Gospels and Education

[liamconnor]

The title contains the word "Gospels" but could apply to the whole Bible.

My time here as a member has alerted me to the popular misunderstanding and even ignorance of historical studies among agnostics and even believers. Most have never taken formal courses in historical methodology; that is, most could not write an essay on the historical reliance of a single claim by Lucius, a very ancient author. They simply have faith in the general consensus of other people who have decided some statements are to be trusted and some not. That is, if somebody says that x happened and the y is the source, well, very well.

And yet these same people speak categorically when the topic is a claim made in the gospels, i.e. other ancient texts. There seems to be a discrepancy between confidence in claim and lack of specialization.

Q4D.

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus? If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Most have never taken formal courses in historical methodology

Other than my history classes and self-study elsewhere...correct for me.

They simply have faith in the general consensus of other people who have decided some statements are to be trusted and some not. That is, if somebody says that x happened and the y is the source, well, very well.

As opposed to those who say X happened, and the Y is the gospels and that's enough somehow...?

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus?

Do you mean on this forum, when debating? Given the anonymous nature of our accounts, I don't see how you could enforce such a requirement. Anyone could say they have a history degree.

If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

What training do you have? Do you have a history degree? How can you prove it, not without stripping away anonymity?

Besides, let's run with this as a hypothetical, shall we? Let's say this becomes a new rule, both here on the forum and in meat-space. Thou Must Have a History Degree.
What does this spell for the average Christian? Most people, most Christians don't have history degrees. Are they to be expelled from their various churches? Are they to be told they can't talk about Jesus and the Bible, whether as believers or unbelievers, unless they get that magic piece of paper? Is a priest at mass supposed to say to his congregation "Please let only those with academic degrees stay in the pews, let all others leave" before he'll begin his weekly sermon?

...you didn't really take the time to think this one through, did you, LC?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

One doesn't need a degree in history to understand the basics. Suggesting such kind of reeks of elitism.

I see this complaint often (usually from the same few members) about how people don't understand how history works. When push comes to shove, often the person leveling this claim doesn't get it either or is grossly misrepresenting the position of fellow debaters.

The usual tripe is "You believe Caesar was real right? Why don't you believe in Jesus then?!"

If the people throwing out this tired question would actually listen to their opponents they would find that most actually understand history and do NOT categorically state with 100% confidence that Caesar was a real person. Most wisely say that based on all available evidence, there is a strong possibility that he was real. To be clear, there is also the issue with "real as fully described by all accounts" versus "real, but some accounts are likely forgeries, embellished, etc.".

Taking the Caesar example, do you believe he was a god? Probably not. A real man? Probably. Would you stake your entire family's life on the fact that he was a real person? I would hope not, but some people are pretty sure of themselves.

I shouldn't have to tell a self proclaimed 'historian' how history works, but usually it's a game of using all available evidence to come up with a 'best guess' at what really happened. Having corroborating evidence from as many diverse sources as possible helps any given claim. Having only only single sources or obviously biased, connected sources does NOT help any given claim. Surely they teach these types of things early on when obtaining history degrees?

By the way, has anyone on this forum actually taken the stance that Jesus did NOT exist? It obviously ruffles feathers when all available evidence shows that it's possible that maybe he didn't, but as a historian, this shouldn't be a troubling revelation given this is common with all figures from the past before DNA records and such. Even now we cannot know EVERY detail about any given person. That human named 'Bob' with this DNA certainly was alive at one point, but what he did and did not do may be open to interpretation of other evidence.

[Jagella]

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus?

I'm not sure about each historical claim of the New Testament, but many of those claims can easily be seen as unhistorical using common sense. You don't need to be an expert, for example, to realize there was no "zombie apocalypse" near Jerusalem.

If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

I have at least two qualifications to discern what is or is not historical: I have a brain, and I use it. I suppose I'm not much different from "professional" historians who make a case for historicity and hope people are convinced by that case.

No historical training is needed to make historical claims. Historical training is only necessary to land a job with some historical organization.

So we arrive at one of the major problems for Christian apologetics: to say that Christianity is a "historical religion" is not a strength but a weakness. Our view of history is very uncertain and is always subject to revision. Basing Christianity on history "...will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand." History, like sand, is always shifting.

[Jagella]

By the way, has anyone on this forum actually taken the stance that Jesus did NOT exist?

Speaking for myself, no, I don't insist that Jesus didn't exist. I think it's more accurate to say that no good evidence for the existence of Jesus exists.

[Divine Insight]

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus? If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

I'm confident that the answer to your questions is definitely "no", a degree in history is not even remotely required to conclude that the Gospels, and entire Bible are not credible accounts of actual historical events in every detail.

How can I be so sure of this. Well, to begin with the people who have degrees in history do not claim that these texts represent actual historical events in every detail. To the contrary they actually point out that the authors of those texts were themselves not historians and not educated in any correct methods of reporting history with credible accuracy.

