This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure this is really true – centuries ago we didn't have the archeological evidence we do today, so it was a lot easier to dismiss the New Testament record as something closer to a complete fabrication. The Pilate stone, for instance, wasn't discovered until 1961, and Papyrus 45 wasn't publicly known until 1933.
And what's known about the early New Testament isn't a closed door, either, there are new discoveries being made and research being done. For instance, there's been some work (which I sadly don't know as much about as I would like) has been done in the early 2000s that apparently shows the name-frequency use in the Gospels matches the name-frequency use in surviving archeological records from 1st century Palestine (which is very unlikely if the Gospels were not, at a minimum, based on solid oral traditions that originated in 1st century Palestine).
In short, there's a reason that the theory that Jesus was myth entirely and not a historical figure took off in the Enlightenment but is outside of mainstream historical thought today: we have better reasons to believe in the historicity of the Gospel accounts in 2023 than we did in 1723.
The absurd factual claims OP's talking about aren't that 'Jesus existed', it's the 'Jesus was simultaneously God and son of God, resurrected from the dead and is conveniently obscured from our vision, along with God, angels, saints and all the good people who believe in Christianity (who are having a really good time having transcended death)' part. Or the universe being 6000 years old part. Or the 'Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' part.
That last one is said immediately prior to the transfiguration.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know why any of those were more plausible centuries ago – people 1723, 23, and 2023 BC were all very much aware that e.g. people did not come back from the dead, and Christ's proclamation that He was one with God was considered so outrageous at the time that it nearly led to His being stoned according to the New Testament text. We haven't made any revolutionary discoveries in science over the past few thousand years that have made those sorts of things seem less plausible. (If anything, rather the opposite – for instance, although a virgin birth in the 1st Century remains miraculous, one happening in 2023 is merely an oddity. This line of thinking inevitably concludes in things like Ridley Scott trying to incorporate Jesus into the Alien canon.)
If you think this is an admission against evidence, it follows that you think that Matthew was written in the 1st century, while eyewitnesses were still alive (somebody writing Matthew in, say, the second century would be less likely to include this if it was obviously untrue) which of course makes it more likely that Matthew is an accurate account, not less.
HOWEVER (although this puts me in mind of John's visions in Revelation, where he does see a vision of the the Son of Man coming to rule the Earth) what's going on here is likely significantly less interesting than either an admission against evidence or a reference to the last and perhaps most controversial book in the New Testament canon: Matthew is setting up what happens immediately in the very next verse, when Jesus is transfigured before some of the people present in the previous chapter. (Chapter divisions were not present in the original text, so this is arguably a case where they confuse more than clarify).
Back in the day people were constantly engaging with the divine/spiritual world. Generals would routinely consult oracles, soothsayers and the entrails of various animals. There were all kinds of spells, rituals and magical forces going on. It wouldn't be a big stretch to imagine that this fellow resurrected from the dead, conjured up some bread, healed the sick. That was pretty standard stuff, especially in Judea. There were of course doubters and pragmatic sorts but the cultural milieu was far more accepting of this kind of thing.
There was plenty of witchcraft going on in Early Modern Europe, though 1723 is towards the end of that era.
But now witchcraft and magic (taken seriously) is mostly a sub-Saharan thing.
Regardless of when the line was written, I think it's very reasonable to say that the Son of Man did not come in his kingdom. Surely we would've noticed?
I don't doubt that Jesus lived but I don't think he was the son of God, just as I don't think Muhammed was given divine instructions and is the most perfect man to ever live. Jesus and Muhammed likely got some kind of power surge, so did some others. Sometimes people emerge with great charismatic abilities, it doesn't mean that they're divine.
And to the extent that this was true but not longer is, past Christians may have taken as a sign that Christianity was correct: as I've mentioned on here before, early Christian apologists made use of the decline in paranormal phenomena as evidence that Christ's coming at upended the old order of things.
