Metamodern Christianity | 2. Metamodernism, Miracles, and the Historical Jesus

Does the modern historical-critical lens on the Bible reject miracles on principle and thereby exclude in advance what it presupposes not to be true? Here I counter this critique by explaining how the miracles in the Gospels are problematized not by metaphysical prejudice but historical analysis. Taking the miracles in the Gospels at face value as historical events is problematic even if we work within a metaphysical frame that allows for miracles. Ultimately, it's a matter of historical reconstruction, not worldview, that forces us to rethink how much of the materials can be taken as reliable accounts of "what happened."

0:00 Does Modern Historical-Critical Scholarship Preclude Miracles on Principle?
2:23 A Metamodern Christianity Needs the Modern
3:59 Anti-Miracle Modernism: Steelmanning that Argument (Even Though It's Not Mine)
9:37 The Argument I *Am* Making: More Information Problematizes Naive Readings
13:09 Setting the Stage: Messianic Expectation and Prophecy Fulfilment

Assessing Miracle Accounts in Light of the Historical Context
17:07 1. Jesus' Birth
29:15 2. Jesus' Calming of the Storm
36:00 3. Jesus' Crucifixion
39:38 4. Jesus' Resurrection
41:38 5. Jesus' Ascension

44:15 Other Historical Considerations
53:50 "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" Misses the Point Entirely
58:10 Meta-Naturalism: Appreciating an Incomplete Scientific Paradigm
1:03:28 Metamodern Christianity Should Be Robust and Include the Modern Lens
1:06:38 Metamodern Christianity: Informed Naivete and Truth in Development
1:09:50 Conclusion

*Thanks to @xaviervelascosuarez who pointed out an error in the previous version of this video. Correction: Matthew writes Herod's massacre to conform to a prophecy about the Messiah coming out of Egypt (Matthew 2 14-15), not Bethlehem.

[KalebPeters]

Your recent firehose of metamodern Christianity content is the most compelling thing happening right now on YouTube for me, thanks for all your time and careful attention to this topic🙏✨

[newtonfinn]

When Brandon talks about the undermining impact of Biblical scholarship on the accuracy and authority of scripture, he is only relating what everyone knows who has studied the Bible in a mainline, as opposed to a fundamentalist or evangelical, seminary. Yet for many decades, this daunting information was kept from congregations by the clergy even in liberal churches.Then came the internet broadcasting this incendiary material to the world, and what has happened? The internet is now flooded with young people from conservative Xian backgrounds who are sharing their painful, protracted deconstructions and deconversions. A metamodern Xianity MUST do better than this, which is why Brendan refuses to gloss over this clash of modernist scholarship with traditional faith and continues to seek a guest who will directly engage with him on this crucial issue.

[autismfromtheInside]

Thanks for expanding on this.

I now understand that when you say 'that didn't happen', you don't mean 'nothing anomalous happened', you mean, 'the details of the specific instance recorded likely didn't happen exactly as documented' (or in some cases may have been completely fabricated to fill a gap in the story)
Makes sense. That's a big distinction.

If we take that as a given, due to the nature of record keeping and story telling at the time, perhaps the next important question is:
What can we say DID happen?

For example:
1. Jesus was born (somewhere)
2. Jesus was killed/executed (somehow)
3. Jesus healed/exorcised (or something that led witnesses to believe this)
4. Jesus taught (something similar to what was recorded)
5. Jesus rose from the dead (or something similar that led witnesses to believe this)

Regarding 5, I refer specifically to 1 Cor 15, where Paul seems to claim that he appeared to many people who are still alive to corroborate the witness. When people say 'there's enough evidence to believe in the resurrection', I think this is the type of thing they mean.

Also, I'm wondering if it's within the scope of the modern view to speculate the bounds of what may have historically occurred? (Like I've done above?) Or is that too nuanced, and it's limited to saying what likely didn't happen (as documented)? (Leaving more integrated perspectives for later stages?)

[GreenManorite]

That was clarifying. I think you can push things a bit further and say that the Gospels and Epistles directly reflect the early Church wrestling with "who was Jesus". The primary dialogue was theological not historical narrative. What you laid out is pretty standard scholarly perspective. I think the accounts are honest accounts by a community that revered Jesus and were trying to resolve "what just happened".

