This is the fourth part of my "fictional dialogues" about the Historical Jesus among a liberal scholar (Liberal), a truth-seeker (TS) and a New Ager (NA). Read the previous ones here, here and here.
TS: In our previous dialogue, I challenged two very common assumptions in "liberal" scholarship, namely, 1)The assumption that exaltation = falsehood = Christian invention; and 2) The assumption that if an idea has evolved with time, such evolution implies falsehood.
Together, both assumptions astutely allow liberal scholarship to dismiss or distrust a priori any or most Christological tradition about Jesus, even the ones which pass the criteria of authenticity. Therefore, traditions which can be proved as likely to be historical on the basis of the criteria are dismissed or rejected as "inventions" or "fabrications" of Christians. And these things are presented as historical"facts", which only the most conservative and uncritically fundamentalist Christians would dare to challenge.
The whole approach based on the above two assumptions (among others) guarantees, in advance, a reconstruction of the Historical Jesus which will be contrary or at variance with the Christian understanding of Jesus, because such understanding is precisely the one considered a priori to be largely fictional.
Any unbiased and honest truth-seeker, even if he's an agnostic about religion, God or the paranormal, will inmediately and easily would see how much biased is this approach to the historical Jesus studies (in the same way that he would see how much biased the CSICOP/skeptical approach to parapsychology is).
In the conversation of today, my liberal friend is absent, so I can only discuss matters with my NA friend. I'd like to ask my NA friend if he has followed the shreds of the discussion so far.
NA: Despite my disagreements with your opinions, I think I've followed the main ideas of the discussion.
TS: Do you know what are the criteria of authenticity in historical Jesus studies?
NA: I've seen you have mentioned them, but I don't know exactly what they are.
TS: These criteria are methods of testing a given tradition about Jesus in the Gospels in order to discover if such traditions are likely to be historical. These criteria are "signs" or "evidence" in favor of the historical credibility of a given tradition.
NA: I see. Does it mean that if a given tradition cannot pass one of such criteria, such event must be considered non-historical?
TS: Not at all. In order to see why not, just think about it:
What we can recover historically from a given person is always LESS than what such person did or said. As consequence, many (perhaps most) of what person did or said is not available in the recorded historical documents, but it doesn't imply that such person didn't say or do these certain things.
At most, we can say that the evidence available doesn't provide any information about these things, therefore we cannot know anything about it. This is why the criteria has to be used as sufficient, but not as necessary, conditions of historical credibility.
If, for example, you demand as a necessary condition for historicity that a given saying or deed pass the criterion of multiple attestation in order to be historical, and such tradition doesn't pass it, then you would have to conclude that such deed or saying wasn't historical, which is absurd: How can you know if such saying or deed, which is not multiply attested, wasn't actually said or did by Jesus? It could be historical even if it doesn't pass our criteria of authenticity, and even if not historical evidence for the saying or deed exists at all.
NA: I'm not sure I understand the point.
TS: Let me explain with another example more congenial with you.
Let's assume that A Course in Miracles (ACIM) comes from Jesus himself.
NA: Right.
TS: And let's use as an example one of the most widely used criteria of historicity, namely, the criterion of multiple attestation.
Liberal scholar Marcus Borg explains it:
if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up (The Meaning of Jesus, p.12)
The rationale behind the criterion is that it is unlikely that two (or more) early and independent sources will record the same tradition about Jesus if such tradition is a pure invention. It is not impossible, but it is just unlikely.
NA: Right, it is obvious.
TS: But now consider the teachings in A Course in Miracles (ACIM), like this teaching about the Final Judgment:
The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God. Actually it will be undertaken by my brothers with my help. It is a final healing rather than a meting out of punishment, however much you may think that punishment is deserved. Punishment is a concept totally opposed to right-mindedness, and the aim of the Last Judgment is to restore right-mindedness to you. (A Course in Miracles, chapter 2, The Separation and the Atonement).
NS: My God, I love that teaching!
TS: Fine. Now, imagine that such specific teaching doesn't appear in any other independent sources about Jesus, neither early nor later, but that it is an original contribution of ACIM, does it imply that such teaching didn't come from Jesus?
NS: Obviously not!
TS: Why not?
NS: Because perhaps the risen Jesus decided to give such information only and specifically through Helen Schucman and ACIM, presumibly to correct previous misrepresentations of his teachings and set the record straight.
TS: Exactly.
In the hypothesis (assumed to for the argument's sake) that that such specific teaching about the proper interpretation of the Last Judgment is not multiply attested by other independent sources (which also claim to provide Jesus's teachings), it does nothing to prove that such teaching didn't come from Jesus. Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't.
Do you agree?
NA: I strongly agree!
TS: Note, by the way, that the same argument applies to EVERYTHING in ACIM which is original to the course, and hence not multiply attested by other independent sources claiming to come from Jesus.
Do you agree?
NA (emphatically): Yes!.
