Search

Jonathan Bernier recently responded to Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts’ article on epistemology in jshj . In this rejoinder, Porter and Pitts expose Bernier’s perpetual failure to understand the central terminology in this debate. Their response to Bernier reveals his clear confusion surrounding technical (even if basic) philosophical nomenclature in contemporary epistemology. Consequently, Bernier turns out to be just as committed to internalism as those he attempts to rescue from it. Their biggest disappointment, however, turns upon Bernier’s inability to engage the central argument of their original article. Their case rested entirely upon the crippling Gettier-style counterexamples to internalism and, by extension, critical realism. Yet, Gettier never makes an appearance in Bernier’s article. One can only speculate why Bernier would write an article-length response that neglects to address this argument. Whatever the cause, this oversight deeply undermines Bernier’s entire project by leaving Porter and Pitts’ original argument unscathed and firmly intact.

A significant re-evaluation of the historiographical methods and approaches used in historical Jesus research has been underway in recent years. Some scholars have begun to look to social memory theory for a way forward. Although social memory theory provides some valuable insights, a solid methodological foundation is still lacking. The intention of this article is to advance the discussion by drawing attention to R.G. Collingwood’s contributions to the philosophy of history and historiography in The Idea of History (1946). In particular, I will discuss his historiographical principles of inference, evidence, question and answer, historical imagination, along with his critique of ‘scissors-and-paste’. These principles have the potential to form the foundation of a theoretically grounded historiographical practice in Jesus research.

Recent discussions of method in historical Jesus research have called into question the use of criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Gospel material. The present article lays out the reasons why a number of scholars call for an abandonment of the so-called criteria approach and then criticizes the allegation that this approach is genetically and logically dependent on form criticism. By analysis of how the question of authenticity is handled with regard to Jesus’ baptism, his action in the temple and his crucifixion, it is then argued that criteria are necessary for assessing the historicity of major events in the life of Jesus. Finally, three suggestions as to how the future use of authenticity criteria may take into account the recent challenges are made.

N.T. Wright’s critical realist epistemology has become the foundation for many recent studies of Christian origins. This article argues that New Testament scholars have perhaps too quickly and uncritically adopted this method, when it is out of step with contemporary analytic epistemology. The method Wright employs—and which many have adopted—originates with an internalist epistemic account developed in the 1940s. Since then, key developments in the study of epistemology (beginning with Gettier in 1963) have made Wright’s critical realist model irrelevant in many ways. In light of these inadequacies, we tentatively outline some potential components of a more promising historical epistemology for the study of Christian origins.

This article argues that Wright’s historical method is neither modern nor postmodern though it does contain elements that are found in each. In it I assess Wright’s method in light of critique from Carey Newman on the one hand and Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton on the other. I conclude that all of them are partially correct and partially incorrect.

This essay explores how it is possible for scholars who have a faith perspective to still participate in historical-Jesus research in a critical manner that is credible to the wider academic community. The focus is on the tensions created for the scholar when the primary sources use divine causation as an explanation for an event. The first part of the essay considers what the term 'history' means and how a historian goes about doing history (i.e., the 'rules of the game'). The second part considers three different approaches used in biblical studies to handle descriptions and explanations in the primary sources that use divine causation. The ontological-naturalistic approach rejects such explanations while the critical-theistic approach is open to such explanations. Distinguishing these two approaches from each other are different ontological worldviews. Based upon the understanding of history developed in the first part, the essay argues for a via media between these approaches that sets aside the ontological impasse. Methodological naturalism views history and historical method to be limited to human causation. This is an acknowledged methodological limitation, rather than an ontological one. Issues of divine causation are left to the distinct discipline of theology.