• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ask a Christian philosopher a question

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well, it's not quite like science in that social sciences do not claim the same form of objectivity, yet history does have peer review. Don't get me wrong, there have been some rather interesting trends lately in historical Jesus studies which have incorporated comparative mythology: Thomas L Thompson's "Is this not the Carpenter?" is a great example of this trend, Roland Boer, a New Zealand academic wrote a great chapter in that book on the emergences of historical critical methods in nineteenth century Germany, the importance of Strauss' Lebe Jesu as well as the radical political tradition behind many of these Neo-Hegelian (Marxist?) thinkers. The problem is that the peer review is favouring a different consensus and it has absolutely nothing to do with religious tradition, it is simply the way the data is being analysed today: Jesus mythicism is not popular because most scholars consider there to be something historical about parts of the gospels, not always altogether much but still something.

I stand corrected on the peer review...though I have no idea what they review? Translations?

You honestly think that the reason Jesus as myth isn't popular is because of evidence? I'm not trying to be patronizing...I'm 100% serious. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a "NT historian" for a moment...

Do you think that you'll receive any accolades from your colleagues for your brilliant research showing that evidence for Jesus amounts to nearly zilch? Do you think your peers who've written books, taught at universities, worked as consultants, lectured, etc....do you think they'll be jumping onboard with your conclusions even if they're entirely sound and completely logical? Probably not...right?

They're not going to turn around and say, "Yea...all that speculation about what the real Jesus was like was just speculation and he probably never existed." After all, they've got jobs to protect, and a reputation that's going to immediately be attacked by every other "NT historian" who still wants to make a buck.

And at what point are we drawing the line on the Gospels? Let's be honest...they were never meant to be read as history books...no chance. Not with all the glaring historical and geographical errors. The census...herod's baby hunt...Barabbas...

At what point do you say, "ignoring all the stuff we're certain is completely wrong, and all of the obviously mythological stuff, ....this line right here is probably stuff that happened!" ....because an authorless book that appears to be a series of allegorical mish mash cobbled together from various pagan religions is a "valid" source of history?

On the other hand....I've been wrong before...what "historical parts" of the gospels do "scholars" think lends credence to an actual Jesus Christ?
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I stand corrected on the peer review...though I have no idea what they review? Translations?
Anything and everything that one can disagree on, same as any academic discipline. To be more specific, there are particular methods employed by those interested in historical Jesus studies, "multiple attestation", "dissimilarity", "embarrassment", "continuity" etc, and these particular methods are used on very specific pericopes, sayings or stories about Jesus. There are wider methodical considerations given that scholars can and have approached the texts from social scientific criticism, feminist criticism, queer hermeneutics (one of my absolute favourites) to things as convoluted and complex as Wirkungsgeschichte (reception history - a theory of hermeneutic owing considerable to Hans Georg Gadamer).

You honestly think that the reason Jesus as myth isn't popular is because of evidence? I'm not trying to be patronizing...I'm 100% serious. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a "NT historian" for a moment...
It's not popular because while the NT contains mythology it is generally accepted that it also contains history. Albeit, I take issue with the notion of the idea of an "NT historian"; there are historians of early Christianity and they should rely on, discuss and scrutinise various other texts as well as the NT.

Do you think that you'll receive any accolades from your colleagues for your brilliant research showing that evidence for Jesus amounts to nearly zilch? Do you think your peers who've written books, taught at universities, worked as consultants, lectured, etc....do you think they'll be jumping onboard with your conclusions even if they're entirely sound and completely logical? Probably not...right?
Yeah, this part of scholarship may be rather sadder than not... I think you're correct. While there is sufficient evidence for historians to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed as an identifiable figure within the NT (and extra-canonical texts), there is also academic room for theories which construct the historical narrative of Jesus as (by and large) mythical. I don't like politics, religion or society censoring what may very well be legitimate academic research, I find it disturbing that it can and does happen. I think that Jesus-mythicism, in its most academic and sophisticated form, should be prevalent amongst scholars, should be debated amongst scholars.

And at what point are we drawing the line on the Gospels? Let's be honest...they were never meant to be read as history books...no chance. Not with all the glaring historical and geographical errors. The census...herod's baby hunt...Barabbas...