To begin with, are you even prepared to acknowledge that the entire collection of writings attributed to Paul were written by a man who claims to have had a supernatural vision of Jesus only after he himself had been persecuting the followers of this religion himself? He doesn't claim to be a well-educated historian. He claims to have had a vision of a supernatural being, one that he himself even claims that no one other than him saw at the time. So from any credible historical perspective we can easily toss out all the writings of Paul as being clearly undependable in terms of representing any credible historical events.

There goes close to 75% of the New Testament depending on how you want to measure the percentage.

Similarly the writings of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are equally questionable. In fact, it is well known by historians and theologians that Matthew and Luke were simply repeating the original stories written by Mark and just adding their own additional twists and claims. It should be interesting to note also that Matthew and Luke elaborate on the original story told by Mark in different ways that aren't even consistent.

Matthew is the only one who makes up the story about a bunch of dead saints being jostled from their graves by an earthquake and going into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there. A profound supernatural events that wasn't recorded by a single solitary independent source. Even Mark, Luke, Paul, or John mentions anything about these risen saints. This brings the writings of Matthew in to suspicious as being nothing more than Mathew's own personal desire to add extreme claims to these rumors.

I don't think anyone should need to have a degree in history to recognize the many problems associated with these Gospel tales. A degree in common sense is really all that should be required.

I could go on pointing out many reasons why it makes no sense to conclude that the Gospels (or the entire Bible) should be taken as credible history in every detail claimed within, but why should I need to bother. Even historians who already have degrees in history agree that these texts do not represent credible history in every detail. For if they did they would be taught as credible history which they most definitely are not. Nor should they be.

In fact, many Muslims are currently making precisely the same historical arguments for their Qur'an. For you to argue that the Christian Bible should be considered to be historical while the Islamic Qur'an should not be, would be nothing more than "Special Pleading".

Now having said all of the above, there is no doubt some truth to some of the events claimed within those texts. This is natural. All cultures that create God myths include descriptions of actual historical events that had actually occurred in their culture. Many of the stories of Greek Mythology, for example, include descriptions of actual historical events. In fact, many of the people mentioned in Greek Mythology may have actually lived. Where the mythology becomes non-history is when it starts making claims that are clearly non-historical and based on obvious superstitions.

