Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-21-2001, 04:45 PM

I know it's from an apologetic website, but I just couldn't resist...

= On the Jesus Seminar's credentials =

And they call their version of the Bible the "Scholar's Version"??

Ish

James Still · 06-21-2001, 05:17 PM

Not being one to gulp things down uncritically from one man's web site I decided to look into it a bit more. Jimmy Williams of Probe Ministries has a different story. According to Williams 14 are "well-known," 20 "recognizable," and the rest "either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College." He writes:

"Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies. Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered among the most liberal in the field" (published on Leadership U, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html, spotted 6/21/2001).

Mark Allen Powell, writing for The Lutheran says that "whatever one may make of the Jesus Seminar's conclusions, their academic credentials are impeccable" (published at http://www.thelutheran.org/9702/page8.html, spotted 6/21/2001).

Miller's definitive site on the Seminar says that it "is open to anyone with the proper academic credentials" (published at http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/miller1.html, spotted 6/21/2001). In the third footnote he humorously takes issue with a list compiled by Richard Hays. I quickly realized from at this point in my "five minute research" that Hays is the originator of this polemic (as can be seen from Williams' text which is in agreement) and our friend whom Ish cites seems to have redacted from him. So let's go straight to the horse's mouth, the article by Hays where he writes:

"The casual reader of the introduction to The Five Gospels might suppose that no serious New Testament scholar would differ materially from the consensus represented by this book, were it not for the single telltale polemical reference to anonymous "elitist academic critics who deplored the public face of the seminar." In fact- let it be said clearly-most professional biblical scholars are profoundly skeptical of the methods and conclusions of this academic splinter group. The membership of the Jesus Seminar does not include the overwhelming majority of the New Testament scholars who teach at the major graduate institutions in the United States. This may be verified by a check of the roster of seventy-four Fellows of the Seminar provided as an appendix. Not one member of the New Testament faculty from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt, SMU, or Catholic University is involved in this project. It probably goes without saying that the faculties of evangelical seminaries are not represented here. Nor are any major scholars from England or the Continent.

This is not to say that the Seminar participants are without credentials. They hold doctorates from reputable institutions, with Claremont and Harvard being the most heavily represented, in that order" (published at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...revessay.html, spotted 6/21/2001).

And there we have it. This is a classic case of one man (Hays) writing an autograph from which a secondary source (Neal) redacted and changed to suit his own polemical purposes. Sounds a lot like the NT texts!

06-21-2001, 06:27 PM

Nevertheless, how representative are the findings of the Jesus Seminar? Just because membership is open to all scholars with the appropriate qualifications doesn't mean a widely representative sample of NT scholars joined the Seminar. As far as I know, the Jesus Seminar represents only one group of NT scholars, a liberal group. But how many of the NT scholars are liberal? How many agree with the Jesus Seminar's judgments? And is the divide between liberal and conservative NT scholars essentially that between errantists and inerrantists or traditionalists? How many of the liberal scholars call themselves Christians? And how valid is the appeal to authority or majority in the case of NT studies, given that the study of the NT is at best a soft science?

06-22-2001, 07:51 AM

James, your links don't seem to work. I think you've included an extra comma at the end of them or something...

Quote:

James Still:
Jimmy Williams of Probe Ministries has a different story.

I imagine there is some difference of opinion in what schools are deemed reputable. The number of those schools represented within the Jesus Seminar is still relatively low. However, Williams also says this in this review:

"The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting periodically since 1985. The initial two hundred has now dwindled to about seventy-four active members."

I'll leave it up to others to determine why so many scholars left the group...

Williams also says:

"The public, exposed by the mass of publicity and attention given to the Jesus Seminar by the media has been inclined to assume that the theories of these scholars represent the "cutting edge," the mainstream of current New Testament thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nearly all of these scholars are American. European scholarship is nearly non-existent and, that being the case, it would be inaccurate, if not deceiving for the Jesus Seminar participants to present themselves, their work, and their conclusions as a broad, representative consensus of worldwide New Testament scholarship."

They are not representative....

