I can't address rodahi's concerns, but I think to say they can't be trusted is a broad generalization that needs to be qualified.



And here is the qualification: I don't think there's any question that a priori acceptance of the literal occurrence of "miracles" and other miscellaneous supernatural phenenoma associated with christianity certainly do count as a very special kind of bias with respect to biblical exegesis.

I'm fairly certain that rodahi and many other posters on this board would prefer that the biblical tradition is critiqued from the same historical and literary vantage points as any other ancient texts, without a somewhat preposterous (and irrelevant, for scholarship purposes) literal acceptance of virgin births, raising of the dead, bodily resurrections, and so on.

From a purely historical, critical perspective, I don't think this is too much too ask, nor are suspicions of christian scholars' motivations invalid, for these reasons.

Conversely, you may consider non-christian motivations questionable for the opposite reason; however, the fact remains that secular analysis of the biblical texts doesn't presume any special status for those texts beyond any other similarly situated documents, no matter what cultural tradition they appeared from.



Indeed, although I wasn't familiar with the specific subject matter of his stash. It's also illegal, and deplorable. But assumedly, the quality of his scholarship would nonetheless appear to remain intact.

That he remains on the masthead of the Jesus Seminar is perhaps a testament to the "red letter" teachings of Jesus himself, who apparently embraced many of those who were otherwise rejected and cast aside from the contemporary society.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
This is all funny and despicable and all, and I'm not about to defend this guy or anything, but aren't you committing a textbook ad hominem fallacy here? What do his extracurricular activities, reprehensible as they may be, have to do with the quality of his scholarship?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polycarp: Yes, I did commit a blatant ad hominem argument. However, I did it for two reasons. First and foremost… it was to be very sarcastic. Secondly… it was to point out the fact that certain things are relevant as to whether or not a person is a true scholar.

1. Ah, yes, good old Christian apologetic sarcasm. Does it really serve any true function?
2. You have a right to your opinion.

Polycarp: I hope rodahi (and others)recognizes that the same line he used against me can be turned against him when he spouts off about how Christian scholars can’t be trusted simply because of the fact that they’re Christians, yet he claims this somehow puts them (Christian scholars) in a separate category of bias-ness from which all other scholars are apparently excluded.

I never said Christian scholars can't be true scholars. I did say that many, if not most, display Christian bias in their commentary. There ARE scholars who do not exhibit Christian bias. Virtually all of them are concerned with history rather than theology.

rodahi

Well done. You did a far better job of saying what I wanted to say.

rodahi

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi: I never said Christian scholars can't be true scholars. I did say that many, if not most, display Christian bias in their commentary. There ARE scholars who do not exhibit Christian bias. Virtually all of them are concerned with history rather than theology.

Thank you for acknowledging this. Since this was one of the primary motives behind my original post I’ll leave the rest of your replies alone. Would you care to give a few examples of Christian scholars who would meet your definition of being a “true scholar”? A mention of any books you’ve read by these scholars would also be appreciated.

Thanks again for clarifying your perspective.

Peace,

Polycarp

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hezekiahjones: And here is the qualification: I don't think there's any question that a priori acceptance of the literal occurrence of "miracles" and other miscellaneous supernatural phenenoma associated with christianity certainly do count as a very special kind of bias with respect to biblical exegesis. I'm fairly certain that rodahi and many other posters on this board would prefer that the biblical tradition is critiqued from the same historical and literary vantage points as any other ancient texts, without a somewhat preposterous (and irrelevant, for scholarship purposes) literal acceptance of virgin births, raising of the dead, bodily resurrections, and so on. From a purely historical, critical perspective, I don't think this is too much too ask, nor are suspicions of christian scholars' motivations invalid, for these reasons. Conversely, you may consider non-christian motivations questionable for the opposite reason; however, the fact remains that secular analysis of the biblical texts doesn't presume any special status for those texts beyond any other similarly situated documents, no matter what cultural tradition they appeared from.

I’d like to clarify exactly what you’re saying. Are you saying that “a priori ACCEPTANCE of the literal occurrence of miracles” is a different sort of bias than “a priori REJECTION of the literal occurrence of miracles”?

