gregor

Dr. Gibson - Off topic, but what is the thought about the intellectual independence of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?

http://www.swbts.edu/about/declaration.cfm

jgibson000

I don't understand your question.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ruhan

Dallas Theological Seminary and Wheaton College are probably the most well known and they both require their staff to believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture. Ehrman stated that this implied original authorship as well as you cannot divorce the two. You might be able to but there certainly is a certain implication otherwise conservative scholars would not be as fundamental concerning this issue as they are towards inerrancy. Discounting original authorship is the first step towards forsaking the concept of inspiration.

Princeton is a reputable university. Pagels still teaches there. Most of the major universities support a more liberal view which is that the orignal authors were not the disciples after which the books were named.

Ruhan

His point is that SWBTS does not offer objective Biblical scholarship. It's not an intellectually honest position.

"We deny a difference between the authority of Scripture and Jesus Christ and we reject any attempt to set in opposition Christ, the living word, and the Bible, the written word."

jgibson000

Fine. But this is not the same thing as requiring their staff to accept/believe in the historical accuracy of the second century ascriptions of authorship to the Gospels. let alone to accept/believe in it to get employed. And if it is, you'd better tell this to Darrell Bock's superiors.

Could you please show me where Ehrman says this -- and especially where he says this about the "original authorship" of the Gospels -- as well as where he said that acceptance of the historicity of the traditional attributions of the authorship of the Gospels is something that Dallas and Wheaton require of their staff?

It is? Can you document --from the works of "conservative" NT scholars-- that this is something that the majority of "conservative" scholars actually believe? Or is this just an impression that you have or a deduction that you have made?

And even if it is, how does this support the assertion that there are "seminaries and theological universities where the belief in original authorship is one of the criteria for employment"?

JG

jgibson000

I'm not sure that you've read this statement correctly.

But even assuming you have, the affirmation made there still does not show, let alone actually say, that the acceptance on the part of anyone applying to teach at SWBS of the historical accuracy of the tradtional ascriptions of Gospel authorship is something that is a condition of employment and a formal criteria actually used in the selection of who gets hired and who doesn't.

Where is the documentation of that?

JG

TomboyMom

Still channeling you in my other forum. Tell me again why we know that Mathew copied Mark, and not vice versa?

S.C.Carlson

See, for example: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...index.htm#Mark

gregor

The impression given to the public of the SWBTS is of conservatism, which usually implies to the laity the traditional authorship of the gospels. This may be little secret that pastors are telling congregations things that their seminaries are not espousing. My question was whether this seminary has a reputation of independence of its professors.

jgibson000

Does it? Maybe the laity is more informed that you give them credit for being.

Sorry. But I have no idea.

Jeffrey