chrisengland

Hello
I wondered about modern Biblical scholarship.
It appears that most Biblical scholars are Christians' but that alot may not innerentists.
It seems that alot of them don't think all the things in the Bible happened and that some of them don't even think the ressurection happened.
So I don't know exactly how they can be called Christians.
Am I right that these scholars are liberals and conservatives tend to be innerentist?


Chris

Toto

me too

Most people who call themselves Christian are not inerrantists.

There is no authority that defines Christian, and there are many competing versions of Christianity in the world today.

Very few scholars, liberal or conservative, are inerrantists. Conservative scholars tend to support the more traditional interpretations of the Bible and ascribe greater historical accuracy to it than do liberals, but it is difficult to argue for inerrancy.

The ideal of scholarship is that it should stand up to scrutiny by objective people of different beliefs. This limits somewhat what scholars can say as scholars.

I know of one scholar, Gerd Luedemann, who, after study, decided that he could not believe in the Resurrection, and that therefore he should stop calling himself a Christian. This created some difficulties in his academic status in Germany. I think that there are some liberal Christians in the US who only believe that the Resurrection was a symbolic or allegorical event, beyond historical investigation.

chrisengland

Hello
Yes I knew conservative meant traditional' I thouhgt that alot were innerentists.
Thankyou for your reply
Chris

Petergdi

Inerrancy as a doctrine largely originated with B. B. Warfield about a century ago. He argued that it was an historically normative view, but there is more than a little room for debate about this. It is worth noting that B. B. Warfield had no problem at all with the theory of evolution being compatible with scripture. It should probably also be noted that he did not see it as a core doctrine - that is something that all Christians had to agree about, but as something which he was sure was right and had been held since New Testament times.

Peter.

Doug Shaver

Because nobody gave inerrantists the authority to decide who is or is not a Christian.

Roger Pearse

Do you have some references for this?

Thanks,

Roger Pearse

spamandham

That seems to be the case to me as well, though I have no statistics to back it up. There are also some very prominant Jewish Biblical scholars. I guess this should be no surprise. It seems to me, these are the groups that would be most drawn to such study in the first place.

I don't see how it would be possible for an inerrantist to be a Biblical scholar. Scholarship requires at least some degree of objectivity.

mountainman

It may also be perceived as a form of academic tenure.


We need to understand that the gross inerrancy in new testament studies is with respect to the academic field of ancient history. Have a look at the archaeological citations being discussed to support the conjectures being blown up in the field of BC&H. We are dealing with Eusebian air balloons. They are mirages. We dont have any evidence to discuss before its explosion in the fourth century. Its as simple as that.

Modern Biblical scholarship was on an island with the rising tide, but today it might best be described as being on a raft, and well and truly at sea, with respect to the field of ancient history (and its C14).

Best wishes,


Pete

Petergdi

Hi Roger,

I think I may have to retract some of the above. I will get back to you later on this.

Peter.

Roger Pearse

No hassle; all of us can get caught out when our memory plays tricks on us. I'd just like to know whatever there is to be known.

All the best,

Roger Pearse