Theologically, the understanding of the Messiah and the relationship of God and man took several steps forward. Some of this was probably in Jesus' teaching, and some of it was the resolution of "what just happened" within the early Church. "Maran atha", our Lord has come-- so what does that mean now? If you read the Gospels in the light of the early Epistles (Corinthians) and not the other way around, you get the need for communication of the life of Christ through the lens of theological struggle/epiphany of the early Church.

I'm not a theologian, but my recollection of Augustine was that his synthesis of the Gospel was closer to informed naivete than problematic literalism. The interesting commonality between metamodern Christianity and the Catholicism I received and maintain is that they maintain the tension of mystery/ambiguity instead of seeking to resolve it. I would posit these tensions are the paths to entering deeper. The tension held between the chronological events and the theological accounts is essential for reading the texts: there is much lost in reductionism in either direction. The tension is an invitation to enter the text theologically while grounding that thinking in embodiment of particular people and events.

[jake]

One small comment (not finished the video yet). I recommend you research the James Randi million dollar challenge. My understanding is it's basically a fraud given the dishonest way its run and the parameters forced on the applicants. Winning the prize is an impossible situation for those submitting, even were they to have supernatural powers. Rupert Sheldrake speaks convincingly on this topic if you want to learn more.
I make this comment not to criticize but because it's a relevant piece of information. Thank you for your videos, I've really been enjoying your content.

[joel]

I was thirsty for this kind of conversations. I'm so happy I found your channel. Thank you!

[tgrogan]

“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”
—David Hume (Of Miracles)

Hume, David. David Hume Of Miracles: Skeptical Empiricism vs. Supernaturalism and Religious Faith (Philosophy and Christianity): Hume's Critique of Supernaturalism as a Basis for Human Knowledge (p. 1). D. S. D. Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[MorrolanTV]

Kudos to you for occupying a really difficult space here. Coming from a similar background, my Christian friends are reluctant to engage with many of these problems, and my non-Christian friends are reluctant to engage with the Bible at all. Both sides seem to think that if they just ignore the other for long enough, they will go away. I don't think that's going to happen for either. A synthesis is needed.

[rrg]

Thanks Brendan for all of these conversations and presentations.

[CrowMagnum]

Ra, smiting Brendan with miraculous sunlight, was unable to deter the multifaceted blasphemy 😂

[willchristie]

I cknowledge that Brendan is brilliant but after 14 minutes, i am ready to start screaming without end. Parenthetical exposition gone mad.

[hillbillyhistorian]

I’m fairly convinced that there has to be a literal core to the gospel’s miracle claims (especially the resurrection) if anything resembling “Christianity” can be considered valuable and engaging in its own terms. Portions of the gospels probably are historically false, but it’s all too easy to end up at the pointless “Jesus was just a nice guy who said some cool stuff” position.

[williambranch]

I find the historical-critical approach to the historical Jesus, to beside the point.

[amurdo]

Would we crucify Jesus again if we were to meet the "real" Jesus?

[GogiRazmadze]

Hi Brendan,
Accounts of Mathew and Luke re date of birth of Jesus apparently differ (in more then just date), but did I understood you correctly that you say like the census didn't happen at the (approx.) time of birth of Jesus? I thought that reference to Census of Quirinius was accepted as a possible reference point.

[jamesbusald]

5 minutes of what you don't mean.
do you mean?

[willgiorno]

Thanks Brendan.
Have u talked this precise territory with J. Pageau? I could imagine it being an enjoyable challenge to both..
Also is there somewhere u describe your current personal
Thankyou again.

[sambarlow]

Great vid! Super interesting listen :)

[chrishoward]

Im rolling with you up to Matthew and Luke being irreconcilable. Obviously not, since the compilers, editors, authors, put those two accounts in the compilation. Right out of the gate you're basically saying these guys and everyone after them for hundreds of years are idiots. They must have had some way of reconciling them because they actually took action to set them together.

I personally don't have any problem reconciling them, but me being an idiot is an open question.

I do get the message that the historicity is irrelevant in the construction you are trying to make. I think you are wrong, but that point is coming through. I think reality is actually important, even if is a sometimes nebulous concept. Shin hits chair, sometimes.