flowperson said:
The Jesus Seminar was an institution formed in the 80's by the late Robert Funk for the expressed purpose of coming up with some
definitive answers to the question of whether or not the things that the gospels say that Jesus said and did actually happened, or were/are they only stories that support generalized beliefs. Many scholars of biblical history and analysis were brought together for regular meetings on the questions and issues, and
they actually voted their opinions as to the veracity of biblical events that defined Jesus' life on earth. I believe that the Seminar no longer is functioning, but I might be wrong about that.
People who hold fundamentalist beliefs and literalist opinions regarding the content of the New Testament were/are particularly hostile to the Seminar and the work that it pursued, even though it essentially followed democratic and scientific methods in trying to untangle and verify these issues. I can understand that from a "personal investment in belief" perspective. But I do not understand their hostility towards the Seminar itself since the credentials of its members were/are beyond question, and since the institution functioned in ways that other institutions of similar composition do to carry out everyday missions in today's world to build and preserve our ongoing attempts to civilize the human race.
IMHO it's all just another facet of the conservative movement to stifle and repress attempts to enhance our collective understanding of the world that we live together in, and how we got here from the past we all share. This is really what universities do in part, and there isn't such hostility towards their operations usually. I know, I used to work at a really big one at the top levels. But then there is a lot of self-censorship that goes on in them when new knowledge emerges that automatically clashes with long-accepted truths.
Truth is a variable thing that alters itself with the passage of time and the advent of new discoveries. First we believed what Galileo had to say about the universe and how it worked. Then there was Newton, and then Einstein, then Heisenberg and Bohr, and that's all still changing over time depending upon the new things that we learn about the universe around us. To my way of thinking it should be no different when it comes to discovering the truths about historical figures who lived in the past and changed the world for us all. All I do know is that as time passes, new truths emerge and are accepted in place of what has gone before. It's just the way that the process of progress works.
flow....
Thank you for this explanation, Flow. It helps me understand why my profs discount things that come out of the Jesus Seminar, and I share their feeling. I realize you simply answered my questions as you understood the matter. I think my problem is much larger than between your opinion and my opinion, so I hope you don't take any of this personally.
I disagree very strongly and very passionately with some of this stuff. I believe there is MUCH misunderstanding as to what actually goes on in universities and how academia works and how scholars arrive at conclusions. I think you highlight a lot of these. I don't know your level of experience in academic scholarship but I do know the criteria for reputable mainstream scholarship. I will go through your post and attempt to clarify things as I understand it.
First, it's not the conservative Christians from whom I've heard negative opinions re the Jesus seminar, but from the other end of the spectrum. The profs at the seminary where I am studying practically discount anything that comes out of the Jesus Seminar movement, and so do I now that I know how they operated.
Definitive answers about the unknowable are impossible. Voting on the matter does not change a thing. Besides, voting on truth is not scholarship. Votes may work for making group desicions all the way from deciding who has lock-up duty tonight to whether or not to put up that multi-million-dollar building or put through that billion-dollar deal. Votes may also work when deciding on policies or religious beliefs that will be applied in an institution. But to vote on whether or not Jesus walked on water or was born of a virgin is not possible.
The scientific method is the ONLY way by which to arrive at truth, no matter if its in the hard sciences or in theology or the social sciences. There is perhaps one exception. Philosophy has its own rules of the game and these rules are beyond my comprehension, so in this discussion I don't include it or its definition of truth. Whether or not it is concrete historical fact that Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water and raised the dead and changed water to wine, plus a lot of other miracles--whether or not these things are concrete historical fact cannot be proved or disproved by a vote.
it essentially followed democratic and scientific methods in trying to untangle and verify these issues.
What does democracy have to do with the scientific method and veracity? Truth equals fact that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method.
But I do not understand their hostility towards the Seminar itself since the credentials of its members were/are beyond question,
Possibly you don't understand my hostility, either, but credentials have absolutely nothing to do with truth. The only thing credentials can do is prove how many exams a person passed. Hopefully, the person with credentials will also know a certain amount of knowledge about a certain topic but this is not a quarantee or a given.
and since the institution functioned in ways that other institutions of similar composition do to carry out everyday missions in today's world to build and preserve our ongoing attempts to civilize the human race.
But the purpose of the institution was not to build or preserve. You say its mission was to determine truth. And truth cannot be determined via vote.
IMHO it's all just another facet of the conservative movement to stifle and repress attempts to enhance our collective understanding of the world that we live together in, and how we got here from the past we all share. This is really what universities do in part, and there isn't such hostility towards their operations usually.
This may be correct.
I know, I used to work at a really big one at the top levels.
What did you work? As a professor? As a student? On what level? What university did you work at? I ask because I don't understand how a reputable university can operate as you describe.
But then there is a lot of self-censorship that goes on in them when new knowledge emerges that automatically clashes with long-accepted truths.
This may be correct but I would not use these terms. I don't think there are "long accepted truths" but there are long-accepted theories or beliefs. Also, I don't think academician normally speak of new knowledge because there is so little we can know for sure; they do speak of new information. And new information simply means that they found out something else. Sometimes theories have to be reworked to accommodate this new information. I would not call it a clash because seldom is this first bit of new information unquestionably more accurate than what has been known. Self-critique and peer review/critique are the policing aspect of academia. I have never heard it called "self-censorship." That sounds like I am making a public statement that I lied. And no scholar worth his or her salt will intentionally lie. I think it could cost them their career.
Truth is a variable thing that alters itself with the passage of time and the advent of new discoveries. First we believed what Galileo had to say about the universe and how it worked. Then there was Newton, and then Einstein, then Heisenberg and Bohr, and that's all still changing over time depending upon the new things that we learn about the universe around us.
I disagree that truth is a variable thing. Truth is. How we understand it varies greatly. What we believe does not necessarily equal truth. We may believe that the sun rises and sets but that does not make it true. Everybody in the world may use language that reflects the belief that the sun rises and sets. But that does not make it true. The fact i.e. truth is that the earth rotates around the sun.
To my way of thinking it should be no different when it comes to discovering the truths about historical figures who lived in the past and changed the world for us all.
But discovery does not come from voting. It comes from applying the scientific method. There are things about historical figures that cannot be proven or disproven. The historicity of Jesus is one of these things.
All I do know is that as time passes, new truths emerge and are accepted in place of what has gone before. It's just the way that the process of progress works.
Not new truths but new information. And it is not accepted "in place of" the old. When and if the new is proven trustworthy, the old is modified to accommodate the new. Not everyone will accept the modified view and some people will continue to insist on the old view.
Here is how truth is arrived at via the scientific method:
Truth is arrived at via analysis of the facts. These facts have to be taken apart and discussed or observed and described. All of these observations and discussions and descriptions are then put together into a theory. The theory is then tested. Sometimes by the same people, sometimes by other people. It has to be tested many times before it can be accepted as truth. It looks to me like scholars normally test a theory for at least a century before they accept it as truth. For example, the theory of evolution has been rigorously tested for well over a century and I understand mainstream scholars accept it more or less as truth. However, there is much opposition. It may take another century for it to solidify into "unquestionable" truth, or for the opposition to disappear. This is helpful in winnowing the wheat from the chaff. Maybe this shows why it is not acceptable to vote on truth.
