Jeffrey Gibson

Good dodge of my question.

And as I asked, may we please return to attempting to actually answer with evidence the question raised in the the OP?

Jeffrey

Toto

It appears that there is no reliable evidence which would answer the question in the OP, in the form of scientifically valid surveys. Do you know of any?

Jeffrey Gibson

No, as I thought I'd already indicated especially when some time ago I raised the issues of (1) which NT scholars anyone here who answered the question in the affirmative were taking about; (2) whether they could/would produce hard evidence to back up their claims (3) what the nature and extent of their acquaintance with actual NT scholars was.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

I don't know quite what you mean, but it raises an issue which I see a lot. Quite a few atheists label their own opinions "scientific" in a fairly random way. Others note that as a rule the posters using the term are not scientists, the subject under investigation is not a science, the posters don't seem to know what the difference is between science and scholarship, their investigations are motivated primarily by religious considerations and even animosity, and their educational level is low. In short the term is often used as a means of self-flattery rather than description. This isn't good news for the credibility of such posts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Would you mind giving the names of the atheists who label their own opinions "scientific" in a fairly random way?

spin

It's interesting to note, Jeffery, that you have gone on the attack here without putting forward a view of your own. Is this because you don't have a view on the matter of faith commitments on the approach of those who analyze the literature of that faith? Or do you have a view but wish not to put it forward? Or are you waiting for the right moment?

Would you say that the faith commitment of someone who follows a religion is the same (at least in strength of commitment) as that of someone who doesn't? Which of the two positions do you think is more likely to persevere in that faith commitment?

Do you agree that a faith commitment doesn't allow a person to be able to ask and answer a full range of questions relating to that faith in a scholarly manner?


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

I hardly think asking questions to gain some clarity about who specifically it is that people are referreing to when they speak of NT scholars is "going on the attack".

And until I do know who specifically is being spoken of, how can I have a view on the matter to put forth?

Jeffrey

Toto

A question to gain clarity read something like - "could you please clarify what you mean by NT scholars? Does it include tenured professors? members of the SBL? x,y,z...?"

Going on the attack involves what you did - putting scare quotes around key words to imply that you are questioning someone who doesn't have a clue, dropping names in an effort to intimidate your victim with your superior background, making an unwarranted inference as to the underlying motive of the original question, and then drawing a false comparison to mythicists.

Well, you appeared to be prepared to defend the honor of your profession against the idea that faith commitments could affect scholarship. That's a valid topic if you want to pursue it.

The Dagda

He doesn't Toto. I tried he denied that I could claim that as I didn't mention specific scholars. I have a particularly poor memory for names. I didn't really see how this was apt because I only asked for an opinion. But there you go that topic isn't going to be addressed by him. Apparently you can only make that claim if you know scholars personally, as far as I can tell. I don't know? He hedged for a while and threw out the usual claim of ignorance.

Jeffrey Gibson

Which is indeed more or less how I phrased my questions in response to the statement by Lukeprog that he had been engaged in reading NT scholarship and the statement from "the distillers" implying (if not indirectly asserting that most NT scholars are Americans.

Scare quotes? I thought, as is shown by comparing my

to "lukeprogs's"

that what I was doing was quoting the words that the questioner had used.

Is that what I was doing? I thought I was providing data neccesary to test the global claim that a poster (isn't "victim" inflammatory language?), laying claim to global knowledge, made could and should be tested.

And here I thought you said that you said we cannot know what's in the minds of those who post here.

If you'll look at what I actually wrote, I asked a question about whether such an inference could or should be drawn. I made no inference myself. I also asked a question about what the motive for asking the original question was. How that is making an inference, let alone an unwarranted one, about what the motive of the question was about is beyond me.

Really, Toto, all of this is putting words in my mouth. And it's beneath even you to do so, especially so that you can charge me with things I didn't do.

How you come to this conclusion about what I appear to be prepared to do, let alone that it has actually been my intention to do what you say I appear to be prepared to do, is beyond me. So far as I can see, I never said any such thing on this matter, especially since I've never made any claims that faith commitments couldn't, let alone didn't, affect scholarship.

What I've been doing through out this thread is

(1) to ask (a) "whose scholarship" in particular are we speaking about and (b) what faith committments in particular are we referreing to,

(2) to call for hard evidence that that what ever the faith committments are that are in play, the have indeed layed waste the intregrity of the scholarship produced by any given Christian NT scholar that anyone was prepared to name, and

(3) to offer some advice how about how such evidence may be gathered.

See here and other messages from me as well..

But it's not, as you yourself have noted when you said that "Jeffrey is correct that the topic here is whether NT scholars are Christians", the topic of the OP, is it?


So, as I asked before, might we get back to it now please?

Jeffrey