| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reasons > Scholarship > Getting Started |
| Scholarly Authority | Yes! | History of Scholarship | Amateur Scholarship | |
| Con: J. Z. Smith | Con: AD Nock | Con: BM Metzger | Sourcebooks |
| The
"could be" science |
![]() |
It is agreed that the statement
'x resembles y' is logically incomplete, for what is being asserted
is not a question of the classification of species x and y as instances
of a common genus, but a rather a suppressed multi-term statement of
analogy and difference capable of being properly expressed in formulations
such as:' x resembles y more than z with respect to…;'
At POCM > Scholarship you'll find: |
|
The
majesty of New Testament scholarship — the "could be"
science.
Let's start with a true story.
In 1935 a scholar guy named Colin
Roberts came out with an article, An Unpublished
Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library, about
P52, That's how P52 entered "biblical scholarship." To this day Colin Roberts' P52 date, 125 AD (± 25 years), is given out as the received wisdom of settled science in NT Studies 101 syllabuseses, graduate thesisuseses, academic articles, Sunday sermons, and Is The Resurrection of Jesus Real? debates.
P52—the date of P52—is a big deal. "Scholars of the New Testament have
used and abused papyrological evidence"
Colin Roberts came up with his P52 date with handwriting analysis, "...this claim rests solely upon considerations of palaeography," (page 12). Roberts came up with his number by comparing the letters, α-β-γ-etc., on P52 with the letters on five, count 'em five, samples of datable early second century handwriting, and one sample from 153 AD. That's it. His report mentions no handwriting samples from the late 2d century. His report mentions no handwriting samples from the 3d century. On this basis, we know Jesus is real.
|
Because if they called it, "The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe" people would get confused. Now shut up and listen. |
And >>
|
|
|
Brent Nongbri, 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel. Harvard Theological Review 98:23-52. |
The
"Could be" science Was P52 written in 125 AD, or 225 AD, or 1925 AD? I wouldn't have a clue. The point isn't the date of P52, the point is what Colin Roberts' story tells us about the institutions of New Testament scholarship. The news isn't good. The date of the oldest gospel is a big deal. Colin Roberts imagined he'd found a scrap generations earlier than all the others—but he did not, could not say what letters, in what variations, in what frequencies led him to his conclusion. Colin Roberts concluded the handwriting in P52 did not look like handwriting from the late 2d or early 3d century. But in reaching his conclusion Colin Roberts did not look at any—any—handwriting from those years. This is so hard to believe, I know you won't believe me till you've read the original article yourself.
Listen, you get to believe
and be impressed by whatever you want. I myself find it hard to take
seriously "scholarship" that works on a silly claim for, did
I mentionseventy years, without thinking it would maybe
be a good idea to see the fucking data. And nowadays when those same "scholars" tell you they still believe P52 is early, remember these guys had the same opinion before someone else bothered to look at the facts. They believe what they believe. They don't need no stinkin' facts. The point of the P52 story is, the insitutions of New Testament scholarship accept "scholarship" that isn't about whether Jesus is true, it's about how Jesus is true. Fine. We can still be friends. But you should understand that the institutions of NT scholarship accept conclusions based not on what is most likely true, but on what could be true, with could be adjusted whatever way makes Jesus real. Doesn't bother me a bit. But let's keep in mind what's going on. |
![]() |
bet you're thinking, if Christianity really had Pagan origins, Greg would just open a college book and copy out the section saying so. And if I can't give you a quote like that, probably Christianity doesn't have Pagan origins. Right? |
|
Things aren't that simple. Sure, I can do the quote authority thing: Scholarship > Yes quotes scholars, Harvardous and otherwise, saying Christianity borrowed from Paganism; and Good Books > Yes links you to scholars' books explaining how it happened. But what I can't do is quote a scholar saying all scholars agree with my theory of what happened, Jesus wise. No one can. Jesus wise, scholars don't agree on much. The truth is, "scholarship" about Christianity is not a rigorous deal. Scholars won't even agree on basic stuff, like what ancient source materials to take seriously. Is it all ancient writings about Jesus, or just the canonical books? "Scholars" don't agree. Scholars write huge long books about Jesus and Christian origins, hundreds of pages, full of this claim and that claim, on and on, and never a mention of the facts that led them to the claims, or that support the claims, or that confirm the claims. Because, here's the secret, the claims aren't based on facts. They're based on imagination. |
|
The first point,
since you're reading this on the wacky web, is that the Pagan origins
of Christianity are not wacky bug- eyed- aliens- at- the- Trilateral-
Commission- are- reading- our- mail stuff. The
Pagan origins of Christianity The bug- eyed- aliens- at- the- Trilateral- Commission- are- reading- our- mail stuff—that's true too. Only don't tell. It's a secret. |
How come scholars disagree;
200 years of Christian Scholarship in 455 words
