Historical vs Religious Interpretations

[Ella S.]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

You see this most commonly exemplified in debates like the one between historian Bart Ehrman and theologian William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead or not. However, this is not solely relegated to Western religions.

Vedic texts and Buddhist sutras are also filled with accounts that historians find dubious. There is even Taoist folklore about Laozi correcting Confucius, even though they lived too far apart to have known one another.

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

 

[Valjean]

Analytic schizophrenia?

 

[sun rise]

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

Sure. But it requires religious authorities and historians to not interpret their scriptures literally for starters.

I'm also reminded of a story from a number of years ago about crossing the "Red" sea which according to a translation of Yam Suph, "Reed Sea" and the study which demonstrated how natural forces could have created a passage.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

Bart and William are not fully spiritual and do not fully understand God. Bart is an atheist who goes along with what science offers and has a biased view of scientific value. William, is someone who is theologically and reasonably articulate but William doesnt actually believe in the spiritual side of Christianity. He believes in the view of morals, and creative values of God. The Holy Spirit is vital to differentiate between a scientific world view of God which is good but unhelpful, and a spiritual view of God. Which goes into the reason and dealing of the soul. Focus on archaeology and morals is good. What is helpful is the health of the soul.

 

[Watchmen]

@nPeace , this thread is for you it seems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Ella S.]

Bart and William are not fully spiritual and do not fully understand God. Bart is an atheist who goes along with what science offers and has a biased view of scientific value. William, is someone who is theologically and reasonably articulate but William doesnt actually believe in the spiritual side of Christianity. He believes in the view of morals, and creative values of God. The Holy Spirit is vital to differentiate between a scientific world view of God which is good but unhelpful, and a spiritual view of God. Which goes into the reason and dealing of the soul. Focus on archaeology and morals is good. What is helpful is the health of the soul.

From what I've seen, everyone who believes themselves to be lead by the Holy Spirit seems to reach completely different conclusions about how to interpret scripture.

How do you know which of these differing perspectives are truly of the Holy Spirit and which ones are not? If it's to rely on your own relationship with the Holy Spirit, how can you so confidently claim that your relationship is genuine and discount the experiences of the vast majority of other believers?

 

[2ndpillar]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

You see this most commonly exemplified in debates like the one between historian Bart Ehrman and theologian William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead or not. However, this is not solely relegated to Western religions.

Vedic texts and Buddhist sutras are also filled with accounts that historians find dubious. There is even Taoist folklore about Laozi correcting Confucius, even though they lived too far apart to have known one another.

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

Maybe you should forget about historical "interpretations" and simply compare any actual verifiable historical/archaeological evidence with any verifiable purported religious text and find out the contradictions and work from there. Archaeological type of interpretations changes with the seasons. New text surface frequently. Texts contradict each other, as well as archaeological interpretations.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Another scholar to listen to about this, might be Dale B. Martin, he had a podcast on biblical forgeries I listened to not long ago, yet he seems to retain some kind faith.

It seems like it comes down to faith in something, no matter how much historical analysis you stack against it. One could know a lot of history or a little, but it seems like 'faith' is the same no matter how much or little you know. It's still a leap of some kind.

 

[3rdAngel]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

You see this most commonly exemplified in debates like the one between historian Bart Ehrman and theologian William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead or not. However, this is not solely relegated to Western religions.

Vedic texts and Buddhist sutras are also filled with accounts that historians find dubious. There is even Taoist folklore about Laozi correcting Confucius, even though they lived too far apart to have known one another.

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

History can be re-written or forged based on bias, propaganda, religious and political beliefs and agendas. There is many interpretations of History as here are the scriptures.

 

[Ella S.]

Maybe you should forget about historical "interpretations" and simply compare any actual verifiable historical/archaeological evidence with any verifiable purported religious text and find out the contradictions and work from there. Archaeological type of interpretations changes with the seasons. New text surface frequently. Texts contradict each other, as well as archaeological interpretations.

History can be re-written or forged based on bias, propaganda, religious and political beliefs and agendas. There is many interpretations of History as here are the scriptures.

You've both only provided reasons for doubting historical interpretations, which I share your skepticism of, but you have not provided any reasons for why religious interpretations are more reliable.

 

[3rdAngel]

You've both only provided reasons for doubting historical interpretations, which I share your skepticism of, but you have not provided any reasons for why religious interpretations are more reliable.

For me, it depends on if you believe the scriptures are Gods' Words and can be trusted or not. If you do not believe they are God's Words then you will not believe them. However, there is a lot of historical references in the bible in reference to the Jewish people and the early Church that have been verified though history and archeology. Keep in mind that the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification.

 

[nPeace]

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Simply put. 1 Corinthians 3:19

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

Not according to 1 John 5:19

 

[pearl]

Sure. But it requires religious authorities and historians to not interpret their scriptures literally for starters.

One who studies and interprets Scripture critically, as a science, presents the purpose, the intent, what is to be believed of what is found to be non-historical. One such monumental work is
'The Birth of the Messiah'. Good read for this time of year with all the discussions concerning the genealogies of Jesus, what seems to be contradictions, serve a particular purpose for each author.

The Birth of The Messiah - Raymond Brown | PDF | Nativity Of Jesus | Gospels (scribd.com)

 

[Ella S.]

For me, it depends on if you believe the scriptures are Gods' Words and can be trusted or not. If you do not believe they are God's Words then you will not believe them. However, there is a lot of historical references in the bible in reference to the Jewish people and the early Church that have been verified though history and archeology. Keep in mind that the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification.

