In a previous post, I compared radical versions of liberal New Testament scholarpship (e.g. The Jesus Seminar) with CSICOP and organized pseudoskepticism, in the sense that both groups of scholars misleadingly present themselves as talking in the name of serious, non-interested, impartial, objective, scientific scholarpship and, often, as the voice of the majority of scholars working in the field.
When I began to read carefully the contemporary New Testament literature, specially the liberal one, I was absolutely schoked by what I found: atheistic-naturalistic assumptions (rarely argued or defended), obvious anti-Christian prejudices, double standards, arrogant self-perception as being the voice of science and objectivity, often sophistry, etc.
I began my study with the case for and against Jesus' resurrection, and (while I thought at the beginning that the resurrection was a matter of faith or theology alone, without any historical evidence in its favor) I was shocked to discover that the evidence for that event is reasonably good and specially that the skeptical objections against that event are pretty bad (in fact, all the major scholarly objections against the resurrection are, for my astonishment, based on Hume's argument against miracles, which I knew from my study of philosophy and parapsychology that was faulty and question-begging). This was an eye-opener to me.
I was fortunate to have begun my study of the resurrection first, because it taught me a lot about how scholars in both sides of the debate tend to think, the arguments that they tend to use, and specially the pressupositions with which each of them begin. It was easy to discover a discernible, structural argumentative pattern in the debate.
When I turned my research to life and teachings of Jesus, I was already prepared to idenfity, almost instantaneously, the working pressupositions underlying the interpretation of the events in the life of Jesus (which in the Gospels, appear to be a life full of miracles in a strong religious context, with distintive theological categories like monotheism, sins, prophets, salvation, etc.).
I discovered that, as a rule, liberal scholars are atheists, naturalists and/or religious pluralists. Many of them have been Christian fundamentalists of the most dogmatic kind, and have left such position with an axe to grind against Christianity. As consequence, the "liberal" tend to not believe in God, nor in miracles, nor in God's revelation (some of them, as Marcus Borg seems to be open to paranormal phenomena, but they deny or doubt God's revelation, like the physical resurrection, in order to avoid religious exclusivism). In other words, they tend to be hostile or extremely skeptical of the distintive features of Christianity.
One aspect that I find very annoying and dangerously misleading of many of these liberal scholars is that they present themselves as "desinterested" (implying that Christian scholars are interested). But how are you to be "desinterested" in researching the life of Jesus, who taught about God's kingdom, performed exorcisms and miracles, and putatively was risen from the dead, if you're a scientific naturalist, materialist, atheist or religious pluralist? It is sheer sophistry and misdirection. Such a thing is impossible, since the assumptions you begin with (atheism, naturalism or pluralism) begs the question in advance about many of the aspects of Jesus' life which have to be investigated (like his resurrection, his claims of divinity, exclusivism, etc.).
PARALLELS OF LIBERAL SCHOLARPSHIP WITH PSEUDOSKEPTICISM
The above comments show us a parallel with the pseudoskeptical opinion about parapsychology. Among atheists and "skeptics", parapsychologists are seen as a bunch of minoritary, eccentric, interested, biased pseudoscientists and true-believers who are eager to prove that psi exists. And "skeptics" see themselves as desinterested, enlightened, scientific minded people who are prepared to examine the evidence for psi with utmost objectivity and technical competence. And when such skeptical-scientific approach is properly done (so the skeptic thinks), the evidence for psi has been found flawed, wanting and unconvincing. This is the TRUE self-perception of atheists and "skeptics".
Consider the following words of skeptic Martin Gardner written in 1983:
How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology's perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics
Note that Gardner is contrasting the evidence gotten from a "tiny minority of enthusiasts" (i.e. parapsychologists like Dean Radin), against the negative evidence of the "much larger group of skeptics" (i.e skeptical psychologists who are not enthusiasts, and hence not biased in favor of parapsychology, presumibly people like Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman or Richard Wiseman). The implication is that the positive evidence for ESP and PSI is a consequence of the bias and prejudices of enthusiasts, but that when the evidence is properly examined without ideological bias, such positive result disappears. Hence, the much larger majority of mainstream scholars, i.e. "skeptical psychologists", just get negative evidence.
