Academic Fail

[FallentoReason]

Although I'm studying engineering at uni, I've taken a class in ancient Greek and Roman history because it is a new requirement that we have to branch out and expand our horizons. Anyways, we finally covered the topic I was looking forward to all semester which was the rise of Christianity. Most of the material from that lecture I had already looked at from my own research and what not (which was actually reassuring being able to hear what I know but from a trustworthy, well... 'trustworthy' source.. we'll get to that in a second).

At the end of of that lecture I went to the front to discuss a little with my lecturer. I told him I didn't really have any questions to do with the lecture material but instead I was just wondering if it was possible to be a professional historian and a Christian at the same time. "Well, yes. I'm both actually" he said. I found this to be a little surprising and unexpected, but I went into what I was going to say anyways (I thought he wouldn't have been a Christian). I asked him if it's true that Irenaeus was the first church father to quote the Gospels by name (185A.D.). He agreed. Then I asked how we can actually know then that e.g. the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew if the connection is so weak. He said "well, the person's name doesn't matter. I have no doubt though that the author shook hands with Jesus at some stage". Then we talked a little more and the thing about the Synoptics came up. Even before I said anything, he himself admitted that the evidence is there to show that Mark preceded Matthew and Luke and that M & L most likely used Mark. I hesitated for a second and then asked the usual question that makes me facepalm, "if Matthew is dependent on Mark, then what makes you think Matthew, a witness, wrote his own Gospel"? His eyes gave it all away really, but he proceeded to answer by saying "it doesn't matter who wrote the Gospel, as long as it is what Matthew believed really happened".

I was amazed that a university lecturer had to resort to moving the goal posts... My engineering mind begs for the absolute answers to all of this, but when I get people being intellectually dishonest I get frustrated to no end.

p.s. I guess he also indirectly answered my first question. No, you can't be an [honest] historian while being a Christian.
/vent

[kılıç_mehmet]

Can you be an *honest* historian without being an atheist(let alone be moslem, jewish or etc.), in your mind?

Obviously, your lecturer was a historian that preoccupied himself with ancient greek and roman history. I don't know where the authenticity of the Gospels or the existence of Jesus fit in here.

[FallentoReason]

Can you be an *honest* historian without being an atheist(let alone be moslem, jewish or etc.), in your mind?

Obviously, your lecturer was a historian that preoccupied himself with ancient greek and roman history. I don't know where the authenticity of the Gospels or the existence of Jesus fit in here.

I would expect someone with a degree in history to know the basics of analysing manuscripts and knowing what to keep in mind when analysing them for historical content and reliability. If at my level of historical knowledge he had to resort to moving the goal posts then there's something fundamentally wrong with his justification for why the Gospels are reliable, even if he's not a Biblical scholar.

Bottom line is that at my skill level of history, that blunder shouldn't of happened on his behalf.

Answering your question: I don't know for sure, but my lecturer wasn't the best person to test my hypothesis with.

[Red Celt]

In my 1st year at uni, the tutor who took one of my seminars in Ancient History was also one of the module's lecturers. I got to know him quite well. He completed his doctorate concentrating on a civilisation whose name I have since forgotten... but it was around the time of the height of the Ancient Greek Mediterranean.

I found out, by chance, that he was a Young Earth Creationist. That put doubt into my mind about the veracity of everything he had said. How anyone could have the knowledge that he did, while also believing that it happened within a few thousand years of the creation of the planet... was just saddening.

[festive1]

I can't help with the smart people believing in the Gospels question, I don't get it either, but I'd imagine they'd describe it as a leap of faith. That's not to say there aren't holes in their history, as you pointed out to your prof. There are a lot of historians that focus on various subjects from single dimensions, ie. a US Civil War historian that focuses on the military history (specific battles, troop movements, military strategy, etc.), but not so much on the social history. They can have holes in their conclusions if the focus is too much in the details. It sounds like you're taking an intro to western civilization class, which is a very broad topic. When I took this class, my prof's area of expertise was the Spanish Empire, she didn't know a lot of details beyond her area of study. It's an intro course that is generally taught by the lowest profs on the academic totem pole.
History isn't an absolute, it's open to interpretation, and some historical sources are problematic (the Gospels are totally problematic), and even the best primary sources have their issues. I was a history major, and before graduation I had to take a class on problems with historical sources (frankly, I thought it was one of the best classes ever and should be taught on the 100 level of college courses). It showcased how, as a historian, one always has to keep in mind the author's bias and historical context. Some people who study history aren't very good historians and are subject to their own biases, prejudices, and their own historical time period. History is really a balancing act, one always has to remember that "history" is written by the victors. If one wants to have a full view of whatever time period being studied, a balance between micro and macro history is necessary (for instance if studying the influence of the East on the West in the time period of Marco Polo, it's necessary to have a basic grasp of both Eastern and Western cultures and history of the time period, plus to keep in mind the Euro-centric view of most Westerners from that time). This is further complicated if one looks at minority history. Example: What was life like for peasants in the middle ages? Very complicated as all sources from the time period were not written by peasants, therefore there aren't any direct primary sources on the subject. Doesn't mean that all sources are null on the subject, but need to be viewed through the correct lens. I love history, I love the messiness of it. I rambled on, but I hope you don't write off the subject, write off the prof.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I would expect someone with a degree in history to know the basics of analysing manuscripts and knowing what to keep in mind when analysing them for historical content and reliability.

And you can tell me that you have mastered these basics?
To be honest, friend, it's not him that you ought to hold accountable for these. Whomever declared today's four gospels to be the ones that describe Christ's life and deeds best, they are your targets.
But they're all dead, and they've been through a few more gospels before deciding on these four only.

