I think that it should be pointed out in the article that most critical historical reconstructions of Jesus have a purely hypothetical value, since they are based on a priori philosophical bases. The encyclical Pascendi provides a insightful critique of “historical-critical” methods:
“The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, by which it becomes more adapted to that form of the divine which faith will infuse into it. The second is a kind of disfigurement, which springs from the fact that faith, which has made the phenomenon independent of the circumstances of place and time, attributes to it qualities which it has not; and this is true particularly of the phenomena of the past, and the older they are, the truer it is. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already got from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historical criticism.
We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon, deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lately, the third canon, which lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in keeping with His character, circumstances and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning, truly; but it is the Modernists' critique.”
Josebarbosa (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is original research and cannot be included per our policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's a complicated way of saying that historical scholarship follows the empiric-analytic model and does not pander to piety/Church dogmas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Smeat75 reverted an edit of mine with the dismissive edit summary that "we do not label reliable sources as to beliefs or affiliations" I had added that John P. Meier was an American biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest, by no stretch of the imagination could this be called labelling "beliefs or affiliations" it is a neutral description of what he is, from his own Wikipedia page and is helpful, please assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I have stated most Post-Enlightenment historians, but I think it means all present-day historians, except truly believing Bible scholars. As Bart Ehrman stated at Video on YouTube (55:25-58:00, longer story: 53:00-1:04:00) the history professors from US research universities never posit miracles or divine causation as historical explanations for historical events. Otherwise we would have peer-reviewed articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah", "Historical proof that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits", "Vespasian's godly status confirmed through archaeological finds" and "The role of elves and fairies in World War II combats". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)