I'm just saying that I have seen or built up a method that seems to explain the problems and make predictions that pan out. I think it is sound, and experts, individually or consensus who disagree may do so, but I'm not bothered because I'm confident, and will continue to make my case.

[brunumb]

My particular take is that comparing the differences in the gospels can tell what has been altered or added and often, why.

Whatever was written down first and circulated must have generated responses from the audience at the time. Surely people would have asked questions concerning the details of the events being related to them. I'm wondering if later writers tried to ward off such questions by adding details to cover up deficiencies in the original stories. When these made the rounds new questions may have been generated prompting further interpolations. We seem to regard these stories as being written somewhat in a vacuum with no input apart from the authors working in isolation. Just a thought.

[TRANSPONDER]

My particular take is that comparing the differences in the gospels can tell what has been altered or added and often, why.

Whatever was written down first and circulated must have generated responses from the audience at the time. Surely people would have asked questions concerning the details of the events being related to them. I'm wondering if later writers tried to ward off such questions by adding details to cover up deficiencies in the original stories. When these made the rounds new questions may have been generated prompting further interpolations. We seem to regard these stories as being written somewhat in a vacuum with no input apart from the authors working in isolation. Just a thought.

Putting myself in their position, what would people know other than what was preached to them? Especially after the Jewish war and a few associate Jewish Gentiles who followed Jewish teaching, Roman citizens who looked down on Christians and those who had bought into this very compelling mix of Jewish Eschatology and Gentilized messianism. And I suspect it appealed to those not usually welcomed into the more snobby cults like Mithraism. I can see why the Christian cult spread like wildfire.

Now I don't know what was taught about the religion at any particular time, though I might guess.
c 50 AD effectively Jewish messianism, seen as subversive.
c 90 AD Gentilised messianism still with a Jesus that had gone to heaven and would be coming any day now, but with Judaism shown as the bad guys.
c 150 circulating stories of various kinds and a messiah looking more like a demigod
the 200's AD collated gospels with Paulinist ideas spoken by Jesus and an empty tomb as proof that Jesus had resurrected.
c 300 AD completing the gospels with a magical birth fulfilling prophecy and a solid body resurrection
mid 300's Josephus and Paul's letters leading 'Luke' to revise the gospels to remake the Apostolic mission a Pauline mission.

I may have extended the timelime to much but I see the stages of Christianity and the gospels as evolutionary, from the textural morphology. Like the pretty obvious later addition fo the gospels of the nativities and resurrection appearances because of a need to deal with these problems.

I might finally observe (not for the first time) that glaring errors and discrepancies have been effectively glossed over by Gospel - apologists for the last couple of hundred years. During my time, the nativity was still seen as broadly credible. The vigorous apologetics to try to make it work have only been shown spirited but invalid over the past few decades and I have to say only by myself with story comparison and a colleague on my former forum on dating.

Why could nobody else, these Experts, do this? Why was it left to a couple of amateuts?

p.s I sometimes got the impression of John when he wasn't penning theiological sermons to stuff into Jesus' mouth, might have travelled around with a tourists' guide to Jerusalem with some tourist guide stuff like the healing properties of the pool of Siloam, or the Gabattha pavement in the Praetorum, which could be handily brought into the gospel to add the impression of being eyewitness. Just an impression, i have.

[historia]

Whoever wrote the bible, they were a genius. No different from a Shakespeare or an Einstein. There is no way the world should ever unconditionally defer to expert consensus on such matters given this factor.

On what conditions, then, should one disagree with the consensus of experts when it comes to the Bible?

[theophile]

Whoever wrote the bible, they were a genius. No different from a Shakespeare or an Einstein. There is no way the world should ever unconditionally defer to expert consensus on such matters given this factor.

On what conditions, then, should one disagree with the consensus of experts when it comes to the Bible?

There may be a lot of answers to that depending on the situation. But, maybe the experts were missing a key piece of information, yet to be discovered. Maybe they were too confident in their opinion, rooted in deeper societal belief or current fact-base.

Expert consensus evolves over time. It's not the same now as it was 10 years ago, let alone 100. If new facts are discovered, or underlying biases exposed, there may be sufficient conditions to disagree with the experts.

[1213]

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

If we would do so, we would still believe in flat earth, geocentric system... ...Experts are only humans and often make errors, that is why I like more of proof, evidence and good reasoning.

[brunumb]

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

If we would do so, we would still believe in flat earth, geocentric system... ...Experts are only humans and often make errors, that is why I like more of proof, evidence and good reasoning.

So where do you seek out that proof, evidence and good reasoning? Hmmm. Experts maybe, but only if their thinking is in tandem with yours.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

If we would do so, we would still believe in flat earth, geocentric system... ...Experts are only humans and often make errors, that is why I like more of proof, evidence and good reasoning.

Well I agree with that, but the fact is that it is science that has corrected the flat earth and geocentric system and no scientific theory has been overturned but only validated and added to since then. Relativity and Quantum mechanics have not sidelined Newton's laws, which still work as well as they ever did. But science has debunked genesis (other than for the science -denialists) and that is the consensus of experts.

The Bible itself is now under scrutiny, and it is frankly amazing how much it has gotten away with, apparently because people who don't believe just ignore it and don't study it or there is this idea that it is somehow Not Done to go after the Bible.

[historia]

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

If we would do so, we would still believe in flat earth, geocentric system.

Well, no. The current consensus is that the earth is round and the sun is at the center of our solar system. So if you defer to the consensus of experts on those two issues, you would believe the same.

[historia]

Expert consensus evolves over time. It's not the same now as it was 10 years ago, let alone 100.

Indeed, the scholarly consensus can, and does, change over time. Always deferring to the consensus of experts would mean that we, as non-experts, would also change our position over time to match the current consensus.

To be clear, what I'm asking here is: On what conditions should a non-expert disagree with the consensus of experts when it comes to the Bible?

If new facts are discovered, or underlying biases exposed, there may be sufficient conditions to disagree with the experts.

That makes sense for why an expert might disagree with the consensus of experts. But we, as non-experts, are not in a good position to discover new facts or expose potential biases that would be sufficient to overturn the consensus of experts. So this doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in which non-experts might rightly disagree with the consensus of experts.