Quote:

James Still:
Mark Allen Powell, writing for The Lutheran says that "whatever one may make of the Jesus Seminar's conclusions, their academic credentials are impeccable"

He also says:

"The seminar--a relatively small group given the total number of American biblical scholars..."

and

"The seminar's system of voting has attracted particular media attention. Initially, seminar members dropped colored beads into a hopper to indicate whether they believed an item about Jesus should be accepted as authentic: red for definitely, pink for possibly, gray for unlikely, black for definitely not. The practice became too cumbersome and was discontinued, but the image of scholars "blackballing" Jesus proved irresistible to journalists."

AND

"Beneath its veneer of objective scholarship, the seminar has a definite agenda. Robert Funk, its founder, maintained from the start that one purpose of the project is to challenge "the right-wing Christian community" and "contradict what TV evangelists and pulp religious authorities have to say.""

That was from the founder of the seminar! Powell's response to Funk's comments is right on target:

"One wonders how he could be so confident of the group's findings before the actual work had been done."

These are some of the things that bother me most about the Jesus Seminar. They have intentionally made their own biased views so public that regular 'ol "Layman Larry" doesn't know any better than to accept their claims, after all, they're on National Television!

Quote:

James Still:
The membership of the Jesus Seminar does not include the overwhelming majority of the New Testament scholars who teach at the major graduate institutions in the United States. This may be verified by a check of the roster of seventy-four Fellows of the Seminar provided as an appendix. Not one member of the New Testament faculty from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt, SMU, or Catholic University is involved in this project. It probably goes without saying that the faculties of evangelical seminaries are not represented here. Nor are any major scholars from England or the Continent."

I think this quote presented by Still says it all.

Quote:

James Still:
This is not to say that the Seminar participants are without credentials.

I'm not saying that all of the participants are without credentials. After all, Barbara Thiering has credentials and is one of the Jesus Seminar fellows.

There seemm to be relatively few with "impeccable credentials".

But do they represent the whole of NT scholarship? Their attention grabbing style and bold statements seem to imply that this is what they want the general public to think.

I think it's pretty obvious when the founder himself states that one purpose of the project is to challenge "the right-wing Christian community" and "contradict what TV evangelists and pulp religious authorities have to say."

The website that I originally linked to stated, among other things, the following:

"Of the 6,000 plus members of the liberal Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), only 72 are members of the Jesus Seminar, which means less than 2% of the SBL are members. Adding the much larger conservative grouping of scholars and the SBL membership together, then we see the Jesus Seminar represents far less than 1% of Biblical scholars."

Interesting... Here's a link to the Society of Biblical Literature for anyone interested. I can only say that I have heard that they are mostly liberal scholars.

For a grouping of Jesus scholars that seems a little more diverse, though they include some from the Jesus Seminar, try The Jesus Archive and look up their members in their Scholar's Database. Heck! They even have a link to the SecWeb!

Some may trust the Seminar's findings and biased "Scholar's Version" of the Bible, but there are plainly many who do not.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 22, 2001).]

06-22-2001, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ish:
James, your links don't seem to work. I think you've included an extra comma at the end of them or something...

I'm not saying that all of the participants are without credentials. After all, Barbara Thiering has credentials and is one of the Jesus Seminar fellows. There seemm to be relatively few with "impeccable credentials".

But do they represent the whole of NT scholarship? Their attention grabbing style and bold statements seem to imply that this is what they want the general public to think.

I think it's pretty obvious when the founder himself states that one purpose of the project is to challenge "the right-wing Christian community" and "contradict what TV evangelists and pulp religious authorities have to say."

The website that I originally linked to stated, among other things, the following:

"Of the 6,000 plus members of the liberal Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), only 72 are members of the Jesus Seminar, which means less than 2% of the SBL are members. Adding the much larger conservative grouping of scholars and the SBL membership together, then we see the Jesus Seminar represents far less than 1% of Biblical scholars."

Interesting... Here's a link to the Society of Biblical Literature for anyone interested. I can only say that I have heard that they are mostly liberal scholars.

For a grouping of Jesus scholars that seems a little more diverse, though they include some from the Jesus Seminar, try The Jesus Archive and look up their members in their Scholar's Database. Heck! They even have a link to the SecWeb!