At what point do you say, "ignoring all the stuff we're certain is completely wrong, and all of the obviously mythological stuff, ....this line right here is probably stuff that happened!" ....because an authorless book that appears to be a series of allegorical mish mash cobbled together from various pagan religions is a "valid" source of history?
This is where complexity may arise, there may be much in the NT which is mythical, framed within and constructed upon mythical story-telling, however, I'm not so certain that one can make the pure distinction between mythic and historical. The earliest Palestinian tradition wasn't a simply movement, it integrated already existing Jewish religious practice, ritual and theology into a wider nexus. If Jesus existed, and I think he did, he probably believed mythical things about life, meaning and the universe, he may even have believed rather strange things about himself which don't make sense to modern sensibilities. One of my favourite examples of what may be historical in the gospel traditions and for reasons why conservatives may be uncomfortable with is the transfiguration stories: Altered states of consciousness (ASC) experiences happen across myriad of cultures and are interpreted within a myriad of religious traditions, if Jesus was something of a shamanic figure (and there may be reason to think so, cf. John Pilch, Bruce Malina and Pieter Craffert), then I don't find it altogether out of the ordinary for his followers and himself to be engaged in some weird visionary experiences.

On the other hand....I've been wrong before...what "historical parts" of the gospels do "scholars" think lends credence to an actual Jesus Christ?

Well, mostly to the bare facts, he lived, preached about judgement/a kingdom of God, visited Jerusalem (at least once) and was executed there. I'm actually more inclined towards thinking of an "earliest Palestinian tradition" rather than a "historical Jesus" these days, we don't have the proper scholarly apparatuses in order to properly distinguish between the two anyway.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would quite like to see an example of what He says that you have observed to not be true, or which you have reasonable cause to doubt, and some explanation so that I can understand your reasoning.

He says?

Are you referring to the bible claiming to speak for God?

If so, let me say, we have no way of objectively verifying the bible speaks for God, none what so ever. Men who write stories, can claim whatever they like. Confirming what they say has any validity, is a completely different story.

Even Christian NT historians and scholars will admit, little of what is attributed to Jesus in the NT, can be determined to have any degree of historical reliability, when the historical method is applied to the writings.

This is why faith is required to believe the stories, because they are simply not objectively verifiable.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Feel free to quote him...it's not exactly a hard claim to counter. They are NT historians after all...they're not exactly gonna sell too many books about the life of Jesus if they tell people there's no historical evidence for Jesus. Hard to get that professor job as a NT historian if you conclude there's no evidence for Jesus.

They all have a vested interest in Jesus being real...it's that or go find a new job lol.

That is very true.

I have read a lot of work of well credentialed NT historians and scholars and as it stands right now, the majority believe it is likely Jesus was a real person.

With that said, it is also a fact, that critical historical review of the NT, has not exactly been objective, as a general rule. Why? The vast majority of NT historians and scholars are Christians themselves and there is no question, this reality has impacted their interpretations.

IMO, over time, Carriers arguments may indeed gain traction, because they are more inline with real historical critique of ancient writings.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not popular because while the NT contains mythology it is generally accepted that it also contains history.


This is where complexity may arise, there may be much in the NT which is mythical, framed within and constructed upon mythical story-telling, however, I'm not so certain that one can make the pure distinction between mythic and historical. The earliest Palestinian tradition wasn't a simply movement, it integrated already existing Jewish religious practice, ritual and theology into a wider nexus. If Jesus existed, and I think he did, he probably believed mythical things about life, meaning and the universe, he may even have believed rather strange things about himself which don't make sense to modern sensibilities. One of my favourite examples of what may be historical in the gospel traditions and for reasons why conservatives may be uncomfortable with is the transfiguration stories: Altered states of consciousness (ASC) experiences happen across myriad of cultures and are interpreted within a myriad of religious traditions, if Jesus was something of a shamanic figure (and there may be reason to think so, cf. John Pilch, Bruce Malina and Pieter Craffert), then I don't find it altogether out of the ordinary for his followers and himself to be engaged in some weird visionary experiences.



Well, mostly to the bare facts, he lived, preached about judgement/a kingdom of God, visited Jerusalem (at least once) and was executed there. I'm actually more inclined towards thinking of an "earliest Palestinian tradition" rather than a "historical Jesus" these days, we don't have the proper scholarly apparatuses in order to properly distinguish between the two anyway.

