Historicity of Gospels and Consensus of Historians (quora)

Q

What is the general consensus of historians (not theologians) on Jesus' history? Is the message of the Bible true?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-consensus-of-historians-not-theologians-on-Jesus-history-Is-the-message-of-the-Bible-true/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Own answer

and an ensuing debate on it. To be clear in advance, when I started the comment/answer "There is no such thing as a general consensus of historians on the point," I was in "historians" not just meaning those within Academia, as will be clarified lower down. To specify even further, my own five years worth of exams were not at department of history, but more linguistic and ethnolinguistic ones. But Latin and Greek studies and the for each language compulsory or offered courses of Cultural History also do give an insight into at least history of ideas. That of politics can be checked ... on internet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.

Written Fri

There is no such thing as a general consensus of historians on the point.

Hilaire Belloc was a Catholic historian, some other guy, say Richard Carrier, is a Sceptic historian.

They are not consenting between them on the truth of it.

Historians are often enough NOT like medical doctors all consenting measles can be harmless enough in childhood, and if once had gives you immunity against them as long as you don’t get AIDS.

Here is one subject on which they are more like doctors arguing on whether cholesterol is more bad for the heart or more good against brain diseases.

Joe Fessenden

1 upvote

The consensus that there was a man, Jesus, on whom the Christian religion would be based, lived and was crucified in Judea in the first half of the first century AD is so strong that the tiny handful who try to make claims against it are received with laughter (because the theories they propose and rules they apply are so absurd from the academic historian’s standpoint) rather than interest. Since you bring up Richard Carrier, you should realized he is not taken seriously in the academic world, just in the blogosphere. That should tell you something.

Now, I am not addressing at least part of the question because there is no “general consensus” of historians about “the message of the Bible” even as it relates to Jesus.*

As an aside, am I reading your assertion correctly that you are claiming that “medical doctors all consent” that measles is harmless enough in childhood that vaccines are counterproductive?

———————

* The possibility of such a consensus, I argue, is impossible because of the rules of the game as they currently stand. If a historian examines the evidence before him and draws the conclusion that he finds the documents recorded, there, compelling, his entire position is rejected by a not insignificant number who consider his opinion now tainted, as it were, by Christianity. In any case, we are in an area of history that, from the purest academic perspective, is murky beyond those basic facts (or probabilities high enough that they are accepted as factual until meaningful evidence and arguments can be provided otherwise) that are already accepted by nearly all the professionals in the field.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Since you bring up Richard Carrier, you should realized he is not taken seriously in the academic world, just in the blogosphere.”

That means there is a lack of consensus between Academic world and blogosphere, at least.

As opposed to a consensus spanning both Academics in function and blogosphere.

“As an aside, am I reading your assertion correctly that you are claiming that “medical doctors all consent” that measles is harmless enough in childhood that vaccines are counterproductive?”

That I did not claim.

I think they all consent that measles in childhood are more harmless than measles later on, if in an environment where disease can be kept as best possible without complications, which is why getting measles used to be used as a vaccine.

If I am wrong even on that one, you tell me the real news.

“The possibility of such a consensus, I argue, is impossible because of the rules of the game as they currently stand. If a historian examines the evidence before him and draws the conclusion that he finds the documents recorded, there, compelling, his entire position is rejected by a not insignificant number who consider his opinion now tainted, as it were, by Christianity.”

That is why Hilaire Belloc was a Historian outside the Academic world, as much as Carrier.

Today Belloc would have been closer to being a blogger than a professor, as in his day he was also a writer, but no professor.

Joe Fessenden

There’s a reason the academy exists as distinct from the blogosphere. Anyone can write a blog on anything. If his claims were taken seriously as a scholar, Carrier would be able to get some sort of position. However, I must take your point as choosing to compare Belloc and Carrier as a good decision since you are comparing two non-scholars/non-academics. My challenge boils down to the fact that the basic existence of the man is well accepted by the scholars; it is unreasonable to put bloggers and scholars at the same level when addressing questions like this.

On the measles one, I’m not well versed enough to get into the comparative. That’s why I asked to clarify instead of just jumping. It doesn’t sound like you are promoting the anti-vaccine movement. Thank you for the clarification.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There’s a reason the academy exists as distinct from the blogosphere."

If you add "still" you may have a point. Academia did not develop as a distinction from the blogosphere.

But Academy and blogosphere overlap, so even so you are overdoing it.

"Anyone can write a blog on anything."

Like anyone can write a thesis on anything.

"If his claims were taken seriously as a scholar, Carrier would be able to get some sort of position."

So? He actually HAS a position. In the blogosphere.

"However, I must take your point as choosing to compare Belloc and Carrier as a good decision since you are comparing two non-scholars/non-academics."

Both have learned doing scholarship at university, both have gone on to do scholarship outside the universities of their countries and times.

While they can be termed "non-academics" in the sense of doing their work outside Academia, they cannot be termed "non-scholars" for that reason.

"My challenge boils down to the fact that the basic existence of the man is well accepted by the scholars;"

In Academia, who are a l s o tied down to not recognising Him as God, as far as department of History is concerned. As you just mentioned.

Which, to a Christian, devaluates the standard of contemporary Academia, just as the value of the then English Academia was similarily devaluated to Roman Catholics like Belloc or myself.

"it is unreasonable to put bloggers and scholars at the same level when addressing questions like this."

No, it is not if the bloggers are doing scholarship.

It is your Chinese "Belloc and Carrier are not Mandarins" which is in Christendom at least, as well as generally, unreasonable when adressing reasons.

Carrier shall be taken seriously, whether Academia wants it to or not, and I am taking him seriously as an opponent.

By the way, you are helping him out : after five years worth of exams and a bit more physical time at Academia, I have no PhD or even licence, and Carrier probably uses that as an excuse for ignoring my refutations.

"It doesn’t sound like you are promoting the anti-vaccine movement."

I am not attributing the stance of the anti-vaccine movement to a consensus of medical doctors. I might even so promote it as reasonable.

You see, academic consensus and reasonable are two diverse things. To a certain era, academic consensus was:

• horoscopes determine characters and fates of men;
  
  
• therefore the story of Jacob and Esau having same horoscope but different characters and fates is poppycock.

To a Christian, the reverse is reasonable:

• Jacob and Esau were born with same horoscope;
  
  
• nevertheless, their characters and fates are opposed;
  
  
• therefore, characters and fates are not determined by horoscopes.

So, we must as Christians (and so do most Academians today) regard horoscopes as either irrelevant or at best for astrology influencing only in non-determinastical ways. Therefore we must regard academic consensus of that day as irrelevant to truth.

It is not the same thing as episcopal consensus about Holy Tradition. Under that one, blogosphere and Academia are roughly equal.