Zeichman

It's called burden of proof. But it is typical of those hypothetically villainous Christians to be especially hypocritical. Notably moreso than the real ones. Nevermind a lack of qualifiers on there such as "right wing", "reactionary", or actual looks at many biblioblogs (all the Christians I've seen on biblioblogs have had nice things to say about him. Though Ben Witherington was notably silent.).

You're right, I was using stronger language than I should have. And you are right that conservative to fundamentalist Christians dislike them more, but it's certainly not just them holding such a position in a lack of favor of the JS.

As for another example, I wouldn't consider John P. Meier a conservative, though certainly not as far left as Akenson, but their dislike of the JS is roughly equal. Though this may go back to the fact that Funk dismissed Meier as an apologist (reasoning not given, no critique of his exhaustive scholarship) in Honest to Jesus. A "Pretend Quester", as Funk calls him.


I mentioned Mack because I wanted to get across the point that Christians are not the only ones who don't like the Jesus Seminar, which I think is evident in my original post. Not to be patronizing, but I'm not sure this point is worth discussing further.

Amaleq13

I fully agree that one can find scholars from across the spectrum disagreeing with the methodology and conclusions of the Jesus Seminar but, as far as I know, the only ones who actually hold them in contempt are conservative scholars. Those who do seem to be responding as though personally offended by the conclusions offered and I just don't see that same level of emotion generated in non-conservatives. While I agree that there isn't much to discuss, I think it is important to recognize that NT studies in general and Jesus studies in particular might be unique (or at least holding an extreme position on a spectrum) in scholarly consideration with regard to the degree of deep, personal connection some have with the subject.

Layman

No, it was because you highlighted BK that I posted what I did. I was actually trying to be a little funny.

Glad you are a reader though.

I probably wouldn't ascribe contempt to a group so defined. Many apologists no doubt did and do, but many conservatrive Christian scholars treated at least the JS leaders, such as Funk and Crossan, with respect though vigorous disagreement. N.T. Wright and J. D. Crossan are actually quite friendly with each other and have a lot of mutual respect. Ben Witherington, if I remember correctly, has some nice things to say about Funk and Crossan though disagreeing with them in his The Jesus Quest. Luke T. Johnson might have been closer to the contempt side, though I'd say he was less conservative than Wright and Witherington.

And seriously, I was not attacking you at all but playing on the fact that you bothered to single out BK as the contributor.

Speaking of Funk, I did not hold him in contempt though I tended to take some of the JS scholars more seriously than the JS itself. He lived a full life and got to do what he loved doing for most of it.

Amaleq13

My apologies for the hasty assumption. Now, I get it.

I wouldn't either. I don't think it is fair to say that all conservative scholars hold the JS in contempt but I would say that the only scholars I know of who do are conservatives. Like I said, I think it results from having a deep, personal relationship with the subject matter. I'm not sure that can be avoided.

Layman

No worries.

This probably stems from the fact that we have different ideas about what constitute as "conservative" scholar, but I think of LTJ as more of a moderate (perhaps moderate-to-conservative) who really had it in for the Jesus Seminar.

Roger Pearse

I was wondering, since I don't pay any attention to NT scholarship, what Dr. Funk's contribution to learning was, specifically? (That is a question, not a jibe). What did he discover that we did not know before? Or did he mainly rework the same old data base, as so many in NT studies seem to do? (Which is why I can never get very interested in NT studies, of course).

I'd be interested to hear something on this, if people know.

The other question I have, as a non-US person: was he funded by the taxpayer, as would be the case here, or in some other way?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Peter Kirby

His most lasting contribution, personally, as a scholar, is in the form of Greek studies. He was the translator (and most recent contributor) for a very solid Greek lexicon, and the most recent editor of a Greek grammar that's been in use for four decades. Both the lexicon and the grammar belong on the shelf of anyone who studies koine Greek.

His other contribution was to laity, to popularize and educate through Westar, in the form of books and the magazine 'The Fourth R', consisting of accessible religious studies. There is also the 'Forum' periodical for scholars. The most visible manifestation of his goal to bring consciousness of religious studies to the public is 'The Jesus Seminar', yet (unfortunately) that's also backfired into a thousand anti-JS harangues.

No, his foundation, Westar, is funded by donations and the sale of publications.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Stephen Carlson's note

andrewcriddle

See Robert Funk RIP

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

I'm familar with the grammar. What lexicon do you have in mind? Is it as good as Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gringrich (BDAG)?

Stephen