In the case of New Testament scholarpship, liberal scholars say or imply that the "enthusiasts" in question are the Christian conservative scholars, but that the liberal ones are desinterested, impartial, scientific, who follow the evidence where it leads. Sheer rhetorical (atheistic) deception.
Consder the following words of skeptic James Alcock:
Attributions are also made regarding the continuing rejection of parapsychology and its data by most scientists. While the scientists are likely to attribute this state of affairs both to the absence of persuasive data and to the incompatibility of parapsychological claims with modern scientific theory, parapsychologists on the other hand typically attribute it to dogmatism rooted in the belief that paranormal phenomena are impossible because their existence would violate the laws of physics (Debating Psychic Experience, p.31)
Alcock contrasts the "scientists" with the "parapsychologists", rhetorically implying that parapsychologists are not scientists or are somehow less reliable or objective than true, real skeptical scientists who are not convinced yet by the evidence.
Exactly the same you can find in the liberal New Testament literature. For example, you can find Marcus Borg saying (in his reply to William Lane Craig's debate with John Dominic Crossan): "Craig's second claim is that the resurrection of Jesus, understood in this way, provides "confirmation of his radical personal claims to divinity". I note that this claim presupposes that the historical Jesus did make "radical personal claims to divinity", which Crossan and I (and the majority of mainline scholars) think highly unlikely) " (Will the real Jesus please stand up?, p.118).
Borg is contrasting the "majority of mainline scholars", with (suppposedly) a minority of scholars like Craig who, being Christians, are the only ones who accept uncritcally, in a biased way and on face value that Jesus claimed a divine status or special condition regarding God.
But Borg's view is simply false and misleading. The "mainline scholars" which he has in mind are many radical LIBERAL scholars (like those in the Jesus Seminar, i.e. the equivalent to Alcock's "scientists", i.e. materialistic scientists, or Gardner's "skeptical parapsychologists", i.e. materialistic psychologists). But if you take the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship from America and Europe, specially the contemporary one, Borg's claim is highly dubious at best, and at worst, simply false.
As I've argued here, when you apply correctly the criteria of historical authenticity to Jesus' claims, many of the claims implying divinity (in which Jesus claimed a special or unique condition regarding God, or had the same authority than God in matters exclusive of God), pass positively these criteria and hence are likely to be historical. And while many liberal scholars reject or explain away these claims with a bunch of bad arguments, sophistry and misaplications of the criteria of authenticity (a point which I'm going to show in detail a series of future posts), the fact is that some of these claims pass not just one, but two and sometimes more of these criteria of authenticity. No religious pluralistic ideology can change this.
My current study of the evidence contradicts Borg's view that "the majority" of scholars are "highly" skeptical of such claims. On the contrary, I think some of the claims of Jesus implying some sort of divinity or divine authority are accepted by the broad spectrum of contemporary New Testament scholarship.
By the way, the debate between Craig and Crossan was an one-way easy victory for Craig. Crossan didn't object to nor refuted Craig's contention that Jesus did make "radical personal claims to divinity". If Crossan had challenged it, then a debate about authenticity of such Jesus' claims would have originated between them. And I'm sure, after reading some of Crossan's major books about the historical Jesus (and other literature by leading liberal scholars) that Craig would have demolished Crossan's arguments and objections easily. (One would expect that a supposedly "objective", disinterested, liberal, enlightened, scientific scholar like Crossan, armed with the confidence provided by having the "mainline scholars" in his side, would have swept the floor with Craig regarding the authenticity of Jesus' claims implying divinity. Instead, Crossan refused to debate Craig's major contentions. That a world's leading Jesus scholar like Crossan refused to discuss that, in a debate about the historical Jesus, suggests that he doesn't have the confidence to defend his arguments about Jesus in a open field when challenged by a competent and fully informed Christian scholar).
But note that the debate about where the "majority" lies is largely besides the point. In the case of parapscyhology, perhaps it is true that MOST professional psychologists (and scientists in general) tend to be skeptical of the evidence for psi. But it doesn't change the fact that the evidence for psi is good. Likewise, even if it were true that "most" scholars are skeptical of Jesus' claims implying divinity, it doesn't change the fact that when judged by the correct application of the standard criteria of authenticity, some of these claims are likely to be authentic.