I'm always a little surprised by the "it contains history" statement....so what? If someone were to create a story about a jewish messiah back in that day...wouldn't we expect him to use real places and some real figures?

Also I think you misunderstood my question...I understand what "scholars" think the real Jesus did...I wanted to know what evidence is in the NT to suggest that he did those things? That he was a real person?

If all it amounts to is "well these are the parts that a real person can do....so that's what the real Jesus must've done!" then you aren't really providing evidence that he existed. It's a bit like taking the story of Hercules and saying "it was based on a guy who wore a lion skin and was really strong."
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Obviously not.

Obviously not? Despite the fact that it clearly says who is first, second, third, and fourth?

As Keil and Delitzsch observe:

The kings of the house of David from Solomon till the exile. - Until Josiah the individual kings are mentioned in their order, each with the addition בּנו, son of the preceding, 1 Chronicles 3:10-14; the only omission being that of the usurper Athaliah, because she did not belong to the posterity of David. But in 1 Chronicles 3:15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, not "in order to allow of a halt in the long line of David's descendants after Josiah the great reformer" (Berth.), but because with Josiah the regular succession to the throne in the house of David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, who was made king after his father's death by the people, was soon dethroned by Pharaoh-Necho, and led away captive to Egypt; and of the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by Pharaoh, and Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, so that both were only vassals of heathen lords of the land, and the independent kingship of David came properly to an end with the death of Josiah. Johanan, the first-born of the sons of Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, whom the people raised to the throne. For, in the first place, it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim in2 Kings 23:31, 2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chronicles 36:2, 2 Chronicles 36:5, that Jehoahaz was two years younger than Jehoiakim, and consequently was not the first-born. InJeremiah 22:11 it is expressly declared that Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of Judah instead of his father, and was led away into captivity, and never saw his native land again, as history narrates of Jehoahaz. From this it would appear that Shallum took, as king, the name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not met with again in history, either because he died early, or because nothing remarkable could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2 Kings 23:24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17). Zedekiah, on his ascending the throne, was younger than Shallum, and that event occurred eleven years after the accession of Shallum equals Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only twenty-one years old, while Jehoahaz had become king in his twenty-third year. But in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after Jehoiakim, and before Shallum, because, on the one hand, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah had occupied the throne for a longer period, each having been eleven years king; and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum were sons of Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31; 2 Kings 24:18), while Jehoiakim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings 23:36). According to age, they should have followed each other in this order - Johanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in respect to their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would have been separated. To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother Zedekiah. In 1 Chronicles 3:6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim's son Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while the sons of Jeconiah follow only in 1 Chronicles 3:17 and 1 Chronicles 3:18. Jeconiah (cf. Jeremiah 24:1; shortened Coniah, Jeremiah 22:24, Jeremiah 22:28, and Jeremiah 37:1) is called, as kings, in 2 Kings 24:8. and 2 Chronicles 36:9, Jehoiachin, another form of the name, but having the same signification, "Jahve founds or establishes." Zedekiah can only be a son of Jeconiah, for the בּנו which is added constantly denotes that the person so called is the son of his predecessor. Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion that Zedekiah was the same person as the brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:15 under the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced as son of Jeconiah, because he was the successor of Jeconiah on the throne. For this view support was sought in a reference to 1 Chronicles 3:10., in which all Solomon's successors in the kingship are enumerated in order with בּנו. But all the kings who succeeded each other from Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, sons of their predecessors; so that there בּנו throughout denotes a proper son, while King Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, but an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must therefore hold צדקיּה for a literal son of Jeconiah, and that so much the more, because the name צדקיּה differs also from צדקיּהוּ, as the name of the king is constantly written in 2 Kings 24:17. and in 2 Chronicles 36:10. But mention is made of this Zedekiah in 1 Chronicles 3:16 apart from the other sons of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17 and 1 Chronicles 3:18), perhaps because he was not led away captive into exile with the others, but died in Judah before the breaking up of the kingdom. (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78])

In addition, Shallum was an utter disgrace and would have been listed last by the chronicler by virtue of this, along with the aforementioned reasons.

I appreciate this elaborate hypothesis presented by the scholars, but can you tell me what the Hebrew says? Does it say something that is not explicitly listing order of birth?