I see no reason why this shouldn't also be true of Hebrew mythology. Their stories were naturally based on actual cultural events, they simply added to those stories elements of supernatural superstitions. That's all.

~~~~~~~

For you to even suggest that any credible historian should just believe anything that is written in the Gospels or the Bible just because it's written in those texts is utterly absurd.

Consider the following:

Even if historical evidence could be verified that some guy named Jesus was born in a barn in Bethlehem, grew up to become a religious rebel who constantly argued with religious authorities against their orthodox religious views, was known to sit around publicly ranting about the religious authorities being hypocrites, was ultimately charged with apostasy, found innocent by the Roman authority, was ultimately crucified by a mob lead by angry Jewish Priests, and was even seen walking around with wounds after a botched crucifixion, I would still have absolutely no reason to believe the rest of the rumors of the Gospels that Jesus was the virgin born son of Yahweh, that he actually died for three days, and was miraculously risen from the dead to eventually be floated off to heaven on a cloud.

I mean, you can't be serious to suggest that if I had a degree in history I would be more inclined to believe those things. Even historians who have degrees in history aren't prepared to jump to such ridiculous conclusions.

Finally,...

I don't need to have a degree in history to see that the stories in the Old Testament are extremely self-contradictory and give themselves away as being obviously false.

I don't need to have a degree in history to see that the stories in the Old Testament, even if true, to NOT prophesize someone like Jesus.

I don't need to have a degree in history to see that the Jesus described in the New Testament does not fulfill the prophesy of the promised messiah of the OT.

I don't need to have a degree in history to see the multitude of self-contradictory claims being made about Jesus himself in the Gospels.

I simply don't need to have a degree in history to see how utterly absurd this entire ancient religion truly is.

Simple common sense is more than sufficient.

There isn't even a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the Christian mythology cannot possibly be true, even if I wanted it to be true.

In fact, at one time I did want it to be true! I originally actually believed in this religion before I became well-educated on it. I quickly discovered that my belief was indeed extremely naive. I had actually decided to become a Pastor and preach the "Word of God", and one reason I was inspired to do this was because of the obvious confusion that clearly existed among the priest and pastors who were already teaching it.

If you want to speak about history and historical evidence, the most profound evidence against Christianity is revealed in the fact that Christians theologians, apologists, and clergy can't even agree upon a consistent coherent story. Even they agree that the whole shebang is totally open to a gazillion interpretations. In other words, there's nothing concrete or credible within it.

It wasn't until I studied the Bible in earnest with the intent to fully understand it so I could teach it correctly to others that I quickly discovered that there's nothing there worth teaching. It's not only extremely vague and meaningless in many places, but it's also extremely self-contradictory in places were it does make concrete claims.

Obtaining a degree in history would not change my view of the Bible at all. This is one thing I can be absolutely certain about.

In fact, I have taken some courses on the history of various cultures, Greece being one of them. In that lecture my professor made it crystal clear at the very beginning of the course that history is not an exact science. He explained that historians look at whatever evidence they can recover from the time period and try to put together the pieces of the puzzle to the best of their ability. He pointed out that even the historians who do this work do not all arrive at the same conclusions. He told us all of this so we would understand that what he was about to tell us about ancient Greece is simply historian's "Best Guess" based on the evidence that has been found. And that everything should be understood to not be represented with any absolute certainty.

In fact, I really appreciated his truthfulness in that opening lecture. This actually gave the rest of his lecture far more credibility because even he was aware that he is only conveying to us historians "best guess" of what ancient Greece might have been like.

And this is certainly how any credible historian should begin any lectures on the history of the ancient Hebrew culture as well.

You seem to want to try to claim that history is an "Exact Science". It is not. And you shouldn't need to have a degree in history to know this. Historians need to make a lot of guesses and assumptions in their field of work.

Is the Bible a "historical text". Yes.

Does this mean that every claim made within those texts is historical truth? Absolutely not.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, has anyone on this forum actually taken the stance that Jesus did NOT exist?

The problem with this question is that it doesn't qualify what is meant by the term "Jesus".

If by "Jesus" you mean the person described in the Gospels who did and said everything they claim Jesus did and said, then I take the position that this person did NOT exist.

On the other hand, if what you mean by "Jesus" is some person who might have actually lived, and possibly have done some of the things claimed by the Gospels thus sparking the rise of the Gospel rumors about them. Then yes, I have absolutely no problem at all believing that a historical "Jesus" who's life gave rise to the highly exaggerated supernatural rumors that were told about him decades later may very well have existed. That's not hard to believe at all.

Although, having said this, it is hard to believe many of the mundane stories told about Jesus. By "mundane" I'm talking about stories that don't even require anything supernatural.

For example, the Gospels have Pontius Pilate exonerating Jesus, but then handing him over to the Jewish Priests along with a few Roman Soldiers for the purpose of an unofficial mob crucifixion. The Jews passionately argue that the Jewish Priests of that time would never oversee such a crucifixion. I'm not sure about that, but it does bring into question the validity of even the mundane rumors of Jesus.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

One doesn't need a degree in history to understand the basics. Suggesting such kind of reeks of elitism.

I studied history (fortunately not biblical) at tertiary level as part of a (thankfully not theological) degree ...

And at post-grad level.

I thoroughly agree with your position.

Even before I graduated from Sunday school, I knew the grown-ups were caught in an angel-filled game of fantasy and Pretend ...

That they ACTUALLY believed.

[shnarkle]

The title contains the word "Gospels" but could apply to the whole Bible.

My time here as a member has alerted me to the popular misunderstanding and even ignorance of historical studies among agnostics and even believers. Most have never taken formal courses in historical methodology; that is, most could not write an essay on the historical reliance of a single claim by Lucius, a very ancient author. They simply have faith in the general consensus of other people who have decided some statements are to be trusted and some not. That is, if somebody says that x happened and the y is the source, well, very well.

And yet these same people speak categorically when the topic is a claim made in the gospels, i.e. other ancient texts. There seems to be a discrepancy between confidence in claim and lack of specialization.

Q4D.

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus? If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

With little to no historical training, the answer seems to be there is little to nothing to qualify one to answer historical questions. This is why Christianity, while a historically documented reality doesn't rely exclusively upon history. The cornerstone for Judeism's claims is it's law which explicitly points out that they are to be verified, i.e. "keep my commandments". While Christianity is based upon "truth" manifested. They are saying essentially the same thing, and the only requirement for verification is to carry out the terms of the agreement which are practically identical. It is essentially no different than an experiment. Carry out the experiments and see what the evidence suggests.

[shnarkle]

The title contains the word "Gospels" but could apply to the whole Bible.

My time here as a member has alerted me to the popular misunderstanding and even ignorance of historical studies among agnostics and even believers. Most have never taken formal courses in historical methodology; that is, most could not write an essay on the historical reliance of a single claim by Lucius, a very ancient author. They simply have faith in the general consensus of other people who have decided some statements are to be trusted and some not. That is, if somebody says that x happened and the y is the source, well, very well.

And yet these same people speak categorically when the topic is a claim made in the gospels, i.e. other ancient texts. There seems to be a discrepancy between confidence in claim and lack of specialization.

Q4D.

Is a formal historical education (a degree in history at the very least) necessary for evaluating each historical claim of the ancient writings that deal with Jesus? If so this would probably disqualify numerous members here, and so, the question becomes, what qualifies YOU to handle an historical question when typically, historical claims require historical training.

With little to no historical training, the answer seems to be there is little to nothing to qualify one to answer historical questions. This is why Christianity, while a historically documented reality doesn't rely exclusively upon history. The cornerstone for Judeism's claims is it's law which explicitly points out that they are to be verified, i.e. "keep my commandments". While Christianity is based upon "truth" manifested. They are saying essentially the same thing, and the only requirement for verification is to carry out the terms of the agreement which are practically identical. It is essentially no different than an experiment. Carry out the experiments and see what the evidence suggests.