richard2

Did anyone see the program? It was on the infancy narratives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005045/

Stout Drinker

Was is a religous subject?

If not then you may bet a better responce in MPC.

richard2

Yes, it's a religious subject. It was a dateline program regarding the infancy narratives and their credibility. Perhaps an even better forum would be the BC&H one.

Soul Invictus

Perhaps BC&H would be better. What was the special like?

Clarice O'C

Only a hair less than mainstream ... Crossan, Witherington ... finger in throat.

S.C.Carlson

Dateline's web page presenting a (trans)script of the program is here.

Here's how they list and described their experts for the show:

Bible scholars and authors 'Dateline' consulted for this report
• John Dominic Crossan: Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, DePaul University and a prolific author of books about the historical Jesus, former priest, and liberal theologian
• Craig Evans: professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, moderate evangelical
• Scott Hahn: professor of Scripture, Franciscan University, traditional Catholic scholar and teacher
• Lesley Hazleton: author of "A Flesh-And-Blood biography of the Virgin Mother"
• Amy Jill Levine: Jewish scholar and teacher of the New Testament at Vanderbilt University
• Ben Witherington: author and professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, a conservative evangelical

I've never heard of Hazleton before, and Hahn rang only a faint bell. Otherwise, the cross-section of scholars is not terribly different from what one would see at a session of the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL).

Stephen

John Kesler

The "special" was like most such programs produced for public consumption. The correspondent, Keith Morrison, interviewed liberal (J.D. Crossan), moderate (Craig Evans), and conservative (Ben Witherington) Christians to give the appearance of balance. Even the Jew interviewed, Amy-Jill Levine, professor of NT at Vanderbilt, said that "God forbid" that one's faith in the truth of the infancy narratives be denigrated by historians.

The only rewarding thing was the segment discussing Augustus' alleged census of "all the world" recorded in Luke 2. Crossan said that "every scholar" knows that there was no such census. In his response, Witherington whipped out the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" defense. He then went on to undermine the force of his own argument by adding that, "[w]e have plenty of records of Augustus taking census all over the empire." If we have "plenty of records" about Augustus' censuses, how likely is it that no one but Luke knew anything about this one?!?

richard2

It was very, very superficial. In the beginning of the show, they said something how the program is not meant to challenge anyone's beliefs but enlighten them for a fuller understanding of their faith. The best part of the show was Crossan. The only other scholar I knew on the program was Dr. Scott Hahn, a popular Catholic writer and biblical scholar at Franciscan University at Stuebenville, OH.

At the end of the show, they said something similar to: "We do know one thing for certain, however: "A young girl in Nazareth gave birth to a baby, which would forever change the world."

Of course, they're presuming that Mary and Jesus are historical people.

What makes me laugh, though, is the serious demeanor of the anchors, as if THEY KNOW are trying to inform US. In truth, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.