Peter Kirby

So, back on page #4 I retracted the view that doctrinal Christians have no place at the table, yet here we are on page #9...why?

Riverwind

"...bad scholarship...will be all the more apparent if it is seen alongside good scholarship..."

But what is "good" and "bad" scholarship?

Isn't this "good" and "bad" relative to the person using the term? That is, to a secular person "good" scholarship is likely to be very secular and naturalistic in form. To a theist, "good" scholarship may be scholarship that does not deny the existence of a God that can intervene in human affairs as much ancient literature proclaims. Those are just the two extremes, but "good" and "bad" scholarship seems too relative to be of any use to me.

"Good" scholarship, to me, is John P. Meier, Raymond Brown, Darrell Bock, David Alan Black, Michael Holmes, etc..

"Not-so-good" or "questionable" scholarship, to me, is Bart Ehrman, William Dever, John Domminic Crossan, etc.

"Bad" scholarship, to me, is Robert Eisenmann, Barbara Theiring, Richard Carrier , Gerd Ludemann, Freke and Gande (they'd probably be worse than "bad" actually), Finkelstein, etc.

I'm sure my quick and dirty assessment would be different for nearly every person in this forum.

So, what is "good" and "bad" scholarship?

Riverwind

Because other people haven't.

And there are still some slightly interesting tangents.

Layman

Because it has been simply too long since I felt the loving embrace of the Infidels-BCH regulars.

Peter Kirby

Good scholarship adds to our knowledge.

Whatever else you want to say about Bultmann, he added a great deal to our knowledge of the Synoptics, John, and New Testament theology; his imprint on scholarship is such that research on John is typically divided into epochs before and after Bultmann.

Not to belittle a decent writer and all, but what has J. P. Meier contributed to scholarship? A facile essay on Jesus in Josephus, and a three-volume work (with a highly anticipated fourth, which will stop short of the burial story IIRC), pronouncing authentic and inauthentic stories of Jesus based on dubious criteria.

I mean, I don't have anything against the guy, and to find a flawed citation in his argument with which to beat him over the head would be difficult, but...a great scholar? Where are the Goulders and such like in your list...the people who have advanced the state of the art?

Sauron

No, actually it's more than that. It's a false dilemma, and it also exhibits facets of reductio ad absurdiem.


No, you suggested Peter might be making them:

If your claim is biased scholars should be ignored, then you have just effaced the entire universe of scholarship. All scholars are biased -- that's why they are interested in the subject matter in the first place.


Your implicit position that we must cannot rule out biased scholarship because all scholarship contains some bias ignores the very big question of degree. If bias is truly inescapable, that is not an excuse to throw the floodgates open and accept all scholarship, regardless of degree of bias.

Interesting claims. How is curiousity is an agenda in research? And how does it lead to some kinds of research, but not others? Feel free to enlighten everyone.

No myths here, neither naivete. I just realize that bias exists by degree and intensity, and isn't a binary attribute.

Sauron

Still not the same situation, however. The "jump" difference is far different.

More likely, you both bought into the same faux persecution.

And I suppose you blame the audience that they can't keep a scorecard.

Sauron - who knows, pre/mid/post/a-millenialism, Calvinist/Arminian, one act/two acts/three acts of grace, fundie vs. evangelical, foursquare/KJV/apostolic, CofG (Anderson) vs. CofG (Tennessee), etc etc etc.

Doug Shaver

You told me essentially the same thing several months ago. I asked you to prove it. You didn't.

Brother Daniel

Rubbish. Commitment is conscious and willful. If we're talking about something that one "just can't see" in oneself, then we're back to talking about mere bias.

Your attempted argument, essentially saying that everyone else is just as bad as you are (as if that were a defence!), is baseless. You are simply presuming symmetry between believers and unbelievers, where there is no symmetry in fact. Commitment to remain steadfast in belief is explicitly encouraged in Christian communities. I have never seen a suggestion from an infidel that any similar commitment is desirable.

Consider, for example, the common evangelical description of their belief system as a "personal relationship". Since commitment is (or can be) a good thing in matters of relationship, such believers feel morally constrained to be committed to their belief system. You can't fire a "you too" argument at the infidels on this matter!
Where did Layman get lumped (by Peter) into that "doctrinal Christians" category? I don't remember seeing that.
So I was right after all. Thanks for your honesty.
These two sentences contradict each other.

Brother Daniel

Of course I recognized that. Since you missed my point, let me rephrase it.

1. From "X is a Christian" it does not follow that "X is a 'doctrinal Christian' (in the sense in which Peter used the term)".
2. You had a golden opportunity to distance yourself from the "doctrinal Christians" (in Peter's terminology).
3. Had you done so, the only appropriate response from the rest of us would be to believe you -- or, failing that, to pretend to believe you for the sake of discussion. Even those who agree with the OP (which I don't, BTW) would have to agree that you have a "place at the table".
4. Instead, you freely identified yourself as belonging to that category (of "doctrinal Christians", in Peter's terminology). Or at least you appeared to do so.
5. You showed no sign of recognizing the glaring problem of intellectual dishonesty that is a necessary consequence of membership in that category.

By denying corruption (in your response to me), you are either (a) saying that you don't belong to that category after all (which I could accept with no difficulty), or (b) proving my point.

Which is it?