Solo

Fascinating argument, from both sides. Being an amateur myself in the study of the New Testament, obviously I am keenly aware of my own limitations, when it comes to the linguistic and historical minutiae that one really needs to master in order to make an informed judgment on a given textual meaning. I find it extremely unlikely that a kid who bags groceries could have an intelligent view of a scholarly argument, and going through the chores that Julian described. For one, how would he select what is relevant and who to consult to confirm or refute a hypothesis ? It doesn't matter how intelligent the kid is, but the more intelligent he is, the more he would be a) appreciative of what it takes to be an expert, b) appreciative of his own level of development in the field.

However, surprise of surprises, I am overall with Julian on this. I would class myself as a fairly accomplished individual. Even though I am self-taught in computer science, I can hold my own with anyone on anything touching computer math. No one where I work, has ever questioned my competence in areas in which - if the Bedes of this chat room or the dull neighbours of Mt 13:53-58 were to prevail - I have no business to be in. So, I really find that Julian is right when he says that the credential mongering, especially as practiced here, is wholly redundant and identifies people who for all their accomplishments feel intellectually inferior.

There is another point that needs to be made here: there is no reason, per se, why the NT study should be monopolized by theologians, textual analysts and historians of antiquity. There are other fields which are hugely important in assessing the texts and the people behind them: comparative religion, anthropology, psychology, neurology, formal logic (I am dead serious !) and information theory. Having dealt with the professional exegets for a while, I have my own frustrations with their utter contempt for most of the above. They are not asked to be experts in every field of human endeavour touching on their field. But they need to have an intelligent overview of them, if the study of religious traditions should have any relevance beyond their small academic sandbox.

Here then is a little quiz for the NT experts (,just to keep them honest ):

1) How is "body full of light" promised by Jesus on the Mount described medically ? Or if you want to be more cautious, to what medical effect it most likely alludes ? What other two verses in the Sermon likely reference the same ?

2) What did John of Patmos mean by "second death" (Rev 2:11) ? Would Abraham Maslow's description of the "little death" be of any service ?

3) The Transfiguration story in Mark is now believed by (perhaps) a majority of NT scholars to have been the manifestation of the "Risen Lord", and not relating to any event in which the real man Jesus took part in. Now, within the Catholic tradition there is a saint and mystic who, though not transfiguring quite with the majestic effect of Jesus, did however, it is alleged, lit up his prison cell by his body (,presumably "full of light").
(Who was he ?) Now, on the internal evidence of the canon and what Jesus himself is reported to have said about resurrection, how high is the probability that the same process of transmitting and processing information about the mysterious man of the Church was deployed also, to present Jesus' ecstatic interior as the canonical Transfiguration (,or for that matter, Moses after he descended from Mt.Sinai) ?

4) If the story of the Gadarene demoniac is substantially true, (i.e. ignoring 'demons' as explanation, the theophanic address, and the materialization of the herd of swine which was either suggested by Jesus or was entirely fictitious), may we safely conclude that the man knew Jesus before his ordeal ? Consequently, his plea (Mk 5:7) that Jesus not torment him, would necessarily relate to something that happened between the two men before? Yes or No ?

5) Mohammed was driven out of Mecca by the traditionalists after he publicly denounced their worship of false idols. The German psychiatrist Ernst Kraepelin first described manic-depressive disorder at the break of 20th century: He named the urge to disrupt traditional religious service or functions as a classic symptomatic clue. While testing the hypothesis that the gift of the Spirit is also the curse of Mania, does the following excerpt from the 1991 American Journal of Psychiatry have any explanatory value on Jesus' turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana ? A so-called serotonin syndrome is today observed most often as a side-effect in patients treated with psychoactive drugs, especially of the SSRI variety. The symptoms are: euphoria, drowsiness, sustained rapid eye movement, overreaction of the reflexes, rapid muscle contraction and relaxation in the ankle causing abnormal movements of the foot, clumsiness, restlessness, feeling drunk and dizzy, muscle contraction and relaxation in the jaw, sweating, intoxication, muscle twitching, rigidity, high body temperature, mental status changes were frequent (including confusion and hypomania - a "happy drunk" state), shivering, diarrhea, loss of consciousness and death In fact, this "happy drunk" state is so pronounced in some manics that the Australian psychiatrist John Cade theorized that if these patients appear intoxicated just on water, so to speak, there must be some metabolic "toxin" that is responsible. He found elevated concentrations of urea (the correlation to serotonin levels was made later) and by chance discovered that his excited rats responded to lithium. Now, in the context just given, does it seem plausible that the following passages allude to the same observable phenom: Acts 2:14-17, Lk 1:15, 1 Cor 10:4, GT (13), GT (108) ? etc, etc, etc......

JS

Gamera

The question depends on the type of issues that are subject to credentials.

One can be credentialed in Roman history or in Hebrew philology. On those subjects, an opinion of a credentialled person should carry more weight than an amateur, if the issue is factual in nature.