Also, I'm not entirely sure what evidence Keil and Delitzsch are using to support their claims. It seems like nothing more than an ad hoc explanation in response to a contradiction, and this argument (about how the sons of Josiah were not born in that order despite the passage explicitly saying they were) would never be employed if Zedekiah was said to be 40 years old or so when he became king.



Wrong.

As Gill observes:

He shall have none to sit upon the throne—fulfilled (2Ki 24:8, &c.; 2Ki 25:1-30). He had successors, but not directly of his posterity, except his son Jeconiah, whose three months' reign is counted as nothing and could not be called sitting upon the throne; and, besides, was never confirmed by the king of Babylon, in whose power he was, and by whom he was carried captive; and Zedekiah, who followed, was not his lawful successor, was brother to Jehoiakim, and uncle to Jeconiah, and was set up by the king of Babylon in contempt of the latter; and as for Zerubbabel, he was no king, nor was there any of this family till the Messiah came. (Exposition of the Entire Bible by John Gill [1746-63])

I simply said that IF Zedekiah the king was the son of Jehoiakim (since there are two Zedekiahs) THEN we would see this prophecy in Jeremiah contradicted.


I do have to thank you, though, because I have been asking this question for 10 years and no one has ever bothered to answer. However, in defense of the premise of my one question (in which I assumed that the Bible has errors, and you have invited me to prove this), I would like to present one more potential contradiction; if you can refute it - even in a manner similar to the above where I will not accept it but rather be impressed by the effort - then I will not present any more contradictions, and if you cannot refute it then you have to answer my question about the Bible containing errors. Would you find that acceptable?

My final contradiction is this:

2 Chronicles 22:2 versus 2 Kings 8:26.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Which is in fact, tacit admittance of an errant bible.
latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's great. I enjoy reading philosophy of religion. Which philosophers in particular do you engage with?

Modern era:

Chesterton, Moreland, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, Smith...

Then we have Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine etc.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth in philosophy and science?
I'm still curious to know your thoughts on this, @anonymous person. Given that, according to you, truth is integral to philosophy generally, would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth?
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Modern era:

Chesterton, Moreland, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, Smith...

Then we have Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine etc.

Well, you should try to read a little more widely than this in order to understand contemporary analytic philosophy. You should read Saul Kripke, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Nagel, Ian Hacking, Hilary Putnam, GEM Anscombe and Graham Oppy (for analytic philosophy of religion). Plantinga is great, his EAAN is pretty good and Nagel takes it up in his "Mind and Cosmos".
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, you should try to read a little more widely than this in order to understand contemporary analytic philosophy. You should read Saul Kripke, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Nagel, Ian Hacking, Hilary Putnam, GEM Anscombe and Graham Oppy (for analytic philosophy of religion). Plantinga is great, his EAAN is pretty good and Nagel takes it up in his "Mind and Cosmos".

Too much confirmation bias for that to happen.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I'm always a little surprised by the "it contains history" statement....so what? If someone were to create a story about a jewish messiah back in that day...wouldn't we expect him to use real places and some real figures?
The historical Jesus matters because he lead a movement that would become one of the biggest driving forces in human history. He mattered about as much as Alexander the Macedon mattered.

Also I think you misunderstood my question...I understand what "scholars" think the real Jesus did...I wanted to know what evidence is in the NT to suggest that he did those things? That he was a real person?
Well, I did say what the methods were for ascertaining what may be historical and what may not be, multiple early attestation, dissimilarity and continuity. These tend to frame what most scholars would identify as the earliest Palestinian tradition, it makes sense within the wider milieu of second temple Judaisms, it is relatively early and attested many times, so it's likely historical. The crucifixion is a prime example, it's probably one of the earliest things we know about Jesus, it was attested by everyone, and it seems like a likely thing to happen to a royal pretender.

If all it amounts to is "well these are the parts that a real person can do....so that's what the real Jesus must've done!" then you aren't really providing evidence that he existed. It's a bit like taking the story of Hercules and saying "it was based on a guy who wore a lion skin and was really strong."
All, we have is the textual evidence, the same one that we've always had, all we can approach it with is method, method and even more scrupulous method. Historical analysis is painstaking and rigorous.
 
Upvote 0