THE LIBERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF: YOU'RE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, STUPID!
Another feature of liberal scholarship which has to be exposed and debunked properly is its sophistical and prejudiced tendency to assume that the early Christian movement was not interested at knowing the truth about Jesus, and hence that it felt free to misrepresent the facts and invent a bunch of false stories and facts (something contrary to the ethical teachings of Jesus, by the way).
In the same way that "skeptics", influenced by their prejudices, tend to think that parapsychologists are charlatans, extremely biased, unreliable and credulous individuals, anti-Christians, influenced by their prejudices, tend to think that the early Christian movement was composed of a bunch of extremely unreliable individuals who were not interested in the truth and, contrary to Jesus' teachings, were prone to propagate falsehoods about Jesus' teachings and even die for them. (Ironically, as I've explained here, some of these contemporary American anti-Christians are open to believe in or to be sympathetic to New Age sources which claim to come directly from Jesus in the 20th century! They laugh at, distrust and dismiss the early Christian claim, coming from people who knew Jesus directly or who knew the apostles and had personal experiences of the risen Jesus, like Paul, were "inspired" by Jesus or God to preserve the authentic teachings of Jesus, but at the same time these same American anti-Christians are prone and extremely sympathetic to believe that Jesus or God has revealed themselves accurately in the 20th century through paranormal means and through certain people, mainly atheists already unsympathetic in advance towards Christianity, and have directly inspired the creation of books like the Book of Urantia, A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God and other new age revisionistic sources about Jesus). Only in America (=USA)!
This self-favourable and self-supporting (anti-Christian) assumption by liberal scholars (and other anti-Christians) according to which the early Christians weren't interested in the truth about Jesus implies that:
1-They will consider as false or dubious any claim of Jesus implying divinity, christology or special faculties (an egregious example of this is that Jesus' predictions of the future are seen by many liberals as inventions of the early Church, a materialistic prejudice which even affects the dating of the Gospels by these scholars; and his healings or exorcisms tend to be accepted but not at its paranormal or supernatural sense, but as superstitious religious interpretations by the scientific illiterate witnesses of the time).
2-They will see contradictions and inconsistencies where there is not one, or where a consistent interpretation can be plausibly given. Hence, these scholars don't respect the principle of interpretative charity.
For example, a liberal whom I respect, Antonio Piñero (see my post about him here), has claimed that there is a tension regarding Jesus' birth place. He says in a podcast that two Gospels (Luke and Matthew) claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but the other New Testament material speak of Jesus as being of Nazareth.
According to Piñero, the theory accepted by most scholars is that Jesus probably was born in Nazareth, and that the reference to Bethlehem is a later addition, created when Jesus' figure was already exalted, and hence the Gospel writers had the necessity to create a Jesus which fits the old Testament predictions about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem.
This is a surprisingly bad and prejudiced argument, but it is very common among liberal scholars (and "skeptics", see below):
It is true, as Piñero says, that Jesus is referred to as being "of Nazareth". But this doesn't necessarily contradicts at all the Gospels which say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because being "of Nazareth" could simply mean that Jesus was raised there, not that he was born there.
Compare: Suppose that I say "I, Jime Sayaka, blogger from US, have commented such and such thing". In other moment, I say: "I'm Jime Sayaka, from Japan, and I've said that and that".
Is there a contradiction? It depends. In the first case, I'm referring to where I live now, not where I was born. In the second case, I'm referring to where I was born, not from where I'm writing right now. The contradiction only can be asserted if it is assumed that both propositions refer simultaneously to the my birth's place, or to the place from I'm writting the post. But this assumption has to be proved, not merely assumed (but liberal scholars are pretty "liberal" in assuming things, specially when such suppositions are contrary to Christianity. Compare with the creative and inventive suppositions of "skeptics" regarding how any particular psychic or medium performed a trick, even if not evidence for it exists).
In the absence of more data, the principle of interpretative charity suggests that you must interpret the above two claims as not contradictory, that is, as claims that can be made consistent. Only a person extremely prejudiced, with an axe to grind against me, will insist that such statements are contradictory or "in tension" (in order to imply that I'm a liar or at least that I'm unreliable).