Some may trust the Seminar's findings and biased "Scholar's Version" of the Bible, but there are plainly many who do not.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 22, 2001).]

No one has demonstrated that the Scholars Version is "biased," regardless of what opinion Ish may have of it. A few scholars have disagreed with the way a few words and phrases were translated.

Whether a scholar is from Harvard, UCLA, NYU, SMU, Oxford, Claremont, Jerusalem, Paris, or Frankfort, the real issues are these: 1) Does the scholar ATTEMPT to evaluate all the historical evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible? 2) Is the scholar motivated by a desire to find the historical truth (or is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit the JC Bible and the JC Bible fit history)?

I think it is difficult for many, if not most, Christian scholars to objectively study the JC Bible without bias. After all, they have a vested interest in it.
To those who think ONLY Christian scholars should study and comment on the JC Bible, I say this: Should only LDS study and comment on the Book of Mormon? Should only Moslems study and comment on the Koran? Should only Zoroastrians study and comment on the Zend Avesta? Should only Jews study and comment on the Tanakh? etc.

rodahi

06-22-2001, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodahi:
No one has demonstrated that the Scholars Version is "biased," regardless of what opinion Ish may have of it.

They obviously depend heavily on Codex Bezae. Now if you'd like, I can start a thread on whether or not we should rely on Codex Bezae's testimony... I have recently been following through the Greek of Mark with one eye on the variants. Over time, the text represented by Codex Bezae makes many more harmonizations and expansions than texts of other types. Opinion or not, it is supported by a large amount of evidence.

Quote:

Rodahi:
A few scholars have disagreed with the way a few words and phrases were translated.

A few?!

I guess you're entitled to your opinion as well...

Quote:

Rodahi:
...the real issues are these: 1) Does the scholar ATTEMPT to evaluate all the historical evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible? 2) Is the scholar motivated by a desire to find the historical truth (or is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit the JC Bible and the JC Bible fit history)?

First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this.

Second, I would change Rodahi's caveat in point two: how is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit his/her world-view in general. This modification removes Rodahi's biased blame on Chrisitians and puts the burden on everyone to keep their world-view in check and attempt to look at the information from the other's vantage point.

Quote:

Rodahi:
I think it is difficult for many, if not most, Christian scholars to objectively study the JC Bible without bias.

Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view.

Most rational people know this, but I can never state it enough: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view.

Quote:

Rodahi:
After all, they have a vested interest in it.

Obviously, non-Christians have a vested interest in it as well or they would not be on this website. Many non-Christians attempt to destroy Christianity because they happen to be of the opinion (however incorrect) that it is bad for society. We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view. If you never accept this fact, Rodahi, I think you should constantly be reminded of it.

Quote:

Rodahi:
To those who think ONLY Christian scholars should study and comment on the JC Bible, I say this: Should only LDS study and comment on the Book of Mormon? Should only Moslems study and comment on the Koran? Should only Zoroastrians study and comment on the Zend Avesta? Should only Jews study and comment on the Tanakh? etc.

I don't personally hold this view that only Christian scholars should study and comment on the Bible. However, I do think that people should be aware of the world-views behind the various "opinions". I also think that there are non-Christians who do not hold the views of the Jesus Seminar. There are many Christians and Non-Christians willing to find out the truth by attempting (the best they possibly can) to put their biases aside. Some on both sides do a better job of this than others.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 22, 2001).]

06-22-2001, 10:51 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
No one has demonstrated that the Scholars Version is "biased," regardless of what opinion Ish may have of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: They obviously depend heavily on Codex Bezae. Now if you'd like, I can start a thread on whether or not we should rely on Codex Bezae's testimony... I have recently been following through the Greek of Mark with one eye on the variants. Over time, the text represented by Codex Bezae makes many more harmonizations and expansions than texts of other types. Opinion or not, it is supported by a large amount of evidence.

Just prove that the Scholars Version is biased.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
A few scholars have disagreed with the way a few words and phrases were translated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: A few?! I guess you're entitled to your opinion as well...

Yes, a few scholars have disagreed with a the way a few words and phrases were translated in the Scholars Version.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
...the real issues are these: 1) Does the scholar ATTEMPT to evaluate all the historical evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible? 2) Is the scholar motivated by a desire to find the historical truth (or is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit the JC Bible and the JC Bible fit history)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this.

So? That should have no bearing on bias.

Ish: Second, I would change Rodahi's caveat in point two: how is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit his/her world-view in general. This modification removes Rodahi's biased blame on Chrisitians and puts the burden on everyone to keep their world-view in check and attempt to look at the information from the other's vantage point.

I didn't put blame on anyone. Our discussion is on the scholarship of the JC Bible. THAT involves Christian scholars.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I think it is difficult for many, if not most, Christian scholars to objectively study the JC Bible without bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view.

Where has Ish shown that Robert Funk is biased? Furthermore, where has he shown that I reflect Funk's bias? I DISAGREE with Robert Funk on several issues.

Ish: Most rational people know this, but I can never state it enough: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view.

Most rational people know this, but we should never forget that Christian scholars are prone to be biased because they have a vested interest in the object of their study.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
After all, they have a vested interest in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Obviously, non-Christians have a vested interest in it as well or they would not be on this website.

It is obvious only to Ish that most non-Christians give a flip about what is contained in the JC Bible. I am not sure he understands what vested interest means.

Ish: Many non-Christians attempt to destroy Christianity because they happen to be of the opinion (however incorrect) that it is bad for society.

There are many non-Christians who wish merely to know what the JC Bible says and how that relates to history.

Ish: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view. If you never accept this fact, Rodahi, I think you should constantly be reminded of it.

Just because many Christian scholars are biased with respect to their study of the JC Bible, it DOES NOT follow that ALL scholars are biased, at least not to the same degree. Ish seems to think that everyone is as biased as Christians.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
To those who think ONLY Christian scholars should study and comment on the JC Bible, I say this: Should only LDS study and comment on the Book of Mormon? Should only Moslems study and comment on the Koran? Should only Zoroastrians study and comment on the Zend Avesta? Should only Jews study and comment on the Tanakh? etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I don't personally hold this view that only Christian scholars should study and comment on the Bible. However, I do think that people should be aware of the world-views behind the various "opinions". I also think that there are non-Christians who do not hold the views of the Jesus Seminar. There are many Christians and Non-Christians willing to find out the truth by attempting (the best they possibly can) to put their biases aside. Some on both sides do a better job of this than others.

This statement is consistent with mine. ALL scholars should ATTEMPT to be impartial.

rodahi

06-22-2001, 10:51 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
No one has demonstrated that the Scholars Version is "biased," regardless of what opinion Ish may have of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: They obviously depend heavily on Codex Bezae. Now if you'd like, I can start a thread on whether or not we should rely on Codex Bezae's testimony... I have recently been following through the Greek of Mark with one eye on the variants. Over time, the text represented by Codex Bezae makes many more harmonizations and expansions than texts of other types. Opinion or not, it is supported by a large amount of evidence.

Just prove that the Scholars Version is biased.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
A few scholars have disagreed with the way a few words and phrases were translated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: A few?! I guess you're entitled to your opinion as well...

Yes, a few scholars have disagreed with a the way a few words and phrases were translated in the Scholars Version.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
...the real issues are these: 1) Does the scholar ATTEMPT to evaluate all the historical evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible? 2) Is the scholar motivated by a desire to find the historical truth (or is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit the JC Bible and the JC Bible fit history)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this.

So? That should have no bearing on bias.

Ish: Second, I would change Rodahi's caveat in point two: how is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit his/her world-view in general. This modification removes Rodahi's biased blame on Chrisitians and puts the burden on everyone to keep their world-view in check and attempt to look at the information from the other's vantage point.

I didn't put blame on anyone. Our discussion is on the scholarship of the JC Bible. THAT involves Christian scholars.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I think it is difficult for many, if not most, Christian scholars to objectively study the JC Bible without bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view.

Where has Ish shown that Robert Funk is biased? Furthermore, where has he shown that I reflect Funk's bias? I DISAGREE with Robert Funk on several issues.

Ish: Most rational people know this, but I can never state it enough: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view.

Most rational people know this, but we should never forget that Christian scholars are prone to be biased because they have a vested interest in the object of their study.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
After all, they have a vested interest in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Obviously, non-Christians have a vested interest in it as well or they would not be on this website.

It is obvious only to Ish that most non-Christians give a flip about what is contained in the JC Bible. I am not sure he understands what vested interest means.

Ish: Many non-Christians attempt to destroy Christianity because they happen to be of the opinion (however incorrect) that it is bad for society.

There are many non-Christians who wish merely to know what the JC Bible says and how that relates to history.

Ish: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view. If you never accept this fact, Rodahi, I think you should constantly be reminded of it.

Just because many Christian scholars are biased with respect to their study of the JC Bible, it DOES NOT follow that ALL scholars are biased, at least not to the same degree. Ish seems to think that everyone is as biased as Christians.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
To those who think ONLY Christian scholars should study and comment on the JC Bible, I say this: Should only LDS study and comment on the Book of Mormon? Should only Moslems study and comment on the Koran? Should only Zoroastrians study and comment on the Zend Avesta? Should only Jews study and comment on the Tanakh? etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: I don't personally hold this view that only Christian scholars should study and comment on the Bible. However, I do think that people should be aware of the world-views behind the various "opinions". I also think that there are non-Christians who do not hold the views of the Jesus Seminar. There are many Christians and Non-Christians willing to find out the truth by attempting (the best they possibly can) to put their biases aside. Some on both sides do a better job of this than others.

This statement is consistent with mine. ALL scholars should ATTEMPT to be impartial.

rodahi

06-22-2001, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodahi:

Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this.

Rodahi: So? That should have no bearing on bias.

Just so that I am clear on this point, are you saying that the school within which one is educated will have no bearing on the prejudices of the students produced by that school?

Quote:

Ish: Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view.

Rodahi: Where has Ish shown that Robert Funk is biased? Furthermore, where has he shown that I reflect Funk's bias?

Let me help you rodahi.

From The Coming Radical Reformation Twenty-one Theses by Robert W. Funk

Quote:

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�
2. The doctrine of special creation of the species died with the advent of Darwinism and the new understanding of the age of the earth and magnitude of the physical universe�
3. The deliteralization of the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis brought an end to the dogma of original sin as something inherited from the first human being. Death is not punishment for sin, but is entirely natural�
4. The notion that God interferes with the order of nature from time to time in order to aid or punish is no longer credible, in spite of the fact that most people still believe it. Miracles are an affront to the justice and integrity of God, however understood.
5. Miracles are conceivable only as the inexplicable; otherwise they contradict the regularity of the order of the physical universe.
Prayer is meaningless when understood as requests addressed to an external God for favor or forgiveness and meaningless if God does not interfere with the laws of nature. Prayer as praise is a remnant of the age of kingship in the ancient Near East and is beneath the dignity of deity. Prayer should be understood principally as meditation�as listening rather than talking�and as attention to the needs of neighbor.

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.
7. The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed� We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.
8. The doctrine of the atonement�the claim that God killed his own son in order to satisfy his thirst for satisfaction�is subrational and subethical. This monstrous doctrine is the stepchild of a primitive sacrificial system in which the gods had to be appeased by offering them some special gift, such as a child or an animal.
9. The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense.
10. The expectation that Jesus will return and sit in cosmic judgment is part and parcel of the mythological worldview that is now defunct.

God's Domain according to Jesus

Points 11-18 Show Funk�s cafeteria approach to Christian doctrines, much of it true, some of it over reaching, and much of it his personal views. No Church preaches all of these as their own doctrines.

The canon

19. The New Testament is a highly uneven and biased record of orthodox attempts to invent Christianity.
The canon of scripture adopted by traditional Christianity should be contracted and expanded simultaneously to reflect respect for the old tradition and openness to the new. Only the works of strong poets�those who startle us, amaze us with a glimpse of what lies beyond the rim of present sight�should be considered for inclusion. The canon should be a collection of scriptures without a fixed text and without either inside or outside limits, like the myth of King Arthur and the knights of the roundtable or the myth of the American West.
20. The Bible does not contain fixed, objective standards of behavior that should govern human behavior for all time. This includes the ten commandments as well as the admonitions of Jesus.

