Ben C Smith

The problem is that a healthy percentage from some countries also seem to be calling themselves atheists or agnostics.

If we conclude that a Christian scholar is more likely to read the NT conservatively, and we conclude that an atheist or agnostic scholar is more likely to read it liberally, what shall we conclude about an atheistic or agnostic Christian scholar?

I have no stake whatsoever in any of these stats, BTW. I give far less credit to these labels than most on this board seem to give.

Ben.

Toto

Gerard: are you claiming that NT scholars are a random sample of the population? Otherwise, your gross statistics don't mean much.

Doug Shaver

On whether the bias is sufficient to affect this discussion, I offer no comment at this point, but here is one datum to keep in mind when looking at the numbers for predominantly Roman Catholic countries. Once you're baptized as a Catholic (as you almost certainly will be if either of your parents is Catholic), then with rare exceptions the church considers you (and will count you if anyone asks) one of its members for the rest of your life. And naturally, as far as most statisticians are concerned, if you're Catholic, you're Christian.

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue, I remind you, is whether all (or how many of) [B]NT scholars are Christians. Neither Jones nor Koresh were NT scholars in the ordinary sense of that term (credentialed, published, supported by institutions or grants to do research in the field o NT studies, and recognized by other scholars as capable of doing it), just as you are not.


There is also the matter --which no one has seemed to take up --as to whether the implication of the original question is that NT scholarship can't be any good if it is done by "christians" (an umbrella term if there ever was one) since such scholars do/could not ever put aside their faith commitments and all their conclusions re the NT are/will be predetermined by what they already "know" the Bible has to say, and whether this isn't just a primary example of the fallacy of "poisoning the well.

Do you have an answer for these questions? If not, perhaps you'll do us the favour of riding your hobby horsel elsewhere.

Jeffrey

renassault

But, clearly a Democrat isn't a Democrat if he votes for the Republicans half the time.

Clearly someone isn't a Cubs fan if he tries to undermine the Cubs

Certainly Paul acknowledges that differences of opinion are possible within Christianity (Romans 14), but it is unlikely that someone would maintain the things that are written by e.g. Crossan or Borg and would still be a Christian.

It's obvious that when a person writes an article that undermines Christianity he is not a Christian. He could be a scholar, but just because he calls himself a Christian, wouldn't make him one. This isn't possible: there is a society with which you identify, yet you follow none of its rules. That's not the real world.

Toto

Jeffrey is correct that the topic here is whether NT scholars are Christians, not the general definition of Christianity, or the religious status of other professionals or the population in general.

The original poster has not returned to clarify why he asked this question. I see no implication that a Christian could not do worthwhile scholarship on the NT.

I don't think it is poisoning the well. Certain Christian apologists, including Mike Licona and William Lane Craig, like to refer to the "consensus" of scholars on various points. It is certainly valid to ask what assumptions go into that consensus.

Some posters on this board maintain that there is no truly objective scholarship, and everyone starts with some presuppositions or a worldview that shades their conclusions. From this point of view, whether NT scholars are Christian (and what sort of Christian they are) is a valid topic, and carries no implications that Christians are unique, or that their scholarship has to be worthless because of their "faith."

I will split off some more posts and ask everyone AGAIN to stick to the topic.

Toto

But that is the real world. Christians have been fighting over who is a True Christian since the beginning of Christianity, if you take the words of St. Paul at face value, which I am sure that you do. And one of their tools for anathemetizing each other as heretics has been Biblical Criticism.

That's why the OP is actually a subtler question than it might appear on first look. The real question might be not whether most NT scholars are Christians, but why Mike Licona does not think they are Christian.

Huon

In the post #22, one can read this :
France 44,150,000 98%

If the number 44,150,000 represents the total population of France, then, it is the population of 1958, approximately. The population of 2008 is 63,700,000.
The percentage 98% cannot represent the percentage of christians. Maybe it is the percentage of people who had christian ancestors, in a remote past, mixing the catholics with the protestants.

The newspaper Le Monde undertook in 2006 a poll, with many questions about the religious stances of the Frenchmen. The first question was :
"What is your religion, if you have one ?"
Catholic : 51 %
No religion : 31 %
Christian : 5 % (no more precision)
Muslim : 4 %
Protestant : 3 %
Jew : 1 %
Other : 1 %
No answer : 4 %

Another question was, for the Catholics only :
"Do you believe that God exists ?"
Sure : 26 %
Probable : 26 %
Don't know : 31 %
It is not very probable : 10 %
He does not exist : 7 %

My guess is that many self-defined catholics remember having been baptised, so, technically, they are catholics...

However, I think that most frenchmen who are New Testament scholars are catholics (dominicans or jesuits) or calvinists.

Doug Shaver

But is he undermining Christianity or just certain sects thereof?

What I'm seeing is this. We see a group there saying "We're the real Christians." There is another group over yonder saying "We're the real Christians." And another group around here saying that same. And yet another group down the street saying it. And still yet another . . . you get the idea.

And then there is us, who say "We are definitely not Christians, and we sure as hell don't even want to be Christians."

My question: On what basis do we get any authority to arbitrate their dispute?

Jeffrey Gibson

May I not again that the issue of who is and who is not a christian, let alone who gets to say who is and who is not a Christian, is not the issue at hand.

It is whether or not most NT scholars are Christians.

Do you know? Do you know how we might go about testing the claim that they are (or are not)?

If not, then I for one would be grateful if you'd stop posting what are essentially derailments of the thread.

Jeffrey