Certainly these are the same sorts of bias and I have no problem saying so. What does upset me is when people claim these two are not the same type of bias. I’m sure you’d agree with me when I say that historians can’t say whether or not miracles can occur. The question of whether or not miracles occur is answerable only in a philosophical/theological investigation prior to any historical study. If a person has undertaken a philosophical study and concluded that miracles are possible or impossible, then they are free to take that conclusion with them in their investigation of history. And as I stated before, my irritation arises when one side (David Hume’s disciples) claims that the other side (miracle believers) is biased without acknowledging the fact that ALL of us are biased.

Peace,

Polycarp

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
I never said Christian scholars can't be true scholars. I did say that many, if not most, display Christian bias in their commentary. There ARE scholars who do not exhibit Christian bias. Virtually all of them are concerned with history rather than theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polycarp: Thank you for acknowledging this. Since this was one of the primary motives behind my original post I’ll leave the rest of your replies alone. Would you care to give a few examples of Christian scholars who would meet your definition of being a “true scholar”? A mention of any books you’ve read by these scholars would also be appreciated.

Before I can list examples of who I think are "true scholars," I need to know what your definition of what a "true scholar" is.

I will provide a partial list of critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) that I think are primarily interested in history AND are, to a high degree, able to bracket their presuppostions.

Rudolf Bultmann (with some reservations)
Bart D. Ehrman
Charles Guignebert
F.C. Conybeare
Robert H. Pfeiffer
David Aune
A. N. Wilson
Frank W. Beare (with some reservations)
Michael Grant
Morton Enslin
Donald B. Redford
Helmut Koester (with some reservations)
W. Robertson Smith
Adolf Deissmann
Werner Georg Kummel (with some reservations)
John P. Meier (with some reservations)
Robert Funk (with some reservations)
S.G.F. Brandon (with some reservations)
E. O. James
Richard A. Horsely (with some reservations)
John M. Hull
Hans Dieter Betz
C. C. Torrey (with some reservations)
R. H. Charles (with some reservations)
Geza Vermes (with some reservations)
Anton Fridrichsen
R. Joseph Hoffman
Joel Carmichael
Ramsay McMullen
Albert Schweitzer
Morton Smith (with some reservations)
Stevan L. Davies
Emil Schurer (with some reservations)
David Friedrich Strauss (with some reservations)

I will say what I have said on several occasions, I do not agree totally with the conclusions of any particular scholar or group of scholars.

rodahi

Originally posted by Polycarp:
Certainly these are the same sorts of bias and I have no problem saying so. What does upset me is when people claim these two are not the same type of bias. I’m sure you’d agree with me when I say that historians can’t say whether or not miracles can occur.

Yes, they can. There is no evidence that miracles have occurred. Period. If you know of any, bring it forth. If you know any way to violate known natural laws, by all means do it. You'd be famous. Since, as far as anyone knows, natural law holds for past present and future, historians can say with confidence that all reports of miracles are bullshit.

The question of whether or not miracles occur is answerable only in a philosophical/theological investigation prior to any historical study. If a person has undertaken a philosophical study and concluded that miracles are possible or impossible, then they are free to take that conclusion with them in their investigation of history. And as I stated before, my irritation arises when one side (David Hume’s disciples) claims that the other side (miracle believers) is biased without acknowledging the fact that ALL of us are biased.

There are no miracles. Just supply the evidence. The non-existence of miracles was concluded by scholars in the three centuries previous to the last, who failed to uncover any evidence for their existence or possibility, and reluctantly ruled them out as explanatory factors.

The impossibility of miracles is a conclusion warranted by facts from the world -- do you know of any miracles? Just put up the evidence. Do you know of any methodology for finding them? Any way to spot one if it occurred? Any specifiable trait that miracles have? But of course you do not, Polycarp, all you can do is complain about the "bias" of scholars -- basically, all scholars, in all fields, saving a tiny minority of apologists for several religions, who accept their religion's miracles, but not those of others(!).

Your claim of "bias" is ridiculous. Nobody will accept miracles, Polycarp, until you bring forth evidence. And don't give me that crap about no evidence being acceptable. That is absurd and you know it. If you had evidence of miracles, you would bring it out and destroy our cause, prove us and all scientists and scholars biased, and revolutionize the world.

Michael

To all:

I have started another thread entitled "Biblical Miracles." Please add further comments on this topic in that thread. I think this issue warrants a thread all its own.

Thanks,
rodahi