If you are a Christian who is waiting for the day
when most historical scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, affirm that
the evidence does indeed indicate that Jesus was resurrected, I’m afraid you’ll
be waiting until the Second Coming, when there will be no doubt. Why is
that? If, as we say on this blog, the historical evidence for the
resurrection is so strong, then shouldn’t every scholar be lining up behind it?
Historical scholar Mike Licona addresses this
issue in his book The Resurrection of Jesus:
“Given the prominent role of horizons [i.e.,
worldview] in every historical inquiry, we can anticipate that consensus opinions
will often elude historians.... Unfortunately, rather than an objective
and careful weighing of the data, the subjective horizons of historians,
especially historians writing on religious, philosophical, political and moral
topics, exert the most influence in their final judgments. Moreover, many
members of the audience to whom historians present their research are no less
biased. Accordingly, what is judged as sound and persuasive research to
one group may be viewed as inadequate and overly biased by another.”
Licona’s point is straightforward:
worldviews (or horizons) of historians exert a strong influence on their interpretations
of data. There may be some historians who can limit that influence, but
there are just as many who cannot. He continues:
“A consensus opinion can be valuable for
recognizing objectivity when the group is composed of scholars from all
interested camps with the exception of some fringe positions. Tucker
cites agreement among historians of the Holocaust: Jewish and Gentile, German
and British, right-wing and left-wing historians agree that there was a
Holocaust.”
Here is another important point. If
you have agreement on historical facts from a full spectrum of worldviews,
then this is valuable for recognizing objectivity. However, just
because a historical interpretation does not garner assent from a broad
spectrum does not indicate that it is not objective. In other words,
consensus across a broad spectrum is a good positive test, but not a good
negative test.
With regard to historical biblical studies,
Licona offers the following analysis:
“A group exhibiting greater heterogeneity is the
Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Annual SBL meetings are attended by
members of many theological and philosophical persuasions: liberals,
conservatives, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists,
all from numerous countries and ethnic groups from all over the world. If
a consensus opinion is going to be of any value for historians, it must come
from such a group.
However, a consensus from even this group is
valuable only when all of its members opining on a subject have personally
researched that particular subject. For example, a consensus opinion of
all SBL members on a matter pertaining to a recent archaeological find has
little value if less than five percent of all SBL members have a significant
knowledge of that find and expertise in the field. Similarly, little if any
value should be assigned to those scholars opining on the historicity of the
resurrection of Jesus who have not engaged in serious research on the matter.”
Licona argues that consensus opinion on the
historical Jesus can be valuable coming from a group such as the SBL because
of its heterogeneity. However, he warns that only scholars who have
actually studied the subject in depth should be counted toward the consensus.
Given the challenges of historical consensus,
especially with regard to the historical Jesus, what should we expect in the
future? According to Licona:
“It is highly unlikely that a consensus will ever
exist pertaining to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. While strong
agreement exists regarding a number of “facts” often used as evidence to
support the resurrection hypothesis, no consensus will ever exist for the
conclusion that the resurrection hypothesis is an accurate description of what
actually occurred.
After all, how likely is it that historians who
are Muslims and atheists will confess that the resurrection hypothesis is the
best explanation or that Christian historians will confess that the
resurrection hypothesis is not the best explanation? Yet, either Jesus rose
from the dead or he did not; and historians holding one of these positions are
more correct than those holding the other.
Because of the uncertainty of historical
knowledge, many historical descriptions will never receive a stamp of approval
from the consensus of the relevant scholars. This should not restrain the
historian from stating that his or her hypothesis is probably true.”
Licona concludes that a consensus that Jesus was
resurrected will elude us for the foreseeable future. This fact does
not mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead, only that consensus across a
broad spectrum of scholars is impossible given the major influence of
worldviews. After all, an admission that Jesus rose from the dead would
usually entail a radical realignment of the worldview of a non-Christian
scholar. Although this may happen from time to time, it is highly
unlikely to happen at a high enough rate to create a consensus.
As Christians, where does this leave us? I
think it means that we are free to point out where there is a positive
consensus about the historical facts about Jesus, but we must realize that
those facts will only give us a minimal list of true facts. Beyond the
minimal consensus facts, we may argue for additional facts using solid
historical criteria, but we should not expect non-Christian scholars to always
agree with our arguments.
We also now have an idea why there are such
divergent views on the historical Jesus. Although scholars may agree on a
short list of facts, many of them feel free to argue for
additional “facts” that suit their worldview. As lay people reading books
written by historical Jesus scholars, we must always be on guard for the author’s
worldview nosing its way into the book.
Another implication is that reading historical
Jesus works from one side of the philosophical or theological spectrum will
never be enough to get a reasonable view of the historical evidence.
Readers must force themselves to pick up works from the other side of the
spectrum as well.
A friend of mine once told me he no longer
believed in the historical Jesus of Christian tradition after reading a book by
a liberal Jesus scholar. When I asked if he read works by believing
Christians or conservatives, he answered “no.” He just assumed that
the scholar he read had the final word. As Licona has shown, no scholar has
the final word. We must all engage the evidence for ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment