rlogan

One of the annoying things we are treated with on this forum over the years is the smug apologists proclaiming anything outside canon is not "mainstream" scholarship.

They have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that so-called biblical scholarship under the tyranny of the Church institutions is a contradiction in terms.

This is what happens to you when you publish a book questioning the historical Jesus and you hold a teaching and research position at a Bible Institute:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Iri...187717531.html

"Beyond the Quest for a Historical Jesus" was written by Friar Tom Brodie after 12 years of research, resulting in the same conclusion many of us have reached without the tyranny of the church or religious bias controlling our results: that much of the Jesus story is simply mined out of the Hebrew Bible and also earlier sources. That it isn't historical at all.

He got the book published without telling them what he was doing. But the instant he did, he was suspended from his position and disallowed any teaching, research, or interaction with others:


Gee, they sound exactly like the smug apologists that appear here so often - who know perfectly well there is a tyranny over so-called Biblical Scholarship by religious institutions.

You can't get a job in the first place without adherence to the party line, and you'll be summarily fired if you publish a book challenging the historical Jesus. Non-religious institutions don't do much in the way of Biblical Studies, so the field is absolutely dominated by the tyranny of canon.

What happens if you rape and sodomize a child? Nothing. If you molest a dozen, you get transferred by the Church. But boy, if you question the historical Jesus - that's a crime needing punishment.

outhouse

Dont know what your talking about, I havnt seen any apologist here.


Maybe your calling those with knowledge apologist due to not understanding the context of their work.

Sabine Grant

Probably because you have not been a member since 2003... whereas RLogan has.


In view of the entire context in his OP, your assumption makes no sense. No need to rattle the OP's chains.

rlogan

We certainly did see more outright proselytizing in the past.

Even those who do not follow strict canon, but who denigrate mythicist positions take advantage of the religious tyranny over Biblical Scholarship. We see the same smugness on what is "mainstream". Well "mainstream" is by definition canon when there is a tyranny over scholarship like this.

What I see many doing is removing the most objectionable fantasies out of the gospels, claiming that whatever is left represents a historical Jesus, and then relying on what amounts to argumentum ad populum - that their position is "mainstream" by virtue of the religious tyranny universally imposing a historical Jesus upon the field.

outhouse

Fair enough.


Were are talking about two different things here.


I have not seen anyone using apologetically inclined scholarships, to fight against the mythicist point of view. It doesnt work that way because apologist are easy to refute.






Again I think this is your "real bone to pick" and why I addressed my reply the way i did. You sort of confirmed I was hunting the right track.


Mainstream scholarships are more then anything, a collection of knowledge on these topics. The main reason mythicist have so little leg to stand on, is because they only have a few select real scholars of which oppose each other.

There is no real tyranny effecting at all! mainstream scholarships by those who are currentlt involved on the front line of trying to define details in history.


You have religious schools that teach religion, and they will fire teachers not teaching religious views. Its always been like that. But these poeple do not create credible history that is followed by those in the know. They fight apologetics the same exact way myticist do, just with more credibility as there is a real lack credible mythicist scholars.





Who do you really see building a HJ that way?




Appealing to knowledge is not a bad thing, it is responsible research.

But appealing to authority blindly is not responsible research, but even then that is not a example of any tyranny at all.

outhouse

Fair enough




In his next post, does he not more or less attack mainstream scholarships?

mountainman

Friar Tom Brodie is not alone. How many American scholars have been terminated from their tenure in the last year or so for straying too far from the tyrannical guidelines? Here is the start of a list. Perhaps others can add to it - or tabulate it with dates? - for the sake of clarity on this issue.

Anthony Le Donne for publishing Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Mike Licona controversy and Matthean Zombies

It really does sound like modern academic institutions operate with a defacto Index Librorum Prohibitorum

The Vatican may have abolished the codex but AFAIK Ratzinger seems simply to have moved the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to the internet.

outhouse

None.


They have been fired from religious colleges teaching religion, to people that want to learn about religion.


They were hired to teach theology, not create history that opposes religion.




There are institutions that are teaching non apologetically scholarships, these two schools are not one of them.

Toto

Previous thread on this: Thought police go after Thomas Brodie

To be fair, Brodie is a priest in the Catholic Church, which sometimes pays lip service to the idea of scholarship, but only in the service of the church. Licona and LeDonne were also employed by religious institutions which have their own criteria for ideological purity.

The relationship between secular Bible scholarship and religious based Bible scholarship is complex. There have been some previous threads on the economic and social pressures on scholars in this area. The idea of a secular, evidence-based mainstream scholarship is a pious hope more than a reality.

rlogan

Thank you for proving my point! There aren't so many mythicist scholars so therefore it isn't credible!

Naturally, we also have the fallacy of begging the question too: A mythicist by definition can't be either "real" or "credible". Why? (See argumentum ad populum.)

Direct corollary to that reasoning you just gave us is that the only valid position is historicist. So thank you.

I figured anyone with nerve synapses firing would incorporate that over a thousand years the Church tortured, murdered, and persecuted anyone deemed a heretic. They burned books, forged documents, interpolated what we have before us now.

The bias that someone has is easily demonstrated when they pretend that doesn't matter.

Edit: Sorry Toto. I didn't know about the previous thred. He has now been forced to resign.