{"id":4212,"date":"2016-02-22T07:00:34","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T11:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/pursuedbytruth\/?p=4212"},"modified":"2016-02-22T10:11:30","modified_gmt":"2016-02-22T14:11:30","slug":"brant-pitres-the-case-for-jesus-debunks-scripture-skeptics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/pursuedbytruth\/2016\/02\/brant-pitres-the-case-for-jesus-debunks-scripture-skeptics.html","title":{"rendered":"Brant Pitre\u2019s The Case for Jesus Debunks Scripture Skeptics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"9780770435486\"I decided to review Brant Pitre\u2019s The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ<\/a> <\/em>after seeing a post on the Patheos main Facebook account about the book. All the commenters on the post were atheists, and, to my surprise, the comments mocked the idea that Jesus ever<\/em> existed.<\/p>\n

Literally every comment on the post was from an atheist denying not just the divinity of Jesus, but the very existence<\/em> of Jesus.<\/p>\n

This is\u00a0the atheist equivalent of the belief among some Christians that the world is 6,000 years old. As an atheist I would have been ashamed to see this kind of ignorance among fellow non-believers. Even as a former atheist, I am a little embarrassed. Now as a believer, I am convinced that some atheists are just as anti-intellectual and anti-reason as some Christians. Truly, \u201cflat earthers<\/a>\u201d can be found in\u00a0every group.<\/p>\n

After this experience, when I picked up the book I thought that Dr. Pitre would be defending the historical existence of Jesus. But this is not the main theme, (which is understandable because pretty much any ancient historian worth his salt believes that Jesus actually existed).<\/p>\n

This book, rather, seems to be a response to the poison the historical critical method has become in modern Scripture scholarship. I use the word \u201cpoison\u201d not because the historical critical method is useless or dangerous or unnecessary. It is a valuable and necessary part of Scripture scholarship. The historical critical method allows us to study the historical origins of the Scriptures and compare them to other texts written at the time in order to draw reasoned conclusions.<\/p>\n

Dr. Pitre states his clear support for the historical critical method when he discussed his new book, The Case for Jesus<\/em>, in a recent interview for America Magazine<\/a> saying:<\/p>\n

[S]ome students think that historical-critical investigation\u2014i.e., using reason to explore the historical origins of Christianity\u2014is a threat to faith. I don\u2019t share that view. To the contrary, I think historical criticism is essential to the task of biblical exegesis. I also think it\u2019s important for mature Christians to be able to approach their faith from the perspective of both faith and reason, both theology and history.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The method becomes a poison, however, when it is\u00a0vociferously skeptical and the only<\/em> method by which one reads Scripture. An unhealthy reliance on this method has led to a reading of Scripture, even by people of faith, that is drained of theological and spiritual meaning. And ultimately, although users of this method strive to be purely rational, the emphasis on skepticism can lead to scholarship that is actually unhinged from actual facts and reason.<\/p>\n

During his pontificate, Benedict XVI, like Dr. Pitre, was very respectful of the historical critical method. He recognized the need for this\u00a0approach, but he also passionately argued that Scripture scholarship and the historical critical approach need a renewal.<\/p>\n

In his interview with Peter Seewald, Light of the World, Benedict XVI said:<\/p>\n

The application of the historical method to the Bible as a historical text was a path that had to be taken. If we believe that Christ is real history, and not myth, then the testimony concerning him has to be historically accessible as well. In this sense, the historical method has also given us many gifts.<\/em><\/strong> \u2026 What is needed is not simply a break with the historical method, but a self-critique of the historical method<\/em><\/strong>; a self-critique of historical reason that takes cognizance of its limits and recognizes the compatibility of a type of knowledge that derives from faith. (emphasis mine)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think that Dr. Pitre aims to write a self-critique of the historical method in The Case for Jesus<\/em>. Using the very method which reached conclusions like \u201cAll of the Gospels are anonymous\u201d and \u201cThe Gospels are folklore, not biographies,\u201d Dr. Pitre works effectively to prove that by the very same method<\/em> used to reach these conclusions, these notions can be proven wrong.<\/p>\n

Why were scholars incorrect then, in the first place? Well some of these scholars are atheists, which in some cases, as is evident in my introduction, can lead people to ignore evidence that supports a contrary point of view. This, of course can happen on the flip side as well. But Dr. Pitre makes a good case that the biased, incorrect scholarship has been\u00a0done by those trying to debunk Scripture. In other words, these scholars became lovers of their point of view, rather than the truth.<\/p>\n

Dr. Brant Pitre covers the primary issues that are brought up by skeptics including:<\/p>\n