If at my level of historical knowledge he had to resort to moving the goal posts then there's something fundamentally wrong with his justification for why the Gospels are reliable, even if he's not a Biblical scholar.

Well, the reliability of the Gospels are in direct conjunction with whether you believe in them or not. The Moslems and Jews rejected the Gospels for hundreds of years, all the while having no real historical proof of it. I don't think that history can obviously prove or disprove their reliability now. And of course, there is the question, on which merit do you judge the reliability of the gospels?

Answering your question: I don't know for sure, but my lecturer wasn't the best person to test my hypothesis with.

I still don't know what exactly is your hypothesis. Whether an academian can be christian or not?
I don't know how this is any of your business at the first place anyways.

[festive1]

I still don't know what exactly is your hypothesis. Whether an academian can be christian or not?
I don't know how this is any of your business at the first place anyways.

If one is a historian, knows and understands the historical problems with the Gospels, how can they still claim faith?
Granted faith takes one beyond knowledge or fact, but if you look at the historical context from which Christianity arose, it's pretty obvious that it was built upon other religions that were present in that region at that time. It's a product of it's historical context. Whether one chooses to have faith in that is a personal thing, but one has to admit that historically it's problematic.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I still don't know what exactly is your hypothesis. Whether an academian can be christian or not?
I don't know how this is any of your business at the first place anyways.

If one is a historian, knows and understands the historical problems with the Gospels, how can they still claim faith?
Granted faith takes one beyond knowledge or fact, but if you look at the historical context from which Christianity arose, it's pretty obvious that it was built upon other religions that were present in that region at that time. It's a product of it's historical context. Whether one chooses to have faith in that is a personal thing, but one has to admit that historically it's problematic.

My friend, you do not need to be a historian to state that the Gospels lack such reliability. The moslem religion claims that the Gospels have been changed, or written by the church founders, and are false. It all comes down to your faith. I don't know what kind of "historical problems" there are with the four Gospels, as there are historical problems with the Torah, but I'm not certain what really it is that you're looking for. Is it historical accuracy regarding the contents, or just knowledge about whether they were written by the people that they say that wrote it, or by someone else?
Which?

[FallentoReason]

I found out, by chance, that he was a Young Earth Creationist. That put doubt into my mind about the veracity of everything he had said. How anyone could have the knowledge that he did, while also believing that it happened within a few thousand years of the creation of the planet... was just saddening.

It's beyond me as well. You could be forgiven for being ignorant of the deeper historical issues, but I would of thought a univeristy lecturer knew better. He's not ignorant, he's in denial, which I would personally categorise as being far worse.

Then again, I'm willing to accept that he actually doesn't have the slightest clue about NT scholarship and what not. Given that he's a historian AND a Christian I would of thought the chances of that would be low. I mean, Christians quite often boast about the uniqueness of the religion when it comes to the nature of scripture--historical documents and letters.

I was a history major, and before graduation I had to take a class on problems with historical sources

Thanks for that post festive.

We've already learnt very basic things about this. Again, I'm surprised that this particular difficulty with history completely escaped his mind when it came to the Gospel of Matthew. Convenient eh? Like I said to Red Celt (and you mentioned it as well) I'm willing to accept that he just hasn't looked into the topic that much. But now that I think of it that actually can't be. In the lecture itself he brought up the point that the resurrection can't be narrated. He compared the Gospel of Peter to the Gospel of Mark and made us notice how simplistic Mark was compared to the over-the-top and supernatural-packed account found in Peter.

I think you nailed it when you said this:

I can't help with the smart people believing in the Gospels question, I don't get it either, but I'd imagine they'd describe it as a leap of faith.

Christianity can't be proven so the true believer is actually taking that leap from rationality onto something without proof. That is true faith. It seems like my lecturer wants the best of both worlds though; he wants to retain erroneous historical knowledge on why Jesus is the truth while still being a legit historian. As I explained in the OP though, this doesn't fly and his intellectual dishonesty was revealed within a few questions.

And you can tell me that you have mastered these basics?

This is exactly my point. I have not mastered the basics and yet my internet research cornered a professional historian. This isn't saying that I'm something great. It's actually saying something about him. His agenda (being a Christian) has lead him to abandon all reasoning that his own degree taught him to be able to make the Jesus story fly. That really made me cringe.

To be honest, friend, it's not him that you ought to hold accountable for these. Whomever declared today's four gospels to be the ones that describe Christ's life and deeds best, they are your targets.
But they're all dead, and they've been through a few more gospels before deciding on these four only.

Yes, I absolutely agree with the first bit. I'm determined to know why these people wrote what they wrote basically. The reality is that we have been left with these Gospels and so it's only logical that we find an answer to why they wrote these things.

I still don't know what exactly is your hypothesis. Whether an academian can be christian or not?

Whether one can be taught all the history and still sincerely believe there aren't lethal flaws that make the whole Jesus story come crashing down.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Whether one can be taught all the history and still sincerely believe there aren't lethal flaws that make the whole Jesus story come crashing down.

Obviously, it doesn't, friend. I believe that the Jesus story can be told by other sources other than the four gospels. It all comes down whether you want to believe in it(or how you want to believe in it) or not.

Yes, I absolutely agree with the first bit. I'm determined to know why these people wrote what they wrote basically. The reality is that we have been left with these Gospels and so it's only logical that we find an answer to why they wrote these things.

Well, you can never truly know. Maybe they did write the truth, maybe the gospels were written by the same people we knew so far.
Maybe in the future, we will doubt the authenticity of the American bill of rights, and maybe say that it was not written by James Modison.
Or maybe we will say that certain historical things were not historical at all, or just think that they were the figments of other people's imagination.