Several posters continue to cite the words of John P. Meier, Catholic priest. While Father Meier may be a well-respected and highly-learned scholar, he does not write as one attempting to be an objective historian. He writes as a theologian. This is evidenced on page 197 of A Marginal Jew, Vol. I., where he states, "Faith and Christian theology...affirm ultimate realities beyond what is merely empirical or provable by reason: e.g., the triune God and the risen Jesus."

How can any person with such a belief system treat the subject of Jesus, or any other biblical subject, with a high degree of disinterest? It is simply not possible.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 24, 2001).]

You are correct that J.P. Meier is a well-respected and highly-learned scholar. You are completely wrong that he does not attempt to write as an objective historian. That is precisely what he is attempting to do.

As he states in his Introduction:

But what of your quote from page 197? It is taken so far out of context that it results in a complete mischaracterization of his point.

The context of your quote is clear. Meier is responding to theological objections, raised by fundamentalists among others, to his attempt to find the historical Jesus by being an objective historian. As he states on the same page:

You took the one quote from the one place in his book where he "doffs" the hat of objective historian and imply that it is the very criteria he uses to coduct his study. Did you read the entire page before putting forth your post?

As for how well he succeeds in being objective, bear in mind that he is a Catholic who denies the virgin birth and believes that Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. If you have, however, specific examples of where Meier's bias gets the better of him, I'd be glad to seem them.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 24, 2001).]

I implied nothing in my posting. I simply quoted the man and said he writes as a theologian, not as a historian.

If he "affirms" the "reality" of the "risen Jesus," he can be nothing but a theologian, no matter what he says his stated "objective" is.

Father Meier clearly indicates who his intended audience is on page 4: "If [it] be true of every person's need to search for answers about the nature of truth, the reality of God, the meaning of life and death and what may lie beyond, it is also true of every educated Christian's need to search for answers about the reality and meaning of the man named Jesus."

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 24, 2001).]

You claimed that "he does not write as one attempting to be an objective historian." But he clearly informs us as to what he is attempting to do, which is to write as an objective historian. You may think that he fails, but that has nothing to do with what he is attempting to do.

Of course, if you think he fails to be objective, I would like to see specific points, rather than broad brush strokes, upon which you believe that he demonstrates bias.

Bede

rodahi is simply rehashing the line that only atheists can be trusted to tell the truth as only they can be objective.

This is just silly and his quotation out of contest from Meier is an excellent example of an atheist twisting meaning, miscontruing and generally trying to be one sided who is every bit as bad as a fundementalist apologist.

We are all biased, me, Meier, Nomad and Richard Carrier. We all try to put our biases to one side, doff different hats and reach an objective truth. But rodahi gives the impression that he falls back on the old formula, objective = agrees with me. This is rather childish.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

I would say that Secularists can trust him. Trust him as a bias source. My eyes glaze over when I try to read sources given regarding biblical scholars. I know that Moses was never in the Egypt. I know that Jesus' feet were not pierced. I understand the biblical language. Find me a biblical scholar that can show me, any place in the bible, where it says that Jesus' feet we pierced, and then I will believe that we have found a scholar.
Scripture is loaded with history. The problem is that we have too many fundamental infidels.

thanks,
offa

Toto

"Every work on the Bible is a work of theology or ideology, so trying to pretend that it is somehow not connected to a philosophical argument is disingenous in the extreme."

Nomad, explaining that objectivity is impossible, in http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f.../000428-2.html

Since Catholics are not Biblical literalists or inerrantists, Catholics could in theory write history that secularists might find useful. But there are some conclusions that Meier would not be able to reach even if he thought that the evidence supported them, because of his institutional ties to the Catholic church and his ideological commitment. That's all.

First of all, I completely agree with Layman and Bede.

Second, I believe that secularists can trust Meier! The real question is: Can secularists agree with Meier's conclusions?

Meier's scholarship is superb. Rodahi is entitled to his opinion as I am quite opinionated about Morton Smith (which he doesn't like).

However, Rodahi has taken one quote from Meier's book and ignored Meier's main stance when dealing with the historical Jesus. I challenge everyone to read the beginning of Meier's book where he addresses his Christianity and how he attempts to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Jesus of faith in order to come the the most unbiased conclusions possible.

The most respectable scholars, in my opinion, will address their biases head-on in the opening of their work, whether religious or non-religous. Consider this when reading a scholar's book.

As Rodahi is fond of saying: Read the book!

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 25, 2001).]

Which conclusions would those be Toto?

That Jesus was not born of a virgin perhaps? Nevertheless that is his historical conclusion.

That Jesus had real brothers and sisters because Mary was not a perpetual vigin? Nevertheless that is his historical conclusion.

It would seem, therefore, that Meier is quite willing to arrive at historical conclusions that are at conflict with his church's dogma. Perhaps if you could offer some specific examples, instead of a broad brush stroke, we could discuss them. Perhaps.

Toto

What's to discuss? It's just an observation. If Meier is sure that Jesus was an historical figure and not a legend, is that because of his evaluation of the evidence or because of his religious faith? How would we know?

And do you agree with Nomad's post-modernist stance that objectivity is not possible?