But I'm not so sure things are that different from 1st century Judea. In Christ's time, generals consulted the entrails of animals; roughly two thousand years later, the generals consulted psychics. Divination and astrology remain popular, rogue billionaires fund research into the question of life after death, insiders from shadowy oracular government agencies tell Congress that UFOs could be coming from other dimensions, the New York Times runs articles about demon exorcism. I could see future generations looking back on 21st century America as a heyday of superstition and belief in the paranormal.
It might be true that OP's statement "claims that may have seemed more plausible centuries ago but are no longer so persuasive" is true in the literal sense that, as you say, the "cultural milieu" may be more skeptical of them now. But I'm not sure the cultural milieu is the best way of evaluating the truth of a claim. And even if it was, it seems fairly constant to me that the majority of people believe in the paranormal or spiritual, while a minority of people (often well-educated) express skepticism of it, with varying levels of outspokenness.
I've got a note on the context above you may have missed. That being said – two of my favorite passages of Scripture (and quite topical to Christmas, for they roughly bookend the Gospel accounts of Christ's life) touch on this question:
The above is from Matthew 2. Below, from John 18 - 19:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lots of surface area to attack though. Things have clearly not gone as well for archaeologists hoping to prove the Exodus which early modern biblical archaeology was all about. Now you have modern historians like Dever so embarrassed by even the name they want to be called "Syro-Palestinian” archaeologists"
A lot of the Old Testament is in someone's crosshairs. YMMV on how much that kicks Christianity's legs out from under it. A lot of people just deal with it.
Common misconception!
x.com/lymanstoneky/status/1686030760015245313#m
x.com/lymanstoneky/status/1625145864397135873#m
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of the Old Testament was confirmed non-historical even well before the last few decades. Nobody serious after the widespread acceptance of evolution can believe in the Genesis account for example.
As @Shrike points out, the idea that portions of the old testament, specifically Genesis and the other books of moses are more allegorical than historical is arguably as old (if not older) than Christianity itself.
The default Roman or Orthodox Catholic response to "A lot of the Old Testament was confirmed non-historical" is basically "no shit Sherlock".
Yes there are young earth creationists out there but they are a weird fringe of a fringe hence the "young earth" appelation to distinguish them from more conventional creationists.
From what I understand with Genesis specifically, it's is speculative at best to suggest that it was understood as a scientific account of creation at the time, so it seems unlikely it was intended to be received in the way a 21st Century American would receive it. There's some pretty interesting textual evidence that at least part of the point of the creation story was about exploding certain other "hostile" creation myths. (Given the time of year, it's worth remembering Genesis 3:15, which is some extremely advanced foreshadowing even if you take the story as a parable!)
BUT
I have played Civilization V, which has an option to simulate the age of the Earth (I think at 3, 4, and 5 million years, don't quote me on that). And anyone inside my Civilization game would think the Earth was millions of years old and had undergone millions of years of evolution and such, which of course is patently untrue – I created the game (ex nihilo if you will) one second ago on my computer, with barbarians springing forth as if out of Jove's forehead and such.
My point here isn't to argue about Genesis (although I enjoy discussing it and would be happy to, in a friendly way!), just to point out that if you believe an omnipotent God is a viable hypothesis the range of possibilities about the nature of reality is broader even than the range of possibilities under e.g. the simulation hypothesis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The strain of Christian thought holding that at least parts of the Old Testament were allegorical is almost as old as Christian thought itself, so while it might be difficult on some parts of Christian thought I doubt it has as much pull either way to the degree that New Testament findings do. Of course, even if you're committed to interpreting the majority of the Old Testament as a purely historical record, the older something is, the fewer traces it will leave, so it's easy to dismiss archeological conclusions you don't like (especially if they are based on a lack of findings).
From what I can tell, though, at least some things (such as the historicity of David) have also followed the trend discussed above, of being more supported as more archeological evidence becomes available, although of course there's a debate over how to interpret the evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link