Zeichman

cheers.

Zeichman

PhilosopherJay

Hi Zeichman,

How many secular college departments give Ph.D.'s in New Testament Literature?

It is a little bit like saying I do not know of a single Ph.D. in Creationist biology who believes in evolution.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Ph.D. in Philosophy
who occassionally dismisses people who hold theories 1-4 as conspiracy theorists (Jesus and his band of merry men created Christianity) not even worthy of refutation.

Gregg

So a person is more likely to be objective when his or her livelihood may depend on toeing a certain theological line, not going beyond certain limits?

Let's step back a moment. Now, I know this is a double edged sword, but ... I generally trust biologists and evolutionary scientists with what they have to say about evolution, even though I don't understand a lot of it, partly because they have those degrees and letters after their names. (I would probably trust a doctor partly for the same reason.) BUT. I also feel I have a pretty good natural bullshit detector. Even when I don't understand the details of a biologist's argument about evolution, I think I have a pretty good sense of when a person knows what he's talking about or not, and also when he is letting the evidence, not personal bias, direct his argument and form his views.

Now, biblical scholarship is nowhere near as exacting a "science" as evolution. And much more so than the field of evolutionary science, powerful personal and professional interests are in play. Yes, a lot of evolutionary scientists like Dawkins, Leakey, etc. make no secret of their atheism, their dislike of religion and preference for secular humanism, and so on. But if they were allowing their biases to govern their interpretation of the evidence, well, I think I would pick up on that pretty easily. I haven't analyzed it, but I think there are probably certain phrases, certain patterns, that are more or less universal when it comes to people, either deliberately or unconsciously, selecting or twisting or ignoring evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion they want. And I think you are far more likely to see this in a field like Biblical scholarship, not just among the fundamentalists but among the moderates and even the liberal scholars like those of the Jesus Seminar. We are talking about people with strong interests in promoting their personal beliefs and philosophies, as well as people whose livelihoods may depend on interpreting the evidence to fit a certain theological view.

To say that Biblical scholars simply have too much integrity to do this, especially as a result of their training (under other Biblical scholars under the same pressures), doesn't fly. I don't think it's really seen as a lack of integrity. It's just the way it is. The evidence must not be allowed to too deeply disturb fondly held personal beliefs and convictions. We see this thinking among the religious every single day. Perfectly rational people who can tell when a car salesman is giving them a line will smile and nod and say "Amen brother!" to everything they hear from the pulpit on Sunday. Why do we think Bible scholars are above this, just because of their training? I'm reminded of the story of some famous Bible scholar who said despite all his training and knowledge, his theology was very simple: "Jesus loves me, this I know, the Holy Bible tells me so." Do you think a man with such a childlike faith and belief, no matter how great his integrity in every other area of life, is going to permit the evidence to take away his Jesus?I don't know where Carrier is on this either. In his critique of Doherty's case he admits it's a pretty strong argument and puts the weight of probability behind it, but that's as far as he goes.

Chris Weimer

I didn't say anything about objectivity. But either way, it's a loaded question. Secular universities do not require it's professors to toe the theological line, and many seminaries, believe it or not, allow liberal theology.

Sure there are some Biblical scholars who are biased. Why do you think that, time after time, N. T. Wright only plays a minimal part in scholarship, while Erhman is one of the leading figures?

Because over and over again, Bible scholars, especially at the forefront, have changed their beliefs because of their training. Fundamentalists are an anomaly in Biblical studies.

Depends. Ask Ben Smith here about faith. He and I have come to similar conclusions about Jesus, as far as I can tell, except he takes it one step further and says he has faith in his divinity.

Oh, and if you could get me the name of that Bible scholar, I'd appreciate it.

Something was not quite right...

Chris Weimer

Quite a few.

What?

Chris Weimer

Malachi151 - It's funny that you used that picture for "based on pagan myths" since the stone was found to be a fake.

Coincidence?

Cheers.

Amaleq13

Are you saying he has changed his position since 2005?:

Carrier Converts to Mythicist Position

Malachi151

Nope

Chris Weimer

Dunno. I'd have to talk with him again about it. Perhaps I was more optimistic than I should have been.~

Zeichman

There are numerous atheist and agnostic scholars teaching at well-known institutions, in addition to the fact that UNC, Claremont Graduate School (iirc) are both secular institutions who do and have had some of the most prominent non-religious NT scholars teaching at them. I'm sure I could find more if I spent more than 15 seconds on it. Also, the increasing number of Jewish NT scholars is worthy of note. If you want me to list a number of current prominent NT scholars who are not Christians or are non-theists, I can do so. Price is the only one who has spoken positively about the JM theory, and even he does not commit to it.

For the second time in this thread, I fear that someone has confused my assessment of scholarly consensus with my own beliefs. I find some of options 5-8 rather silly and lacking substantial evidence, but I do not just dismiss all of them because of their conclusions. I just wanted to clarify this, based on my interpretation of your closing line.