Of course.

However, if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true. It is only a justified belief if it can be demonstrated through a logical analysis of empirical evidence, or deduced relative to a set of axioms.

There is more agreement in history and archaeology than there is in theology and for a good reason; the conclusions of these fields are usually restricted to what we can reasonably conclude based on what we actually know, rather than formed based on a pre-existing assumption that a certain scripture is correct and can be interpreted through an unproven medium like the Holy Spirit.

 

[nPeace]

Of course.

However, if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true. It is only a justified belief if it can be demonstrated through a logical analysis of empirical evidence, or deduced relative to a set of axioms.

There is more agreement in history and archaeology than there is in theology and for a good reason; the conclusions of these fields are usually restricted to what we can reasonably conclude based on what we actually know, rather than formed based on a pre-existing assumption that a certain scripture is correct and can be interpreted through an unproven medium like the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be a reasonable person.
When the experts in a field of study disagree, which of those opinions should one consider "a reasonable conclusion, and not based on any "pre-existing" assumption that an idea is correct?

 

[Ella S.]

You seem to be a reasonable person.
When the experts in a field of study disagree, which of those opinions should one consider "a reasonable conclusion, and not based on any "pre-existing" assumption that an idea is correct?

Unless you're an expert in that field, then you shouldn't form conclusions about what there is no expert consensus on, in my opinion. Even when deferring to the expertise of the relevant professionals, that should be done with the understanding that they might be incorrect.

Ideally, you can gain a decent enough literacy in the subject to double-check the evidence and the arguments for a consensus yourself before believing in it, too, rather than merely taking anyone at their word. If you do wish to challenge the expert consensus, though, you should first become an expert so that you can use the proper tools to demonstrate that the current consensus is wrong.

It's less about being correct on our first guess and more about being able to self-correct when our positions are demonstrated to be unsubstantiated or in contradiction with observation.

 

[nPeace]

Unless you're an expert in that field, then you shouldn't form conclusions about what there is no expert consensus on, in my opinion. Even when deferring to the expertise of the relevant professionals, that should be done with the understanding that they might be incorrect.

Ideally, you can gain a decent enough literacy in the subject to double-check the evidence and the arguments for a consensus yourself before believing in it, too, rather than merely taking anyone at their word. If you do wish to challenge the expert consensus, though, you should first become an expert so that you can use the proper tools to demonstrate that the current consensus is wrong.

It's less about being correct on our first guess and more about being able to self-correct when our positions are demonstrated to be unsubstantiated or in contradiction with observation.

Are you one of those expert?
I really asked the question based on what you said in your previous post.
You said... if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true. It is only a justified belief if it can be demonstrated through a logical analysis of empirical evidence, or deduced relative to a set of axioms.

There is more agreement in history and archaeology than there is in theology and for a good reason; the conclusions of these fields are usually restricted to what we can reasonably conclude based on what we actually know, rather than formed based on a pre-existing assumption that a certain scripture is correct and can be interpreted through an unproven medium like the Holy Spirit.

I'm asking you, not on my behalf, but for you... how do you... or the expert, determine that an opinion of fellow experts is not based on any "pre-existing" assumption that an idea is correct, and is a "reasonable conclusion"?
Perhaps you answered by saying that you choose to believe which seems more reasonable. Not sure. Could you confirm?
The other experts are doing the same, so I am wondering what is the difference?

To explain further... you likely hear of scientists accusing other scientists of not being scientists, or not using the proper methods, have you?
In other words, they are saying that these experts are promoting their ideas as science.
Both are claiming however, to be using the proper methods, and doing real science.


You said something that interests me though.
Unless you're an expert in that field, then you shouldn't form conclusions about what there is no expert consensus on...
That seems to harmonize with an earlier statement... However, if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true.

I think what many here have been saying, including @3rdAngel. is basically the same thing... only, on the other foot.
I'm thinking of two scriptures... Matthew 13:10-16, and 2 Corinthians 3:1-3
What these scripture draw to our attention is that 1) God's people are experts in the field of study on the scriptures - not merely anyone that professes to be, and 2) God authorizes them by means of holy spirit, so they don't rely on human wisdom from the world to recommend them.

That's why I referenced that scripture in Corinthians.
The wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God, cannot be used to examine spiritual things, and never will.
You might say, 'but how then can we determine if it's true'?
You can, but it requires you to do what you recommend... if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods... Unless you're an expert in that field...

It can only be evidenced through the proper methods... Not what we think.
One qualified expert, by the name of Paul, said...
(1 Corinthians 2:14-16) 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

How does one become an expert in spiritual matters - that is, things belonging to God?
Hope you understood.

 

[2ndpillar]

You've both only provided reasons for doubting historical interpretations, which I share your skepticism of, but you have not provided any reasons for why religious interpretations are more reliable.

It seems both are unreliable. It would be dependent on the circumstance and definition of reliability to determine which one was more unreliable. Accord to Yeshua, the NT, the field/book in which the message of the son of man was sown, would also be sown with the tare seed, the message of the "devil"/"evil one" (Mt 13). Both messages are reliably from the devil or the son of man to a point before being edited and commented on, but not both messages are true. History and archaeology are often wrong simply because of inflated egos and inflated dependence on poor prior education or simple lack of credible evidence, and improper inferences based on the evidence presented.

 

[nPeace]

@Ella S. this seems like a topic for the science and religion forums, since it deals with science - archaeological and historical research vs religious research.
Just my observation... but I could be wrong.