There is a clear connection between "skeptics" of parapsychology and liberal New Testament scholars: As a rule, they are atheistic naturalists and materialists (and in the case of liberal scholars, often religious pluralists too, which is a clever way to undermine religions, because the most important ones, specially Christianity, are exclusivistic).
Reading the works of leading liberal scholars of the New Testament, you discover a kind of common denominator among them, namely, the assumption that high Christology (the view that Jesus was divine) is false and hence a later development or invention. This assumption may even to override any positive evidence, based upon the proper application of criteria of authenticity, for high Christology. (See an example here). This assumption is almost never argued for, and readers already hostile to Christianity tend to not examine it critically, because they want to believe that such assumption is true.
So, we can to formulate explicitly the liberal criterion of non-historicity like this:
If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctively Christian, high Christological (divine) view of Jesus, then it is non-historical and was the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity.
It is hard to think an example of a more biased approach to the historical Jesus than this. I've been shocked to discover that this is a major operative assumption behind the works of many leading liberal scholars. This assumption has the following consequences:
1-Evidence for high Christology that DO exists in the early sources (e.g. the Pauline material or even in "Q"), is either ignored, misrepresented or interpreted in contrived ways in order to avoid the high Christology view of Jesus.
2-This assumption begs the question against the Christian view of Jesus. The whole point of researching about the historical Jesus is to discover who Jesus really was, and we cannot assume a priori that he wasn't like the Christianity interprets him. Perhaps he was like that, perhaps he was not. This has to be the conclusion of the research, not the initial assumption behind the research.
So, when John Dominic Crossan says:
I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 35)
He's simply giving an autobiographical, personal opinion, which works like an assumption to assess the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Obviously, under the influence of such assumption, Crossan will conclude that the historical Jesus wasn't resurrected, regardless of the evidence. (Note, by the way, the atheism implicit in Crossan's position: If an omnipotent God exists, then we cannot rule out in advance the possibility that He raised Jesus from the death. It is an open question to be settle by the evidence. Only if God doesn't exist and atheism is true, it is plausible to think that, like Crossan thinks, miracles don't happen and hence that no one can bring corpses back to life. For a more excplicit evidence of Crossan's atheism, read the last part of this post).
But truth-seekers who are interested in the truth, not on ideology or emotional release (as a criterion of choosing beliefs), will examine carefully the evidence and draw the conclusions regardless of their own opinions, wishes, emotions or desires. You have to be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to conclusions or discoveries fully unpalatable or disturbing for you.
3-The liberal assumption, having more weight than the positive criteria of historicity, guarantees than positive evidence for high Christology will never be accepted, because even if traditions clearly suggestive of high Christology pass the criteria of authenticity, they won't be accepted as historical or authentic. Hence, the whole approach begins from an assumption which determine an anti-Christian conclusion. This is a fine example of biased methodology and the consequence is a truncated, incomplete view of Jesus (on behalf of atheism and religious pluralism).
Anti-Christian readers (e.g. atheists, followers of New Age spiritualities, etc.) tend to be uncritical and blind to this problem. Since they WANT to hear that Jesus was different than the Christian view of Jesus, they're extremely sympathetic and uncritical of the above liberal assumption.
For example, they feel free to speculate as plausible that Jesus could master yoga or chi-kung as an explanation for the resurrection (when actually NO historical evidence for these claims exist, let alone for the claim that yoga or chi-kung have the power of produce physical resurrections into immortality in their practitioners). But these same individuals, suddenly, become EXTREMELY skeptical of the early positive evidence in "Q" for Jesus' religious exclusivistic self-perception and high Christology. Clearly, more than a unabiased reading of the evidence is operative here.
This is another example of pseudo-intellectualism, dangerous wishful thinking and self-deception that I've found in some Americans. I am shocked by such emotional American approach to theoretical and spiritual matters.
EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE OF THE LIBERAL ASSUMPTION IN GOSPELS STUDIES
An example of the influence of the anti-Christian, liberal assumption against the historicity of traditions suggesting a high Christology is the dating of the Gospels.
For example, the Gospel of Mark is dated by most scholars to be around 70 A.D. What evidence is there for such dating?.
Well, two reasons are often mentioned:
1-The presence of a developed Christian theology in Mark suggests that such Gospel was written after such theology was developed by Christians (which required some time in order to evolve from the primitive stage of Jesus' own teachings).
2-The Gospel of Mark refers to Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), so scholars suggest that such Gospel was written AFTER the destruction of the temple (which happened in 70 C.E.)
Are these reasons compelling? Well, only if you assume (based on anti-Christian wishes) a lot of things which we have not reason to assume in the first place.