The language of faith

21. In rearticulating the vision of Jesus, we should take care to express ourselves in the same register as he employed in his parables and aphorisms�paradox, hyperbole, exaggeration, and metaphor. Further, our reconstructions of his vision should be provisional, always subject to modification and correction.

Which of these clearly stated biases do you personally disagree with rodahi?

Nomad

The Seventy-Four �Scholars�: Who Does the Jesus Seminar Really Speak For? by Craig L. Blomberg

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 22, 2001).]

06-22-2001, 01:33 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this.

Rodahi: So? That should have no bearing on bias.

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

Nomad: Just so that I am clear on this point, are you saying that the school within which one is educated will have no bearing on the prejudices of the students produced by that school?

Let's see, Nomad. Is it possible for a person to ATTEMPT to find out what happened in history with as little bias as is humanly possible? I say the answer is "yes."

rodahi

06-21-2001, 04:45 PM	#1
Guest Posts: n/a	Jesus Seminar I know it's from an apologetic website, but I just couldn't resist... = On the Jesus Seminar's credentials = And they call their version of the Bible the "Scholar's Version"?? Ish

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2001, 05:17 PM	#2
James Still Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Pacific Northwest (US) Posts: 527	Not being one to gulp things down uncritically from one man's web site I decided to look into it a bit more. Jimmy Williams of Probe Ministries has a different story. According to Williams 14 are "well-known," 20 "recognizable," and the rest "either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College." He writes: "Of the remaining active participants, only fourteen are well-known scholars in New Testament studies. Another twenty are recognizable within the narrow confines of the discipline, but they are not widely published beyond a few journal articles or dissertations. The remaining forty are virtually unknowns, and most of them are either at Harvard, Vanderbilt, or Claremont College, three universities widely considered among the most liberal in the field" (published on Leadership U, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html, spotted 6/21/2001). Mark Allen Powell, writing for The Lutheran says that "whatever one may make of the Jesus Seminar's conclusions, their academic credentials are impeccable" (published at http://www.thelutheran.org/9702/page8.html, spotted 6/21/2001). Miller's definitive site on the Seminar says that it "is open to anyone with the proper academic credentials" (published at http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/miller1.html, spotted 6/21/2001). In the third footnote he humorously takes issue with a list compiled by Richard Hays. I quickly realized from at this point in my "five minute research" that Hays is the originator of this polemic (as can be seen from Williams' text which is in agreement) and our friend whom Ish cites seems to have redacted from him. So let's go straight to the horse's mouth, the article by Hays where he writes: "The casual reader of the introduction to The Five Gospels might suppose that no serious New Testament scholar would differ materially from the consensus represented by this book, were it not for the single telltale polemical reference to anonymous "elitist academic critics who deplored the public face of the seminar." In fact- let it be said clearly-most professional biblical scholars are profoundly skeptical of the methods and conclusions of this academic splinter group. The membership of the Jesus Seminar does not include the overwhelming majority of the New Testament scholars who teach at the major graduate institutions in the United States. This may be verified by a check of the roster of seventy-four Fellows of the Seminar provided as an appendix. Not one member of the New Testament faculty from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt, SMU, or Catholic University is involved in this project. It probably goes without saying that the faculties of evangelical seminaries are not represented here. Nor are any major scholars from England or the Continent. This is not to say that the Seminar participants are without credentials. They hold doctorates from reputable institutions, with Claremont and Harvard being the most heavily represented, in that order" (published at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...revessay.html, spotted 6/21/2001). And there we have it. This is a classic case of one man (Hays) writing an autograph from which a secondary source (Neal) redacted and changed to suit his own polemical purposes. Sounds a lot like the NT texts!

06-21-2001, 06:27 PM	#3
Guest Posts: n/a	Nevertheless, how representative are the findings of the Jesus Seminar? Just because membership is open to all scholars with the appropriate qualifications doesn't mean a widely representative sample of NT scholars joined the Seminar. As far as I know, the Jesus Seminar represents only one group of NT scholars, a liberal group. But how many of the NT scholars are liberal? How many agree with the Jesus Seminar's judgments? And is the divide between liberal and conservative NT scholars essentially that between errantists and inerrantists or traditionalists? How many of the liberal scholars call themselves Christians? And how valid is the appeal to authority or majority in the case of NT studies, given that the study of the NT is at best a soft science?

