Toto

"Dr. Richard Bauckham and Dr. Ben Witherington III here discuss why Christianity needs to be understood as a historical faith and how this makes all the difference."

It's important because people need to realize that The Da Vinci Code is really fiction and you can't just make Jesus over into your own image.

They have a strange view of historical method - first you decide if a source is "reliable" and then you believe what it says.

This was posted by Seedbed - "Sowing for a Great Awakening"

More interview material here

outhouse

They are both apologist with bias and a agenda.

Neither is worth following in my opinion.

Ive disliked Ben for a long time. I dont know nor care to know Richard.

ApostateAbe

I have noticed that history is essential to ideologues of all stripes, because ideologies each aim to construct a model of the world and the way it works. Their models often conflict with reality, and it isn't so easy to reconstruct a model of the modern world, because the certain facts are too accessible, but it is far easier to reconstruct a model of history, especially ancient history. Each ideology, therefore, tends to have their own model of the historical Jesus.

"They have a strange view of historical method - first you decide if a source is 'reliable' and then you believe what it says."

Strange, maybe, except that it really is common, especially among the conservative Christians. A vestige of this perspective too often carries over to the anti-religious perspective: if a source is unreliable, then you believe the contrary. A better methodology of course is along the lines of choosing a model that makes the most probable sense of the evidence, whatever it may be, reliable or unreliable.

ApostateAbe

Bauckham claimed Richard Dawkins believes Jesus to be myth. Richard Dawkins has actually been ambiguous on that point.

youngalexander

Ambiguous or agnostic?

Toto

More like - playing around with the idea.

Acharya S has publicized Dawkins twitter posting on this issue:

Dawkins tweets Jesus mythicism

leading to some snippets of opinion from across the spectrum.

Not the best subject to investigate by twitter, frankly.

Chili

Dawkins is totally wrong there too.

Jane H

There's a lot of truth in this, and I love your 'carry over' comment.

There are some nuances to this that might be worth a mention.

This 'established data to deduction' method is pretty common amongst academic believers of all types- and certainly goes beyond evangelicals (the Jesus Seminar and their multicoloured ball profiling; the use of Q). The hard-line evangelicals assume that the Gospels contain the gospel truth, and proceed to defend that hypothesis against all comers.

Further, the poster boy for evangelicals, N.T.Wright, uses the exact model method you describe, testing his hypothesis against all data in preference to deduction from data.

By contrast, the best exponent IMHO of the 'data to deduction' method is the Catholic priest J.P.Meier. His “unpapal conclave”, while flawed in conception, probably does have a useful historiographical impact on his methodology, in that he can reject biblical data. Whereas Bauckham's approach by contrast is a one track mission to defend the reliability of the data.

mountainman

Is this the Ben who has contributed to this forum?

If so Ben is a most likeable person and an exceedingly able scholar.

A brief perusal of his website will immediately confirm this.

Discussions were more often than not benefited by Ben's scholarship and contributions.

I for one learnt a great deal during discussions with Ben. (If its the same one)

And in any case, there is no need to get personal outhouse.

Such an attitude benefits no one, least of all your self.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

NO NO NO.

Different person