TS: Exactly the same is valid to the Gospels. If a given tradition about Jesus only appear in one source (let's say John's Gospel) and hence it is not multiply attested, it does nothing to prove that such tradition is fictional or non-historical. It could or not could be historical, but single attestation is not proof of non-historicity.
But, like in the example of ACIM, we cannot infer from the fact that a given piece of information is singly attested, to the conclusion that it is false, fictional or non-historical.
This is why the criteria of authenticity cannot be used negatively, that is, to prove non-historicity, because they are criteria FOR historicity (=historical credibility), not criteria AGAINST historical credibility.
If we use the criterion of multiple attestation negatively in assesing the ACIM, then all the original, unique, special and proper contributions of ACIM would have to be reputed to be false or unreliable.
Do you understand?
NA: I understand and in perspective it seems to be very obvious that we cannot use such criteria for negative conclusions, that is, conclusions of non-historicity.
What I don't understand is why you stress so much such obvious fact.
TS: I stress that fact because in liberal scholarship, when you study it carefully, you discover that liberals tend to use the criteria both positively AND negatively, when it fit their purposes of denying Christological elements in Jesus' life or teachings.
When a given tradition about Jesus doesn't pass one or several criteria (e.g. being singly attested), many of them will tend see the tradition as non-historical (specially if such tradition poses some Christological element).
Note that such liberal use of the criteria, if used for example for assessing the reliaibility of ACIM, would produce a very truncated, incomplete, distorted and misleading view of the Jesus' teachings presented in the Course. A large portion of the Course would have to be considered unreliable and fictional.
NA: I see.
TS: For example, note carefully this argument by "Q scholar" Burton Mack:
The first followeres of Jesus did not known about or imagine any of the dramatic events upon which the narrative gospels hinge. These includes the baptism of Jesus; his conflict with Jewish authorities and their plot to kill him; Jesus' instruction to the disciples; Jesus' transfiguration, march to Jerusalem, last supper, trial, and crucifixion as the King of Jews; and finally, his resurrection from the dead and the stories of the empty tomb. All of these events must and can be accounted for mythmaking in the Jesus movements, with a little of help from the martyrology of Christ, in the period adter the Roman-Jewish war. Thus the story of Q demostrates that the narrative gospels have no claim as historical accounts (The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and the Christian origins, p.247)
As you can see, Mack is using the criterion of date (based on the Q material) negatively, that is, to produce conclusions of non-historicity (and hence, of mythmaking) of those aspects about Jesus not found in Q, specially of those aspects which are essential to the Christian understanding of Jesus.
NA: I see.
TS: Now, apply Mack's negative use of the criterion of date to a 20th source like a ACIM and see what you get.
Much of the information (interpretations and doctrines) in ACIM doesn't appear in Q. You would have to conclude that a large portion of ACIM "must and can be accounted for mythmaking" by Helen Schucman and/or other people, specially when we realize that such information comes 19 centuries after Jesus died!.
NA: I understand. What you mean is that If something is not found in Q, it does not make it a later myth.
TS: Right. It could not be in Q, but could be in other sources (which pass other criteria of authenticity).
NA: Or even if they don't pass any criteria, it doesn't make them non-historical.
TS: Exactly.
This is why I demand intellectual honesty and objectivity in the study of the historical Jesus.
We cannot sympathetically and uncritically agree with the conclusions of many liberal reconstructions of the historical Jesus (for example, of the Jesus Seminar) which is based upon an improper application of the criteria, but then to apply a more loose and uncritical approach when assesing alternative sources of information, like the second century Apocryphal Gospels or the 20th century sources like ACIM, Christian Science, The Urantia Book or The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus.
NA: I understand your point now.
TS: I think a sort of advance in the discussion has been reached today.
My conclusion is this:
Crucial to understand the liberal approach to the historical Jesus is to understand that many of such scholars assume that the Gospels are guilty until proven innocent. This is why, when a tradition about Jesus doesn't pass the criteria, the tradition is considered to be fictional. And in many cases, even if the tradition passes one or several criteria, the liberal "presumption of falsehood" will have overrriding force (see as example our second dialogue).
Failing to understand this amounts to failing to understand the essence of many of the liberal reconstructions about Jesus which are available today. This is also the standard liberal approach to the evidence for the resurrection.
The core of such double standards and misuse of the criteria by liberal scholars is atheism, religious pluralism and strong hostility to Christianity and emotional dislike (specially feelings of fear, guilty and angry) connected with the Christian view of Jesus, which make these people prone, extremely biased to and intellectually sympathetic (I'm tempted to say "desperate") to find a Jesus palatable to them.
This is true and easily demostrable even if the Christian view of Jesus were false.
Such liberal approaches have nothing to do with science nor with serious historical scholarship nor with "historical facts". And this misleading pseudo-scholarship has to be exposed.
We will discuss these matters more widely in future dialogues.
0 comments:
Post a Comment