One I haven't seen mentioned yet is Andrew Benson's book "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" .

I recently bought a copy (you have to send off a check to the address given on the website) and I am finding it to be be fascinating reading. It seems to be an excellent introduction to the historical environment that shaped the old and new testaments.

Just my 2 cents...

-Kelly

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
From your post of March 04, 2001 08:28 AM :

I have already provided a suggested list of books, but I would like to add a few comments. If you wish to read the works of those who do not have a Christian bias, implicit or explicit, go with Robin Lane Fox, John Allegro, Morton Smith, Charles Guignebert, R. Joseph Hoffman, G. A. Wells, Michael Grant, Helmut Koester, Randel McCraw Helms, Joseph Wheless, John E. Remsberg, E. R. Dodds, F. C. Conybeare, E. P. Sanders, and William Harwood.

Nomad: Now, on this list are a number of true scholars of the NT. How or why you would include an eccentric like GA Wells amonst such esteemed company escapes me. And if you do not consider him to be an NT scholar (considering the only Biblical studies he HAS done is on the NT), why did you include him on your list?

Again, your OPINION is duly noted; however, you should know by now that your opinion is not terribly important to me or some of the other posters here. I DO NOT consider G. A. Wells to be an "eccentric." His views may not be well-accepted by theologians. So what! He takes the approach of an historian. So do I. By the way, Nomad, how many of his books have you actually read? How qualified are you to judge his scholarship and conclusions?

Nomad: As for Akenson, I thought I had seen you quote from him recently. If that was not you, then I apologize.

Indeed, I did quote Akenson. And I will quote him again and again, when his observations are shown to be backed by solid evidence and good scholarship. Hell, I will quote Josh McDowell, if he ever makes an argument based on solid evidence.

Nomad: P.S. I noticed that you had Robert Funk on your list of Christian scholars that may not have a bias. He is actually a lapsed Christian and a very vocal atheist.

Do you have any evidence of this? Has he openly stated that he is an atheist? I am curious, how many of Robert Funk's books have you actually read?


[This message has been edited by penatis (edited March 05, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
penatis, I accidentally skipped your post when writing my earlier post.

Ish: Though I'm afraid I'm not particularly impressed by Wells work, you have listed some very good books.

Why are you "not particularly impressed by Wells work?"

Ish: Many of them are quite secular, but very good scholarship.

I think the man specifically asked for "secular" commentators. Let's give him what he asked for.

Ish: I have not yet had the chance to read the books listed by Helmut Koester, but I plan to because they are mentioned very often by Crossan especially, Meier, and many others. I went to a seminary library the other day and glanced through his Intro to the NT and it looks like it was very technical and would be a great read. Meier mentions his Ancient Christian Gospels many times, though he tends to disagree with many of Koester's conclusions.

Agreed, I think Koester is well-respected in the scholarly community. It does not surprise me that Meier "tends to disagree with many of Koester's conclusions." Meier is a Catholic Priest. Koester is an historian.

I'm not impressed with Morton Smith's Jesus the magician. He implies Jesus' homosexuality based on his interpretations of "The secret gospel of Mark" which he discovered and photographed before it mysteriously disappeared.

Precisely what are you not "impressed" with? His scholarship is meticulous and solid and his conclusions are supported by a large body of evidence.

Ish: Many scholars accept secret Mark but many still reject it. His book is an interesting read, but I wouldn't put much weight behind his conclusions.

Have you read either Jesus the Magician or The Secret Gospel? If so, which of Smith's arguments do you find questionable?

Ish: Geza Vermes, who has worked extensively with the Dead Sea Scrolls, is very good. His book that you listed is also a good read. He also has a book of the complete dead sea scrolls translated into English (probably the best over F. Martinez's version even).

F.F. Bruce also has some very good books on the NT canon as well as other interesting topics.

We should state this fact: F. F. Bruce is not a secular scholar. No one would question his knowledge and scholarship, but he writes as a Christian for Christians.

Ish: Finally, I have a book at home that talks about OT criticism, maybe I can list it later. However, since most of the books here deal with the NT, how about listing more books that talk about the canon of the OT, its formation, its different versions, etc.

Thanks,
Ish

I recommend Robert H. Pfeiffer's Introduction to the Old Testament. The book is over 900 pages long and packed with detail. Its only drawback is its age. It was published in the 1940s.