But interpreting a text is not a matter subject to credentials. The point of every text (more or less) is for a reader to engage it, struggle with it, and apply it to one's life. This is all the more true of the NT texts, which are explicity "existential" in nature, and call on a response from the reader/listener to the Kerygma, the "proclamation" of the gospel.

I don't see how credentials can enter into that since there cannot be a right or wrong response to an existential question.

Amaleq13

Credentials matter if they are the only basis upon which one can determine whether a given claim is true.

Otherwise, they are irrelevant to a demonstrable support for the claim from the evidence.

Chris Weimer

Surely you see how this borders on the absurd? It's actually entirely irrelevant. Because Doherty has invested in his work, that does not invalidate his opinion. His opinion falls on its own merit, on what Doherty says and does, not on a perceived bias which may not even be there!

I don't buy this - it doesn't smell like actual human nature having been observed. I think its more that certain people have become illusioned into their own theories, and try subconsciously try to make the evidence work. I recall my own experience as a Christian, and losing my "investment in faith" wasn't a part of me. In fact, as I learned more and more, yes, I still tried to square it with what I knew, but losing the religion and theism altogether was not a large hurdle.

I do notice that you've mentioned specifically the older generations - 50 and older - but I also think this is not valid. Have you conducted a study? I know in PA&SA Atheism Wins tried to levy that charge as well, imploring atheist activists to target the younger generation instead of old farts who probably won't deconvert anyway. In spite of that, several of our older members came out and said that they deconverted after spending a lifetime of theism at an advanced age.

It can be done. And if the arguments are good enough, it will.

Chris Weimer

Perhaps because some people have it set that Jesus didn't exist, end of story? Otherwise, in real academic studies, it feels the same to me.

mountainman

Physics deals with the world in general, and its discipline
and its tenants may be embraced by different "creeds" of
emotional containment (See ocean below)

Christianity is but one human espoused religious ocean amidst
a whole planetary environment of oceans, and as such it will
always be parochial and distorted in its generalities, an analogy
to the "Atlantic Ocean" of christianity by KING.


The integrity of the field of biblical studies itself is suspect.
The subject matter is treated as history, but the history is
not supported with any degree of integrity.

The whole fabrication of the NT is just as likely to be a fiction
composed by wicked men with alot of power in the fourth century.

The integrity of the entire field itself is founded upon
an historical inference, that has zero supporting
archeological evidence.

We have no archeological evidence that there were in fact
"a tribe of christians" on the planet prior to 325 CE, as
Eusebius and Constantine would have us believe.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Gamera

If a claim is based solely on credentials, let me suggest the claim should be rejected. Not all claims can be resolved. That's certainly true of claims about historicity.

Doug Shaver

Essential to what?

Of course I will form my own beliefs, and if I'm going to form them rationally, or as rationally as I'm able to within my human limitations, then I must base my beliefs on what I myself know.

But most of what I know is stuff I've read -- other people's knowledge or claimed knowledge. I have to judge whether they actually know what they claim to know, and I cannot make that judgment without knowing, among other things, the credentials they bring to the subject of discussion.

That does not imply that I will believe everything I read so long as it is written by someone with credentials. It means rather that in case of disagreements between writers, I will have an initial presumption that the one with better credentials is more likely to be right than the one without. But not certainly right -- just more likely to be right. And I will keep my mind open to the possibility that in any particular instance, the initial presumption ought to be abandoned.

Julian

You want you cake and eat it too here. Credentials are very important but not necessary or qualifying?

May I remind everyone here that Ahacrya S has an undergraduate degree in Classics. Would you believe anything she writes? Josh McDowell has a Master of Divinity degree.
When you say anybody, you are, of course, referring to the reader.
If I had no latin in me, I would be unqualified to judge the value of the argument and my opinion would be worthless. That doesn't say anything about the value of the argument, just my opinion of it.
I have already acknowledged that someone with credentials are more likely to make a good argument. My point was that credentials are no guarantee of quality and that it is the ability of the reader to evaluate the argument that ultimately matters.
So what happens when two credentialled individuals disagree on something? The only way to resolve this is through the judgement of the reader.
I would argue that their authority comes through the quality of their arguments, not their credentials (although their credentials in most cases probably enabled them to make their arguments in the first place) but it is quite obvious that not all credentialled individuals are of equal quality.
But how well someone responds to training and learning varies from individual to individual.
It was meant as an extreme example in order to emphasize my point, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Yes, grocey baggers are obvious much less likely to come up with a worthwhile argument but it is theoretically possible. This means that credentials only speak to the likelihood of quality, not its guarantee.

Julian

Julian

That's because I generally like to be proven wrong. Whenever that happens it means that I have gained knowledge and understanding and that I have grown as a person, who doesn't love that. My self-esteem is not tied to what I think but how I think and what I do with those thoughts. Being inflexible and stubborn, staying the course, are generally seen as strengths, especially in the US, but in my mind they are the ultimate weaknesses, if you don't adapt you perish.

Julian