06-22-2001, 10:51 AM	#7
Guest Posts: n/a	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rodahi: No one has demonstrated that the Scholars Version is "biased," regardless of what opinion Ish may have of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: They obviously depend heavily on Codex Bezae. Now if you'd like, I can start a thread on whether or not we should rely on Codex Bezae's testimony... I have recently been following through the Greek of Mark with one eye on the variants. Over time, the text represented by Codex Bezae makes many more harmonizations and expansions than texts of other types. Opinion or not, it is supported by a large amount of evidence. Just prove that the Scholars Version is biased. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: A few scholars have disagreed with the way a few words and phrases were translated. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: A few?! I guess you're entitled to your opinion as well... Yes, a few scholars have disagreed with a the way a few words and phrases were translated in the Scholars Version. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: ...the real issues are these: 1) Does the scholar ATTEMPT to evaluate all the historical evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible? 2) Is the scholar motivated by a desire to find the historical truth (or is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit the JC Bible and the JC Bible fit history)? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this. So? That should have no bearing on bias. Ish: Second, I would change Rodahi's caveat in point two: how is he/she motivated by a desire to make history fit his/her world-view in general. This modification removes Rodahi's biased blame on Chrisitians and puts the burden on everyone to keep their world-view in check and attempt to look at the information from the other's vantage point. I didn't put blame on anyone. Our discussion is on the scholarship of the JC Bible. THAT involves Christian scholars. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: I think it is difficult for many, if not most, Christian scholars to objectively study the JC Bible without bias. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view. Where has Ish shown that Robert Funk is biased? Furthermore, where has he shown that I reflect Funk's bias? I DISAGREE with Robert Funk on several issues. Ish: Most rational people know this, but I can never state it enough: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view. Most rational people know this, but we should never forget that Christian scholars are prone to be biased because they have a vested interest in the object of their study. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: After all, they have a vested interest in it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: Obviously, non-Christians have a vested interest in it as well or they would not be on this website. It is obvious only to Ish that most non-Christians give a flip about what is contained in the JC Bible. I am not sure he understands what vested interest means. Ish: Many non-Christians attempt to destroy Christianity because they happen to be of the opinion (however incorrect) that it is bad for society. There are many non-Christians who wish merely to know what the JC Bible says and how that relates to history. Ish: We all come with our own set of preconceptions and biases dependent on our world-view. If you never accept this fact, Rodahi, I think you should constantly be reminded of it. Just because many Christian scholars are biased with respect to their study of the JC Bible, it DOES NOT follow that ALL scholars are biased, at least not to the same degree. Ish seems to think that everyone is as biased as Christians. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodahi: To those who think ONLY Christian scholars should study and comment on the JC Bible, I say this: Should only LDS study and comment on the Book of Mormon? Should only Moslems study and comment on the Koran? Should only Zoroastrians study and comment on the Zend Avesta? Should only Jews study and comment on the Tanakh? etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ish: I don't personally hold this view that only Christian scholars should study and comment on the Bible. However, I do think that people should be aware of the world-views behind the various "opinions". I also think that there are non-Christians who do not hold the views of the Jesus Seminar. There are many Christians and Non-Christians willing to find out the truth by attempting (the best they possibly can) to put their biases aside. Some on both sides do a better job of this than others. This statement is consistent with mine. ALL scholars should ATTEMPT to be impartial. rodahi

06-22-2001, 01:33 PM	#10
Guest Posts: n/a	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rodahi: Ish: First of all, the school and scholars that a person studies under can make a big difference in their scholarship. I don't see how you can ignore this. Rodahi: So? That should have no bearing on bias. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nomad: Just so that I am clear on this point, are you saying that the school within which one is educated will have no bearing on the prejudices of the students produced by that school? Let's see, Nomad. Is it possible for a person to ATTEMPT to find out what happened in history with as little bias as is humanly possible? I say the answer is "yes." rodahi

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.