Ron

Well, I just received The Bible Unearthed. Thankfully for a layman like myself, the book doesn't have miniscule type! It won't take me forever to get through it, like The Battle for Christmas did. I also notice that it has illustrations and maps and stuff. The only way this book could be more perfect for me is if it came with pop-ups and bubbles!

[This message has been edited by sentinel00 (edited March 05, 2001).]

I must admit penatis, I am getting to like responding to your posts, since you make your questions make it so easy to prove my points. Thank you.

You mean like dating the NT Canons to the 2nd Century? At least Wells has gotten over his Jesus Mythitis.

BTW, did he learn his historical study methodology from his lessons on teaching German?

Like Thiering, MacDonald, Freke, Grady and Doherty, I consider Wells to be an eccentric, and haven't bothered to pick up his tomes. Luckily, in so doing, I have avoided many of the pitfalls reading this kind of clap trap has apparently inflicted themselves upon your thinking.

So you do consider him to be an NT scholar? Why did you apparently deny it the first time around? BTW, I am still wondering what part of his training in studying the Irish makes him qualified to be a good solid scholar in NT studies? (Hint, I mean besides the fact that his atheism helps to feed your biases and prejudices).

I have not read, nor have I ever quoted Josh McDowell. On the other hand, if you think you can actually challenge anything he has written without resorting to your banal assertions, I would be open to hearing them.

Yes he has, and quite some time ago. And here I thought you kept up on current scholarship penatis.

From The Coming Radical Reformation:

Theology

1) The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world. We must reckon with a deep crisis in god talk and replace it with talk about whether the universe has meaning and whether human life has purpose.

Christology

6) We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.

If this sounds like a Christian or even a theist to you, then I would love to hear your definition of what an atheist is.

BTW, go to the site and take a look. His views will warm your heart penatis. In fact, he appears to share every single one of the prejudices you do about Christianity and God. Go figure.

Nomad

Since I would think that Hubzilla would want both sides of the story to make an informed decision, let's ask him. Hubzilla, are secular scholars all you are asking for? If so, I stand corrected.

Your final distinction here is really pretty goofy. They are both historians with the credentials to back them up. To see it the way you have presented it is less than academic, penatis.

Nice debating tactic, penatis. What, precisely, impresses you about Smith's work? I have read his book and find the part about the boy at Jesus' arrest quite interesting. However, to refute his work in detail would require having it in front of me which I do not. I also have read secret Mark in my New Testament Apocrypha by Wilson/Schneemelcher, 1992.

According my book, Smith found the text in 1958, photographed it, did nothing to safeguard the original (which has not been seen to this day), and didn't publish the text until 1973. This book also mentions several damaging things about the manuscript: late palaeographical date (17th-19th century), differences of substance from Clement's other writings (J.Munck, H.von Campenhausen), text contains none of the errors typical in MSS tradition(C.E.Murgia), and the style is too Marcan to be Mark (C.C. Richardson). There is more, but I'll spare you. Other well-respected scholars are quite skeptical of this text as well. Penatis, please stop insinuating that I have not read what I am reviewing and presenting.

I'm glad you recognize his scholarship as opposed to your silly comment about Meier earlier. However, I'm still very puzzled by your oft-used label of writing "as a Christian for Christians". He is writing as a scholar for anyone. Period. I'll leave it up to Hubzilla whether he wants to read Bruce's work.

I'm not sure I've heard of Pfeiffer, but you can bet I'll check him out. Thanks.

I promised a book that talked some about the development of the OT canon. It is: The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible, Paul D. Wegner, Baker Books, 1999. This is an excellent text book for the development of both the OT and NT. Another book about OT history in general that I am fond of is: Archaeology and the Old Testament, Alfred J. Hoerth, Baker Books, 1998.

Ish

I do want a secular history. All I've read are religiously-biased books on the Bible. So you are correct in that I am searching for the other side.

Nomad: I must admit penatis, I am getting to like responding to your posts, since you make your questions make it so easy to prove my points. Thank you.

You are quite welcome, Nomad.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
Nomad: Now, on this list are a number of true scholars of the NT. How or why you would include an eccentric like GA Wells amonst such esteemed company escapes me. And if you do not consider him to be an NT scholar (considering the only Biblical studies he HAS done is on the NT), why did you include him on your list?

penatis: Again, your OPINION is duly noted; however, you should know by now that your opinion is not terribly important to me or some of the other posters here. I DO NOT consider G. A. Wells to be an "eccentric." His views may not be well-accepted by theologians. So what! He takes the approach of an historian. So do I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You mean like dating the NT Canons to the 2nd Century?

