User:IseeEwe/sandbox

Criticisms of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure
Within Western academia the study of Jesus, as a historical figure, has been largely undertaken by biblical scholars trained in a combination of biblical exegesis, theology, art history, ancient languages, and or history. These scholars, generally follow what is known, to them, as historical-critical theory. Fundamentally, they believe that the past can be understood through the exhaustive study of various written texts.

This approach to historic research is questioned by philosophers of science, archaeologists and scholars in other fields, with equal claim to biblical studies. They point to the inherent unacknowledged subjectivity of the scholars themselves, the corruption of written texts over centuries of redaction and translation, and the inherent and intentional biases of the writers of the studied texts.

This approach is largely unaffected by, and isolated from, modern methodological and intellectual developments in other fields, and the wide diversity of other theoretical approaches to understanding the past. As Reed explains: "With rare exceptions, notably the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi Library well over a generation ago, scholars working on Jesus and Galilee with literary evidence simply introduce new methods or innovative theories to analyze these texts. The collage of citations is re-shuffled or re-mixed, emphasizing some passages over others, while re-interpreting a few, perhaps in dialogue with other disciplines." The influence of archaeology, for example, is limited to tweaking technical aids, and the archaeology of the early first century is given scant attention.

To uncover and mitigate against subjective biases and the problems of data age and corruption, archaeologists and historians have devised a number of methodological approaches grounded in physical evidence, studies of epistemology and hermeneutics,  and accepting engagement with other disciplines such as the philosophy of science, and the natural sciences. These and other approaches are not widely understood or accepted within Western historical-critical literary approaches to early Christianity, which generally perceive archaeology (and other fields) as a "handmaiden" to history. Within the broader historical and archaeological research community, and that outside of Western academic circles, the work of biblical scholars grounded in textual analysis to find an historic Jesus are thought to have failed. There exists no widely or generally accepted proof (outside of biblical studies) of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, in the manner that approaches how historians, archaeologists and others can validate the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, and other historic and pre-historic figures and events.