Then, in 1835, this German kid (at 27 already a university lecturer, fluent in ancient languages and expert in NT scholarship) genamened David Strauss came out with a book he called The Life of Jesus Critically Examined—"the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell." Professor Strauss lost not just his job but his career. Angry believers never allowed him to teach again. Dr. Strauss' buch went through the gospels miracle by miracle, analyzing the best rationalist explanations of each of them. What his book shows, over and over, is that the rationalist explanations were so contrived and self contradictory and far fetched, they couldn't be believed. That was a very big deal, because everybody now saw that the "history" in the gospels could not be real history. The unavoidable implication of David Friedrich Strauss' the Life of Jesus Critically Examined was that—is that—the gospel writers got their "history" by making it up. The gospel stories are not history, they are myth. Oops. |
Here's where the relevance to modern scholarship comes in. Not everyone was willing to accept Dr. Strauss' results. Stubborn believing scholars couldn't out reason David Strauss, but they could refuse to think about his ideas. They simply put their fingers in their ears and insisted the bible is history, Jesus did the things described there. La, la, la, la la la la. Rational scholarship and (some of) believing scholarship split. |
|
![]() |
Even rationalist scholars who accepted Strauss' reasoning disagreed with each other. Some focused on the myth part of non-historical myth. A school of late 19th and early 20th century scholars worked out theories of the pagan origins of the Christ myth. The bible is myth. The New Testament has no meaningful history. Jesus is a myth explained by His parallels with other ancient myths. Because myth means "untrue," and untrue means "no meaning," and even non-literalist believing scholars were anxious to preserve the meaning of Christianity, most rationalist scholars fudged myth and focused on the non-historical part of non-historical myth. The NT is not direct history but it is, they imagined, history filtered through the beliefs and circumstances of the early church. Jesus was a real person. He can be rooted out by picking through the gospel stories for the historical kernel. Thus the Jesus Seminar and much of 20th century academic New Testament scholarship. Non-literalist believers focused not on myth or historical rigor but the meaning of belief. The NT is, vaguely, allegorically, somehow-historically an image of the reflected echo of the eternal Godhead. Jesus too. Kumbaya. |
Splitsville Splitsville leads to... My answer to these emails runs, "Please list exactly the evidence
you have in mind. List the evidence for Washington (Plato / Caesar /
etc.). List the evidence for Jesus." They can't, of course. Checking
the facts has honestly never occurred to them. And that's the point.
That's what Splitsville does to
"scholarship." It splits
the thinking up into little camps of like minded people, camps where
fundamental-axiom-wise everyone agrees with everyone else, and no
one checks the facts. Or challenges the basic reasons. The scholarship of Christian believers isn't about whether the Jesus stories are true, it's about how the Jesus stories are true. It's the same for the other side. Fashionable academic scholarship isn't about whether the Jesus People theory is true, it's about how the Jesus People theory is true. Does this mean Ronald Nash, and Arthur Darby Nock are bad people? Are the Jesus Seminar professors out to cheat and lie? No it doesn't. No they're not. The Christian origins question is a tough one. Honest people disagree, honestly. What it does mean is that fundamentally none of the scholarship is rigorous, and you can't depend on this scholar, or that one, to tell you what to think. |
| The Life
of Jesus Critically Examined |
What you'll find:
|
| The Quest
of the Historical Jesus |
What you'll find:
You can't understand 20th century scholarship NT scholarship unless you read this famous and influential book.
|
|
Here's a sample >> Jesus, admits Professor Smith quoting
the Christian-borrowing scholar Loisy, was a savior-God like Osiris,
Attis and Mithras. He was a god who came to earth, died, and
saves, etc. etc. from which, opines Professor Smith,
Professor Smith is famous for his anti-borrowing agenda—which is why he's quoted a lot. |
"[Jesus] was a savior-god, after the manner
of Osiris, and Attis, a Mithra. Like them, he belonged by his
origin to the celestial world; like them, he had made
his appearance on the earth; like them, he had accomplished
a work of universal redemption, efficacious and typical;
like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis he ha died a violent death,
and like them he had returned to life; like them, he
ad prefigured in his lot that of the human beings who should take part
in his worship, and commemorate his mystic enterprise; like them, he had
predetermined, prepared, and assured the salvation of
those who became partners in his passion." [Quoting A.
Loisy, The Christian Mystery, in: The Hibbert Journal, 10(1911 - 12),
51] |
| |
What
other people think about POCM |
|
Actually, I think there may be something to this Jesus thing. I'm gonna check it out cause all the people I've met who say they "believe in him", whatever that means, seem to have an inner peace that the rest don't have. I'll write again after I've learned more about it. |
||
|
|
| A NEW FEATURE: A
scholarly and handsome reader Kicks POCM's Ass |
|
| < YOUR brainiac opinion here! > |
|