This is an ambiguous statement. Please present evidence demnonstrating the validity of your claim and clarify your meaning.

Nomad: At least Wells has gotten over his Jesus Mythitis.

Your disparagement of Wells adds nothing to your credibility. Do you somehow think that making derogatory remarks about someone with whom you disagree adds anything to your arguments/claims? It does not. With respect to Wells' current views, I think he, like I, believes there probably was a person named Jesus whose words and actions may be at the core of the NT.

BTW, did he learn his historical study methodology from his lessons on teaching German?

Again, your derogatory implications do nothing for your credibility. If you are terribly concerned about Wells' credentials/methods, why don't you write to him and find out. Of course, you could allow his arguments and evidenciary support to speak for themselves and simply challenge said arguments with evidence of your own. That might be more fruitful than running down the man himself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, Nomad, how many of his books have you actually read? How qualified are you to judge his scholarship and conclusions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Like Thiering, MacDonald, Freke, Grady and Doherty, I consider Wells to be an eccentric, and haven't bothered to pick up his tomes.

There you have it! YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY OF HIS BOOKS! I don't think you are qualified to say anything about G. A. Wells or his views.

Nomad: Luckily, in so doing, I have avoided many of the pitfalls reading this kind of clap trap has apparently inflicted themselves upon your thinking.

Unlike you, Nomad, I will read just about anything, and that includes the comments/works of Josh McDowell, Carsten Peter Thiede, Robert M. Grant, Werner Georg Kummel, Vincent Taylor, Floyd Filson, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, Charlotte Allen, C.K. Barrett, David Strauss, Hershel Shanks, Gunther Bornkamm, Alfred Loisy, Emil Schurer, Karen Armstrong, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, Artur Weiser, Hugh J. Schonfield, Burton Mack, et al. I even have a book entitled Christian Apologetics by Alan Richardson.

I started off being a believer, Nomad. Reading the Bible, going to church, and reading the various theologically-based commentaries CHANGED MY MIND. The whole Christian concept just does not make sense. Now, I just want to find out what happened in the past. It is that simple. If it bothers you that I am open to reading anything that might give more than a glimpse of Jesus, then so be it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: As for Akenson, I thought I had seen you quote from him recently. If that was not you, then I apologize.
penatis: Indeed, I did quote Akenson. And I will quote him again and again, when his observations are shown to be backed by solid evidence and good scholarship.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: So you do consider him to be an NT scholar?

I think his arguments are well-reasoned; his scholarship is good; he treats the past as history, not theology. Do I think he is just as qualified to comment on religious literature as say Raymond Brown, Carsten Peter Thiede, Josh McDowell, Charles Guignebert, Robert Funk, Morton Smith, or Burton Mack? Hell, yes!!

Nomad: Why did you apparently deny it the first time around?

The ONLY place I have denied this is in your fertile imagination.

Nomad: BTW, I am still wondering what part of his training in studying the Irish makes him qualified to be a good solid scholar in NT studies?

Perhaps it is because he makes an effort to ascertain, to the best of his knowledge, what happened in history. He doesn't have your bias, Nomad. He is not out to save our imaginary souls by promulgating religious propaganda.

Nomad: (Hint, I mean besides the fact that his atheism helps to feed your biases and prejudices).

You seem to like this phrase. If it makes you feel all goosey inside, keep doing it. As I stated the last time you said this, I only wish to find out what happened in history. Only someone like you can see "biases and prejudices" in my objective.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell, I will quote Josh McDowell, if he ever makes an argument based on solid evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I have not read, nor have I ever quoted Josh McDowell.

Damn, Nomad, what have you read?

[Nomad: On the other hand, if you think you can actually challenge anything he has written without resorting to your banal assertions, I would be open to hearing them.

After you have read one of McDowell's books, I will discuss anything he has to say with you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: P.S. I noticed that you had Robert Funk on your list of Christian scholars that may not have a bias. He is actually a lapsed Christian and a very vocal atheist.
pentatis: Do you have any evidence of this? Has he openly stated that he is an atheist?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes he has, and quite some time ago. And here I thought you kept up on current scholarship penatis.

I don't have the time or energy to read EVERYTHING, current or otherwise.

