Jeffrey Gibson

And I think that what you think is irrelevant to the question at hand. What is being sought after is fact, not opinion.

In the interest of actually saying something that has some real substance, I suggest that we first become far more precise than almost all posters to this thread have been and name who it is we are actually talking about. That is to say, let's

1. draw up an exact list of those who, on a fairly standard definition of scholarship = credentialed, published, possessing referees and a teaching post at an accredited educational institution, recognized by their teachers and their peers as having requisite exegetical skills and as having real or potential ability to contribute to and advance knowledge of matters NT, are (or, e.g. as in the case of Bruce, or Dodd, or Bultmann were) NT scholars, and then

2. list with certifying evidence what, if any, religious affiliation they might have.

Otherwise, people here are just blowing smoke and speaking from ignorance.

Jeffrey

Huon

You are free to bring facts. Give us the names of some people, who, according to you, are simultaneously scholars and not christians.:wave:

The Dagda

David Koresh had David syndrome, a syndrome that effects believers who visit Jerusalem and feel some overwhelming connection above and beyond, he changed his name to David after the Jewish King and believed he was a prophet. It's not a surprise therefore that his Branch Davidians an off shoot of 7 Day Adventism were a cult and not a religion and anything he said was based on a mental illness, alebit a seemingly harmless one. He was most certainly not a scholar.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that your statement implies that so far you haven't brought any, I take it then that you argee that my suggested procedure is a sound one. Good.

I already have.

Now, perhaps you'd grace us with your list of names of those whom you consider to be scholars in the field of NT studies.

We can deal with the second issue of whether they are Christians, and what evidence you have for saying so if you say any are, after that.

Jeffrey

aa5874

So, basically it is more likely that NT scholars are Jesus believers.

Toto

More likely than what? NT scholars are more likely to be believers than, say, biologists, but I don't think you should assume anything about a particular NT scholar.

I have PM'd lukeprog to ask him to return to this thread and clarify the OP.

Emil

It says Denmark has 98% christians. That is outright rubbish. I even think we have more than 5% muslims. According to a new study[1] Denmark has about 20% atheists, which makes it impossible for there to be 98% christians.

[1]: Gudstro i Danmark, 2005.

aa5874

We are not dealing with biologists, chemists or musicians right now, we are dealing with the OP.

In one of your own post you claim it is less likely for a NON-BELIEVER to go into NT Studies, if that is so, then it must surely be more likely that most NT scholars are BELIEVERS.

Toto

No, that does not follow.

Suppose HYPOTHETICALLY that 90% of all college graduates are not Christian. If 60% of NT scholars are not Christian, then it would be true that NT scholars are more likely to be Christian, but also that most are not believers.

But I have no idea what the percentages are, and I don't think that there is any valid survey data, or that you could even do an accurate survey.

Jeffrey Gibson

Even assuming that Toto is correct, you beg the question in assuming not only that there is only one type of belief/believer, but, more importantly, that everyone stays a "believer" after going into NT studies. Do you have any hard evidence that this is so?

Jeffrey