Amaleq13

I agree that it is absurd that many scholars in the field of biblical studies take religious vows affirming certain claims of those texts as undeniably true but I don’t think that is what you mean.

As far as I know, what I said is factually correct so I’m not sure what you base the “absurd� adjective upon. Do you deny that many, if not most, Christian scholars make such a vow? Do you deny that such a vow, if taken seriously, cannot help but influence the approach and conclusions of such a scholar?

More than that, it would be false which is quite unlike the fact described regarding many, if not most, Christian scholars.

Obviously, the fact of Christian scholars accepting religious vows would not be relevant for those scholars. I don’t think it was asserted that this applied to all scholars.

You are correct, however, that a different explanation is required for non-Christian scholars choosing to ignore mythicist arguments.

Marxist

I think while it is true that biblical scholars are overwhelmingly Christian and thus less-open to looking at the mythicist position, it is also the case that the mythicist position just strikes people are a weird idea, along the lines of belief in UFOs or 9/11 being an inside job. I think most of us can safely say that is how we reacted when we first encountered the idea, though now we don't see it that way. Even MJ critics usually respect it as a hypothesis worth spending time to refute.

It is a shame that scholars don't want to engage the mythicist position in a serious dialogue. It seems the only people who generally want to engage it are either amateurs or fundamentalist Christians.

I agree. In his book The Evidence for Jesus, he doesn't even acknowledge Wells' responses to all the usual quotes from Paul apologists trot out. He spends a grand total of 6 pages 'refuting' Wells case, before he goes on to attacking Morton Smith.

Zeichman

What are the vows most of these individuals took and continue to uphold? Ben Witherington, I know, took a vow regarding inerrancy, and I know Raymond Brown held a fairly limited view of inerrancy (and JP Meier might, though I know of no evidence for such). But JD Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, Funk, etc...? What are their vows?

Yes, I do deny that most take vows like that. Most critical scholars, as far as I know, do not hold to any degree of "inerrancy" regarding history, nor have taken vows regarding such and continue to uphold them (ordination vows, for example). If they had done so and it continues to influence their work, then yes, I would agree that it seriously biases their views. I would like to know what these vows are, and evidence that they are being upheld, before I address the rest of the things you mentioned.

Amaleq13

I agree but that is not my understanding of the claim. I believe the issue of scholars taking religious vows only applies to Christian scholars.

Vermes is not a Christian scholar so he is irrelevant. Do you deny that Christian scholars make a vow that includes asserting the historicity of Jesus? Do you really not understand why such a vow might influence the approach and conclusions of a scholar?

The vow, if we assume it is taken seriously, is both evidence and a possible explanation.

Unless I am mistaken, most, if not all, forms of Christianity include a crede or statement of faith and they typically include an assertion of the historicity of Jesus. I'm not sure where "integrity" comes into this but it seems perfectly reasonable to consider this vow to represent the fundamental starting assumptions of the scholar making it.

It is not a conspiracy theory but a recognition that, according to the stated vow, most Christian scholars start their consideration of the texts with an assumption of historicity and procede from there. I agree that it does not account for non-Christian scholars but I don't see where anyone has claimed that it does.

Amaleq13

When I am talking about vows Christian scholars have taken, I am not talking about something required by their education institution. I am talking about the vows that, to my knowledge, are part of everyone's membership in a Christian church. I was confirmed in the Methodist Church and every Sunday we all stood to repeat an affirmation of our faith which included, among other things, an assertion that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

It is within the context of that sort of vow, taken seriously, that my statements have been made.

RPS

I think you may be confusing a vow (promising into the future) and an affirmation (acknowledging a current state of affairs). Other than for those in religious orders, I know of no vow being required of Christians. Moreover, even priests may renounce their vows due to a change of heart and mind. People change their minds all the time about matters both trivial and life-changing.

Vermes was a priest in an order dedicated to evangelizing Jews who began studying the historical Jesus with that goal in mind. His studies led him to leave Christianity, though he still affirms the historical Jesus. His story ought not to have happened if you idea had any merit.

Yes (see above).

If such a vow existed it might, but do you really not understand that without evidence there's no basis to assert that it did?

Such a vow wouldn't be evidence of conduct any more than a government official's oath to uphold the Constitution would be evidence that s/he did so.

WishboneDawn

When I made the first comment about the bribe my tone was less then respectful to Mr. Doherty. To clarify, I don't think he meant it that way but the magazine might have seen the implications of accepting the money to publish the article. They're response didn't mention it but I can still see it playing a part in the refusal. I can also see Toto's point however and accept that, money aside, that likely played a larger part. But the money IS there and it's muddied this argument in the same way it would have muddied the journal had they accepted it.

But I have to say thanks to all those (Mr' Doherty included) who are posting links because it's certainly peeked my curousity and interest in the possibility of Jesus as myth.

rlogan

Fine.

Then two things: first, back off the argumentum ad populum because it is so obviously wrong when you throw the voodoo crowd in there.

Second, now you have re-defined "real historical figure" to mean a whole class of possiblities none of which are the gospel Jesus

So you've embraced mythicism already - those portions of the gospel Jesus the person in question rejects are mythic by definition.

It shows how ridiculous the contempt of mythicism is. I would say that the majority of Christians do not buy the gospel story in its entirety and it is thus the majority position that the gospel story is a myth "based on something":


No, it is simply a false dichotomy that you are either a mythicist or a historicist. It is a question of degree and not kind.


Saint Doherty has gone far enough to where deep questions of morality need to be levelled at not just the church administrators, but anyone involved in perpetuating the voodoo creed.




WishboneDawn - not to worry. Point clarified.

Zeichman

This misses the more important question: how do we know that this influences their current views? Most of these scholars probably "vowed" a belief in the virgin birth and a fleshly ressurrection at some point, including Ehrman and Price, obviously they don't anymore. I think most critical Christian scholars would be offended at the idea that the legitimacy of their faith depends on the historicity of events potrayed therein.

GakuseiDon

I apologise to anyone on this board who may feel offended in advance, but:

RPS, the attitude of "you can't trust Christian scholars" and "it is all mere apologetics" exists on all atheist boards that I've found, though it tends to be less vocalized on this board. It is a bias with a touch of paranoia. (I'm not saying that everyone here is like that, and similar attitudes are adopted by posters on Christian websites).

But most theists who post here learn to ignore it, and just concentrate on the evidence. You're not going to win on this point, I'm afraid.