Nomad: From The Coming Radical Reformation:

Theology

1) The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world. We must reckon with a deep crisis in god talk and replace it with talk about whether the universe has meaning and whether human life has purpose.

Christology

6) We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.

I wonder what CHANGED Funk's mind? He USED to be a Christian.

Nomad: If this sounds like a Christian or even a theist to you, then I would love to hear your definition of what an atheist is.

Thanks for the information, Nomad. It seems Robert Funk is probably no longer a Christian with a Christian bias. Where did he state he is an atheist?

Nomad: BTW, go to the site and take a look. His views will warm your heart penatis. In fact, he appears to share every single one of the prejudices you do about Christianity and God. Go figure.

Do you mean he has grown up and put away childish things? Do you mean he is more interested in finding out what happened in history? How horrible can this man be!




[This message has been edited by penatis (edited March 06, 2001).]

Well, you keep making it simple for me penatis, so again, thanks.

I'll respond to this bit, offer up why Morton Smith didn's know what he was talking about on Secret Mark, then when I get back see where we're at.

What's ambiguous? Wells thought that the NT Canons were all authored in the 2nd Century, a postition that isn't even defensible today (not even by those that HAVE read his eccentric opinions penatis ). As for proof of this, I guess you'll have to wait for me to get back. Thus far I keep offering all of the proof however, and you mostly come back with assertions and ad hominems.

(Luckily the latter are pretty easy to contain and rebut, so keep it up if you like).

Actually, I consider what I said to be a compliment, since Wells, once a leading Jesus Myther has now realized the error of his ways, and rejects the notion still advanced by Freke, Grady and Doherty that Jesus really was just a mythical creation.

First rate thinking from Professor Wells really.

Penatis? Relax please. It is worth pointing out how an individual was trained, and how solid his credentials on a subject really are. Wells is a professor of German, and for all I know he is a very good one. But that hardly qualifies him as an NT scholar any more than it qualifies any of us. I'll take Meier, Brown, Grant, Wallace, Griffith-Jones, Dunn, Barton, Alter, Perkins, and even Borg and Crossan over such individuals any day of the week. If you prefer amateurs like McDowell and Wells, tis cool, but I don't think it advances classical historical thinking.

LOL! I haven't read McDonald either, so I just went through this with a number of his fans, and trust me, I already know I haven't missed much (and we'll note that you appear to be in the same boat as you admit below).

Yeah, whatever. Name dropping can be fun, but there is such a thing as discernment you know. Some stuff is first rate, and needs to be read. Other material is second rate at best, and if one has time, then it can be read as well. Personally, I prefer reading real scholars.

And I started off a non-believer. So none of this matters much does it? You have your biases, I have mine. We have both changed them in the past. Big deal.

And this is cool, except that your current set of prejudices make that quite impossible.

I do wish you would be more discerning penatis. Brown and Mack are in a totally different league from McDowell, and Thiede. It is axiomatic to note that some people are simply more qualified at what they do than are others.

And as for Akenson, I am grateful to him for his disembowelment of the Secret Gospel of Mark (especially since he is an atheist, making his findings much more credible to other suspicious sceptics like yourself).

Let me help you. WHEN you ask me how I decided that I thought Akenson was one of your scholars, you are by implication telling me that you do not consider him as such. The fact that you have quoted him regarding the NT tells me that you do, in fact think he is a worthy scholar. So all you had to do in the first place is stop playing games, and admit that you like Akenson. And that is cool, since I like him too. I just think it is important to rembemer that HIS particular speciallty is ancient Celt and Ireland, and should be noted.

If he had MY bias, he would be a Christian. He is an atheist however, so he has an atheistic bias. That is cool, and so long as we all admit our biases, then we can evaluate what we know and say accordingly.

Now, this is irony in the first order. On the other hand, I already knew this. And now that I know that if you haven't read a particular book, you consider yourself to be unqualified on the subject matter, that helps a lot.

Read his books. You'll find out.

In the quote I just gave you, plus the article that I also just gave to you. It is referenced (with the appropriate URL) in my last post.

No, I mean he is just as biased as you are penatis, and happens to share all of the same biases you appear to share. Please try to read what I write, then I will not be compelled to repeat myself again and again.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 06, 2001).]

Nomad, I'm going to respond on a subject I have absolutely no idea about, accept for logical fallacies.

What does it matter what they teach or what they officially studied to get a piece of paper? You are trying to show that what they said is false by attacking the man. Also known as ad hominem. What is really important- what they said, or who they are?