Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 03-19-2007, 04:23 AM

The short answer is "yes".

"Serious scholars/sources" really means "scholars/sources with whom I agree".

Dave H

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

What's with this word "serious" I keep reading in formal and informal discussions of biblical studies? (Not speaking only of iidb - I'm sure it's more common in academic publications and discussions.)

Many times I read someone speaking of "serious scholars". Is this not simply another backhanded ad hominem?http://vridar.wordpress.com

Nazaroo · 03-19-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The bible-as-we-know-it was first published by
a supreme imperial (Roman) mafia thug, etc, etc ...

"'Weight' was the quality they most respected;

'Gravitas' was the typical Roman virtue.

By 'gravitas' they meant
the type of personality that must be taken seriously;
they were serious men themselves and they demanded
that they should be treated with respect."

--- The Roman Character, SPQR; Kennedy & White (1944)

And yet how can you take a fat man seriously?

The last serious fat man was Jackie Gleason. But he evoked profound sympathy through his common condition and the predicament of the working man.

He was the last really serious comic. Seriously.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-19-2007, 07:36 AM

I think it's largely a euphemism for "non-religious." It connotes scholarship which is done without preconceived conclusions or apologetic motives. Not that a believer can't be a serious schlolar, but a serious scholar does not let preconceived religious beliefs color his/her methodology.

On the flip side, a non-believer can also fail to be "serious" if he/she is working to confirm a pet theory or in the interest of some other personal agenda and colors his/her methodology accordingly.

I would say that "serious" scholarship is a way to refer not only to credentials but to honest, unbiased methodology.

mountainman · 03-19-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

And yet how can you take a fat man seriously?

The last serious fat man was Jackie Gleason. But he evoked profound sympathy through his common condition and the predicament of the working man.

He was the last really serious comic. Seriously.

Red Skelton's "Read all about it! Newspaper boy swindles millions!"
is perhaps more pertinent to BC&H, and serious Eusebian studies

mountainman · 03-19-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I would say that "serious" scholarship is a way to refer not only to credentials but to honest, unbiased methodology.

Are you serious?

Toto · 03-19-2007, 04:51 PM

I think it is easier to define what is not serious - wacko conspiracy theorists. people who think the da Vinci Code was based on real history, Bible code believers, last days interpreters, etc. (I think this has been called "extreme Bible studies.")

Not that some of the "serious" stuff is much more believable. . .

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not that some of the "serious" stuff is much more believable. . .

That old adage certainly rings true, you should know by now: the truth is stranger than fiction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-19-2007, 07:36 AM	#13
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I think it's largely a euphemism for "non-religious." It connotes scholarship which is done without preconceived conclusions or apologetic motives. Not that a believer can't be a serious schlolar, but a serious scholar does not let preconceived religious beliefs color his/her methodology. On the flip side, a non-believer can also fail to be "serious" if he/she is working to confirm a pet theory or in the interest of some other personal agenda and colors his/her methodology accordingly. I would say that "serious" scholarship is a way to refer not only to credentials but to honest, unbiased methodology.

03-19-2007, 04:51 PM	#16
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think it is easier to define what is not serious - wacko conspiracy theorists. people who think the da Vinci Code was based on real history, Bible code believers, last days interpreters, etc. (I think this has been called "extreme Bible studies.") Not that some of the "serious" stuff is much more believable. . .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.