A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker and a liberal scholar (plus interventions of a New Ager)

This is the first part of a series of a friendly and fictional dialogues between a truth-seeker about the historical Jesus (a person who wants to know really who was Jesus, with no axe to grind against Christianity and no materialistic and secular prejudices, hence open to follow the evidence about Jesus wherever it can lead) and a liberal scholar.

In this dialogue, the topic of discussion is the dating of the Gospels, specifically Mark's Gospel. I'll use "TS" to identify the Truth-Seeker and "Liberal" to identify the liberal scholar. At the end to the discussion, we'll see the participation of an unexpected guest: A New Ager, which I'll identify as NA.

Enjoy... and above all THINK for yourself.

Liberal: New Testament scholarship agrees that the first written Gospel was Mark's Gospel, and it is dated around the year 70 AD. Do you agree?

TS: Yes, but with important qualifications. 

Liberal: Which ones?

TS: It is not the agreement of "New Testament scholarship", only of MOST New testament scholars. But there are some prominent scholars who disagree.

Liberal: Yeah, but I'm talking about independent, scientific scholarship, not about "scholarship" from the ultra conservative camp.

TS: I'll let pass your dismissing comment about "ultra conservative scholarship" (which implies that only non-conservative scholars are scientific, which is demostrably false as I'll show in the course of our dialogues) and your uncritical view that such scholars are "independent" (independent from what? From religion, perhaps... but are they independent from naturalism? From atheism? From anti-Christianity? From religious pluralism?)

It is simply false that only conservative scholars date Mark's Gospels earlier than 70 AD. An example is agnostic scholars and member of the Jesus' Seminar, James Crossley, who's an expert on Mark, and dates it at the end of 30s or mid 40s!

Another example of liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson who also suggested early dates for most of the New Testament material.

Liberal: Well, yes...

TS: Then it is false that only "ultra" conservative scholars provide an early date of Mark's Gospel and other NT material. You statement is either uninformed, intellectually dishonest or simply you were uncareful to make your statement accurately. I assume it is the latter case.

Liberal: Fine, my point was simply to show that most scholars agree regarding the date of Mark's Gospel, and certainly most scholars have not been convinced by the arguments of Crossley and Robinson.

TS: Fine, but in science the opinion of the majority is of secondary importance, what we want to do is to examine the evidence for and against a given position. Can you tell me what evidence is there to support the view of "most" scholars regarding Mark's Gospel dating?

Liberal: the best and standard argument in favor of a late dating of Mark's Gospel (an argument which has convinced most scientific scholars) is this:

The Gospel of Mark refers to Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. In Mark 13:2, we can read: “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

So scholars suggest that such Gospel was written AFTER the destruction of the temple (which happened in 70 AD), and that such Jesus' prediction never happened: It was put back in Jesus' lips after Jesus' figure had been exalted (i.e. considered divine) among Christians.

You won't deny that this is a very good, convincing, scientific argument, would you?

TS: It is a "good, convincing, scientific argument" only if you ASSUME that Jesus didn't have the powers to predict the future. But if he was the Son of God as the Gospels portray him, why exactly he couldn't predict the future?

You're assuming, not proving, that the Christian view of Jesus is false.

Moreover, even if he was NOT the Son of God, he could have precognitive powers (a phenomenon studied by contemporary parapsychology) and hence his prediction could be historical, not fictional.

So, you're also assuming that the evidence of parapsychology for precognition is invalid and that precognition doesn't occur.

Liberal: Well, I'm a scientific, not a religious nor paranormal believer. From a scientific point of view, it is more reasonable to think that such prediction was fictional, and puts back into Jesus' lips.

TS: False. 

Your assumption doesn't come from science, but from your personal philosophical prejudice that the paranormal cannot occur and that the divine view of Jesus is false. You have not proven these assumptions.

Liberal: Are you asking me to assume that the divine view of Jesus is true?

TS: NO, I'm not asking you to assume that. But (for the same reason), you shouldn't assume that such view is false. 

Precisely the purpose of the investigation is to discover who Jesus really was, not to "assume" anything which determines in advance our conclusions.

Liberal: I disagree, science works under the assumption that the supernatural doesn't occur. Period.

TS: It is not clear to me that science is committed to the view that the supernatural doesn't occur. But let's assume that for the argument's sake.

In such case science is not interested in the truth, but only naturalistic explanations (which would be false regarding some supernatural phenomenon if it has ever occured). 

Just imagine that Jesus was actually the Son of God: According to your view of science, you begin with a pressuposition which will drive you, necessarily, to FALSE conclusions about him. Because if the truth is that Jesus is divine, you only will allow in your reconstruction of the Historical Jesus his human aspects, not his divine ones... so your picture of him will be incomplete, misleading and false.

Your view of science limits the discovery of the truth (at least regarding phenomena, like Jesus' resurrection, which suggest a supernatural intervention). 

If you're interested in the truth, I suggest you to be more critical of your naturalistic assumptions.

As atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton comments:

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic . . . science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism  (Bradley Monton, “Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision”, 1, 2 & 9-10)

Liberal: I disagree with it. For me science is naturalistic. Period. 

I agree with the introduction to the main Jesus Seminar's book:

the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens

You won't change my mind about it.

TS: Fine, but it is clear that your view is based on starting naturalistic assumptions, not on facts.

Liberal: I don't think so, I'm interested in scientific facts, not on religious dogmas.

TS (realizing such dogmatism of his liberal friend, he decides to press even more the point... but an unexpected and common friend enters the discussion, the New Ager): 

 NA: Can I say something?

TS and Liberal (together): Sure, welcome!

NA: I think the important thing about Jesus is not the dating of the Gospels, but Jesus' teachings.

In my opinion, the major mistake of Christianity is to have created a religion around a person, instead of around his message. And the important thing is the message, not the messenger.

Liberal: I agree largely with that point.

TS: The problem is that NA's view assumes the falsehood of Jesus' teaching in the early Q tradition (in Mattew 11: 27/ Luke 10: 22) and multiply attested by the last part of John 14:6, in which Jesus clearly say that HE (Jesus/The Son) is the only way to the Father.

You have to assume that certain traditions implying exclusivism in Jesus' self-perception, which pass positively one or more criteria of authenticity (as the Q tradition mentioned above) are false and fictional.

And such assumption is not based on the evidence of the historical Jesus, but in a priori theological and philosophical views about how salvation "must" be (mainly, religious pluralism).

If such traditions are true (as the evidence, which pass the criteria of authenticity, shows) then Jesus' teaching cannot be separated from his person, because (in Jesus' own perception) his person was intrinsically connected to salvation. His message was a message of salvation and reconciliation with God THROUGH himself!.

So, NA's opinion (very common on the New Age circles and even among some liberal scholars) is based on an incomplete and extremely biased approach to the historical evidence about Jesus' self-perception.

Liberal: I don't think those traditions are historical, they were put back into Jesus' lips after he was exalted.

TS (noting that his liberal's friend argument is based on the same assumption than the dating of the Gospels, adds): Well, you have made a claim and hence have the burden of proof. 

You have to prove:

-The negative claim that such traditions are NOT historical (i.e. that Jesus never claimed that)

-That the criteria of authenticity which such traditions pass are irrelevant in this case.

-And that such traditions are actually false stories created entirely by the Christians and put back into Jesus' lips.

And you have to prove all of this with positive, concrete EVIDENCE, not with more assumptions.

Liberal: You again misrepresent my view when you say I'm grounding it in "assumptions". This is false, I ground my views on scientific, historical facts.

TS: I don't think so.

Liberal: You can think whatever you want.

NA: Wait a minute, let me reply to TS' contentions

My opinion about the historical Jesus doesn't come only from "a priori theological and philosophical" prejudices, as TS claims. 

I have other sources of information about Jesus like the Apocryphal Gospels and A Course in Miracles.

TS: What evidence is there for the reliability of these sources?

NA: Well, the Apocryphal Gospels are additional sources about Jesus, besides the four Gospels which the Chruch arbitrarily chose as "inspired".

TS: False, the Church chose the four Gospels because they were the early ones and hence the more reliable. The canonical Gospels are all from the first century and hence the earliest biographical information about the historical Jesus.

The Apocryphal Gospels come from the second century and after, and everybody knew that they were forgeries.

I think my liberal friend would agree with it,

Liberal: For most part, it is true. The Apocryphal Gospels are later material and therefore less reliable for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus.

TS: And A Course in Miracles is a 20th century document!, hence it is disconnected of the historical Jesus by almost 2000 years!

NA: Yeah, but it comes from Jesus' himself!

TS: What evidence can you provide for such extraordinary claim?

NA: When you read it, you can feel it... it is hard to explain, but you can feel in your heart that it is Jesus' voice. Moreover, it is compatible with the discoveries of New Testament scholarship.

TS: Well, mormons also claim that the truth of the Book of Mormon can be felt in their hearts... your claim is not different from mormons. In any case, this is a subjective feeling, not a matter of historical, scholarly evidence.

And the views of A Course In Miracles are not compatible with New Testament Scholarship, only with SOME radical reconstructions of the historical Jesus by SOME scholars like SOME members in the Jesus Seminar.

In any case, it doesn't provide independent attestation because the author of the book could easily gather such information precisely from such liberal scholarly sources, specially if they share the same anti-Christian animosity of most liberal scholars.

You have not provided any single piece of scientific or historical evidence for the scholarly reliability of ACM, nor for your claim that it comes from Jesus.

My liberal friend, who doesn't believe in the afterlife, should agree with it.

Liberal: Yes I agree and it has nothing to do with my unbelief in the afterlife. No prominent historical Jesus scholar or New Testament historian takes ACM seriously (at least not in their scholarly work about the reconstruction of the Historical Jesus), and such New Age paranormal sources are not taken seriously among scientists.

NA: I disagree with both of you, but it is fine.

End of the discussion... stay tuned for future dialogues