As William Lane Craig comments:
The first argument assumes that the "Christian theology" was not in fact Jesus' own. To say that it is "developed" assumes that it was once "primitive". Actually, the argument cut both eays: one could argue that because Mark was written early, the theology is not "developed", but truly characteristic of what Jesus taught. (The Son Rises, p. 102)
In fact, some scholars (including some liberal) date the Gospel of Mark very early, supporting Craig's argument. An example is agnostic James Crossley, who dates Mark in the late 30s, or the beginning of 40s, and agree that some typical high Christological labels for Jesus were used by him, or about him, during his lifetime and hence are historical.
Crossely comments:
Famous terms for Jesus such as "son of Man" or "Son of God" really were being used by or of Jesus when he was alive. Jesus did really practised healing and exorcism; and Jesus really did predict his imminent death and probably thought it had some atoning function." (How did Christianity begin? p.1)
Uncritical and irrational anti-Christian readers, eager to believe that Jesus was not like the Gospel portrays him, will tend to swallow the first liberal assumption. If they were a little bit critical, they would ask: WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR SUCH ASSUMPTION? What evidence is there for the view that the Christian theology is NOT Jesus' own view? No evidence for such assumption exists. It is sheer speculation, motivated by ideology, wishful thinking and emotional forces.
The second reason for the common dating of Mark is even more telling of the liberal prejudices.
As Craig comments:
The second argument assumes that Jesus did not have divine power to predict the future as the gospels state He did. In other words, the argument assumes in advance that Jesus was merely human. But if He really was the Son of God, as the gospels state, then He could have prophesied the future (ibid. 102).
As Craig comments, the assumption is that Jesus was not divine (that is, that the high Christology view of Jesus in the Gospel is false). Note very carefully that this is a working ASSUMPTION, not the conclusion of the research. The liberal approach is strongly biased, from the beginning, in favor of anti-Christian conclusions.
Now, such assumption makes full sense if you understand the underlying worldview of most liberal scholars. As a rule, liberal scholars are atheistic naturalists and religious pluralists, and both ideologies cannot countenance the exclusivistic, divine high Christology view of Jesus as being authentic.
A parallel can be seen in the case of parapsychology. Outsiders will have difficulty understanding why groups like CSICOP, or individuals like James Randi (who seem to make a life debunking aggresively paranormal matters), do exist.
But insiders fully understand what is happening: The members of "organized skeptical" groups are, as a rule, atheistic naturalists and materialists, and therefore ideologically biased and hostile against the existence of the paranormal. Therefore, they dedicate all or a large part of their efforts debunking and discrediting parapsychology and psychic researchers.
The anti-paranormal bias of "skeptics" is evident in the "working assumptions" that they use when "assesing" the evidence for psi:
1-Double standard for evaluating the evidence for PSI (that is, the same evidence which is acceptable in any other field, is unacceptable for parapsychology), as Richard Wiseman candidly has conceded.
2-Unproven assumptions: For example, when positive evidence for psi is found, the "skeptic" will be free to speculate imaginary scenarios of fraud, incompetence or undetected methodological flaws. In words of professional skeptic Ray Hyman:
The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered
The words in blue are Hyman's justification for disbelieving the results. As writer Michael Prescott comments on Hyman's excuse:
So you see, any experimental result can be challenged, questioned, and doubted, even if the doubt consists of nothing more than the hand-waving objection that some unspecified and presently unknowable error might have been made. Go ahead and refute a claim like that. Prove that an unknown error didn't take place.
Hyman's position is based on their personal beliefs (derived from atheistic naturalism and materialism) that the paranormal cannot exists. If it were any other field of scientific research (e.g. biology), Hyman wouldn't dare to challenge the evidence with such silly excuse. Would Hyman suggest such excuse to doubt the evidence for Darwinian evolution or the neuroscientific evidence for the functional dependence of consciousness on the brain?
Exactly the same occurs in liberal scholarship. They have a bunch of atheistic naturalistic assumptions which, in turn, allow them to read the evidence in a way which supports anti-Christian conclusions. From here, they will say aloud that "contemporary scholarship" is at variance with the Jesus as Christians view him, and that things like the resurrection, Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception, etc. are not supported by and go a lot beyond the evidence.
Sheer atheistic deception, misdirection and charlatanism which have to be fully exposed and intellectually castigated. (As I say in a previous post, I'll probably create another blog exclusively dedicated to address New Testament studies, and specially the atheistic fallacies and misidrections in that field).
Regardless of whether Jesus was literally the Son of God or not, we cannot allow that atheists and liberal scholars mislead us about Jesus' teachings on behald of their own personal bias and religious preferences. We have to research the TRUTH.
We have to use critical thinking, fully understand the criteria of authenticity and apply them properly and consistently. And more importantly, we have to be prepared to accept theoretical conclusions about spiritual matters which, emotionally, are unpalatable or could disturb us.
0 comments:
Post a Comment