Likewise, the only two Gospels which include explicit birth stories are consistent in saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The reference to Nazareth is never made explicitly as referring to Jesus' birth place. This point is explained by New Testaement scholar Ben Whiterington III in this brief exchange with skeptic Michael Shermer who, like liberals in general, uncharitably argue that there is a "tension" between Bethlehem and Nazareth as the place of Jesus' birth (by the way, what the hell does Shermer know about New Testament scholarship? Why is Shermer debating about New Testament topics with a world's leading biblical scholar? Whiterington III was forced to educate Shermer several times in that short debate):
In the case of liberal scholars, they have the working ASSUMPTION that the early Christian movement is constantly inventing stories and falsehoods in order to exalt the figure of Jesus. Since the Old Testament says that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, liberal scholars assume that the Gospels which say that Jesus was born there were LATER additions or fabrications in order to make the figure of Jesus to fit with the Old Testament's prediction.
Note that this liberal assumption, in turn, includes the following addtional and implicit assumptions:
-That the Old Testament predictions are false
-That even if they were true, they not applied to Jesus
-That there is a straightforward or at least likely contradiction between Jesus being born in Bethlehem and the reference of Jesus as being of Nazareth (claims that can be made consistent as showed above), and that the early Christians and the authors of the Gospels were so stupid that they didn't see the obvious contradiction (Couldn't the Christian authors, supposedly so experts in fabrications, convenient omissions and creative inventions, simply to delete any reference to Nazareth, to suppress any putative contradiction, and simply insist that Jesus was from Bethlehem?).
-That the early Christian movement, contrary to Jesus' ethical teachings, didn't have interest in knowing and telling the truth, so that they intentionally and dishonestly invented false facts and stories about the birth of Jesus.
More telling is that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem passes positively the criterion of authenticity known as multiple attestation (the birth narratives are independently attested in Matthew and Luke and hence Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is likely to be historical). However, the prejudice of liberals against Christianity is so strong that it overrides the criterion of multiple attestation, which is one of the most reliable and widely used criteria of authenticity in Jesus scholarpship.
When the criterion of multiple attestation supports aspects of the life of Jesus that are palatable to the liberal scholar, he will accept it. But when the same criterion supports distinctive aspects of the traditional Christian view of Jesus, then... to the hell with the criterion of multiple attestation!
So, the trick of liberals scholars, and "skeptics" like Shermer, consists in a selective, prejudiced and arbitrary misapplication of the criteria of authenticity plus the anti-Christian assumption that what is not proved to be historical is likely to be an invention. (This trick is bought by anti-Christians in general, because they want to hear that the Gospels stories about Jesus which support the traditional view of Jesus are false, so they tend to be credulous regarding such atheistic-liberal fallacies).
All of these assumptions and abuses of the criteria of authenticity are based on the major implicit assumption of liberal scholars that the early Christian movement is guilty until proven to be innocent. And even when positive evidence is available (e.g. multiple attestation of a given event, like Jesus' birth narratives), the liberal scholar will feel free to cast doubts on it or even deny it, if it fits with his anti-Christian agenda. This is another example of wishful thinking and atheistic deception on the scholarly level.
Suppose that Luke and Matthew, instead of claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (confirming the Old Testament predictions), would have included a saying by Jesus claiming "All the spiritual roads lead to my father, and no one way is the only true", or "There is not such a thing as the hell or sin or divine justice. All what exists is pure, infinite love. Just forgive, love, meditate, practice yoga, eat healthy foods, be happy and I promise you that you will find God inside yourself if you're prepated to FEEL him", I'm sure that liberal scholars will sympathetically accept such sayings as historical and claim that they are reliably proved by the criterion of multiple attestation, and we would see a Marcus Borg championing these religious pluralistic sayings as the conclusions of "mainline scholars".
