jakejonesiv

you are a waste of time.

outhouse

And I agree.


Most of your post I agree with.


I didnt say it was right, but if you get hired to teach apologetic theology, and then stand up and oppose that foundation, right or wrong dont be supprised if you loose your job.


Either way its not a tyrannical shot at modern scholarships.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

It seems to me that using exclusion to stifle views unpopular with the authorities in power is never a good idea. Even religous institutions when they make a pretense of scholarship and historical investigation should accept the results of the invetigations in a scholarly manner rather than exclusion by fiat. If they are going to kick people out for this, they should close their seminaries and quit pretending to be scholars.

Oh, it is indeed a tricky game. It is the appeal to the authority of a group
that is not be capable of expressing any consensus other than the one they have inherited, regardless of the scholarly merit or the facts. These same vested interests then turn about and marginalize the view because it is not peer reviewed. It seems to me that those who side with the status quo think if a scholar finds himself convinced by the evidence of any position opposed by dogmatics of his institution, should he self-deport.

Thus the dog continues to chew his own tail.

spin

Hi Vallhall and welcome.

Most people here would be hesitant to equate biblical scholarship with historical scholarship in general. This might not be wise, but the general impression we have is that christian biblical scholarship is too involved in trying to control the narrative and not open enough to "neutral" historical analysis. Seriously contemplating the non-historicity of Jesus would be too much of a concession for christian biblical scholarship making way for the possibility of loss of control of the christian narrative.

I'm not sure why non-believing advocates of the historical Jesus are so set on their task, but then I'm not sure why advocates of a purely mythical Jesus are so set either.

Fraud and deceit are not the only explanations. Errors, misunderstandings, erroneous conjectures and visions/delusions don't require fraud or deceit.

I think the average infidel adherent to the notion of a historical Jesus would point to the apocalyptic and social teachings of Jesus for relevance at the time.

I didn't understand this question. Christian confessional scholars may accept those aspects of the christian tradition that are not considered historically tenable, but biblical scholars ideally and usually put such aspects aside, when dealing with historical Jesus analysis. One can to a certain degree separate confessional and scholarly in the same person.

It is confusing... partly because there have been many centuries of christian dealings with aspects of their own religion and its defense. Such dealings have led to a very efficient apologetic which has caused many aspects of christianity to be obscured by later understandings, making it hard to understand earlier notions and evidence because they have been covered by the later understandings.

outhouse

Do you really see any apologist having a credible say so for the historicty of the Jesus character?

Lets use Ben Witherington who is a apologetic scholar. Does he have much a influence outside religious institutions towards the historicity of the Jesus character?

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. Mythology does NOT require physical evidence. Jesus was a Myth based on the description with NO physical evidence or eyewitnesses by his supposed contemporaries.

Effectively, the Church and its writers publicly supported Mythicism.

mountainman

Are all possible explanations allowed equal voice in "Biblical Scholarship"?

I don't think so.




Errors, misunderstandings, erroneous conjectures and visions/delusions may also be additional to fraud or deceit. I happen to agree with Vallhall. Without the myth, the only historical claim left is that of the greatest fraud and deceit in human history.

The tyranny over "Biblical Scholarship" appears to act in support of academic consideration of the historical hypothesis that Jesus existed.

And it appears to oppose academic consideration of the antithetical historical hypothesis that Jesus did not exist.


When did this tyranny over the infallible "Biblical Scholarship" actually start in an historical sense?
Does the OP also include discussion of the history of this?

eg: the role of Conybeare at the turn of the 20th century refuting the ahistoricists / mythicists (such as Arthur Drews)

Toto

Hershel Shanks did pick Ben Witherington as his co-author on the book on the James Ossuary.

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question. There are Catholic apologists who are influential within the Catholic church and its institutions. There are evangelical apologists who are less influential, but make a lot of noise.

The OP mentioned apologists in order to refute a particular argument made by apologists here, not to claim that apologists are in control of everything.

mountainman

From one of the editorial reviews on Ben's new book The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical World of the New Testament, Vol. 1: The Individual Witnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk)




I have not read Ben's book.

What dangers lurk in taking a wrong course?

smugg

I don't know (or care, if I'm being honest) whether Jesus was based on a real dude or not, and clearly I need education here since so many in BC&H seem to inexplicably love to argue about it. I'm sorry, I guess, that I don't have much to add to the conversation.

But I just wanted to comment that it must have been uncomfortable for you, rlogan, to have to make such a Ben-Steinian (or via: amazon.co.uk) argument.