Unfortunately, the Gospel evidence for Jesus's teachings and deeds gives us a view of him which is not politically correct nor palatable to our pluralistic, spiritually "soft", "don't worry be happy" kind of secular society. For a large extension, some of Jesus' claims are not what we would WANT to hear. Instead of pluralism, we find sayings implying strong exclusivism. Instead of being one among others (in Jesus' time, there were many Jewsih holy-men), he portrayed himself as unique (the resurrection being the most dramatic, telling and shocking example of such uniqueness or exclusivity). Instead of promoting a kind of quasi-pantheistic Eastern spirituality (yoga, "all are one", dissolution of the self through meditation, good and evil are illusions) or egotistic-centered New Age soft spirituality (your internal self is everything, your thinking creates your reality = you're mini-gods, etc.), he asked us for repentance in order to enter God's kingdom (which implies that not everyone is going to enter in it, otherwise the "repentance" in question is meaningless), forgave sins (which implies Jesus' acceptance of the religious/spiritual category of sin), said and implied that he was the absolute revelation of the Father, and cautioned us about the coming of highly astute, future false Jesus or Christs who are going to mislead a bunch of people, even the chosen ones.
THE AMERICAN WAY TO TEST SPIRITUAL CLAIMS
A massive problem that I've found among many Americans (and please, I hope American readers of my blog, who are the majority of my readers, won't be offended by the following comments, this is just my honest and humble opinion) is that their culture, which is otherwise amazing and extraordinary, is strongly linked with wishful thinking and emotional-driven beliefs regarding spiritual matters. For many Americans that I've known personally, or through books, articles or e-mails, the "it is appealing to me" or "it is not appealing to me" criteria seem to be determinative of what is true or false in spiritual matters.
The "it is appealing to me" way of choosing worldviews is an extremely dangerous and potentially destructive criterion for spirituality. It works as a hidden assumpion which condition how you are to read the evidence, what group of scholars you will believe or distrust, and what kind of worldview you tend to choose.
Moreover, almost all spiritual practiques and journeys tend to produce positive, nice feelings in their practitioners (otherwise, you wouldn't find so many people in them). They promise things that certain kind of people want to hear. Extreme contemporary versions of these journeys promise what MOST people want to hear (e.g. there is not good or evil and hence not sin nor divine justice, or that our thinking creates all reality... even I, Jime Sayaka, would WISH that all these things were true. Who would be opposed to these nice promises? What kind of people would oppose, in advance, to religious pluralism? What person would prefer that "salvation", if it exists, is possible only through one and just one source?) Unfortunately, what is true is not settled by our wishes or "appealings".
You need to have the guts and courage to find the truth wherever it is, even if what you find is strongly disgusting or repeling to you, specially on spiritual matters which is the most important aspect of our lives!
Now, just as an intellectual exercise: Suppose (just for the argument's sake) that Jesus' exclusivism is true. Suppose in addition that the resurrection actually happened and that, given the religious context in which it happened, it is likely that God did raised Jesus from the dead in vindication of his claims. Suppose that Jesus' teachings about salvation are true. In this case, all the "it is not appealing to me" or "I don't like it" kind of thinking will be a perfect way to be driven into spiritual disaster and self-destruction. Your own spiritual destiny will be destroyed just because you allowed that your personal or ideological prejudices about how God is or should be, emotional likes and dislakes regarding popular Christian pastors or dogmatic Christians in the local Church, deep emotional wounds related with Christian relatives or doctrines in your early age, etc. prevented you to accept who Jesus really was. This is clearly irrational, silly, stupid and dangerous.
This is why I think it is extremely important to examine objectively and in depth the life and teachings of Jesus and, above all, the historicity of the resurrection. If our investigation shows us that the resurrection was false, an invention of the early Christian, a bunch of false propaganda motived by religious bigotry, then fine: forget Jesus!. But if the resurrection happened, then it is reasonable that you research seriously and exactly what he claimed and taught about himself, God's kingdom, pluralistic or exclusivistic ways of salvation, sins, etc.
Ideally, you have to do the same regarding revisionistic views of Jesus, specially the ones coming supposedly from paranormal sources (dreams, automatic writting, putative alien contacts, afterlife sources, etc.), since they have to power to be overwhelmingly more persuasive (specially for spiritual-oriented people who are sympathetic to the paranormal and hence already biased to give prima facie credibility to the information provided by such mysterious "higher" sources). But in this case, also keep in mind the key caution that Jesus is reported to having said in the Gospels several centuries ago: "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand." (Matthew 24: 23-25)
Your whole spiritual fate could depend on your research about it and the conclusions draws from it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment