Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DrJim · 08-19-2009, 07:35 AM

Yeah, the Thinking Shop would be me... It's a silly place...

I don't know New Testament scholarship as well as O.T. Is there anything comparable to Davies "In Search of 'Ancient Israel'"?

The "minimalist" debate in OT has done a lot of good. The mainstream has shifted a lot over the past two decades although the fringes are still way to large and there is no mechanism with which to snip them off a bit.

Vinnie · 08-19-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

As an aside, I saw Evans here in Calgary a couple years ago. Babbling something about the Jesus Seminar being a bunch of fools who had been completely rebutted. Specifically that no credible scholar believed that Jesus was not apocalyptic.

Now, I think the Jesus Seminar is almost comical. And I quite emphatically think Jesus was, in fact, apocalyptic. But "no credible scholar?" Really? There was actually a thread on XTalk about it.

Good to see you still around Jim.

Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

"Two biblical witnesses cannot lie" is pretty much standard fare for a lot of biblical scholarship, or at least has been in the past. I think in the OT field that might not get as easy a time as it does in NT scholarship.

On a related front, I heard Craig Evans talking in a church this past winter on Scribal Errors in the New Testament. He claimed that the fact that 99.9% of the original New Testament can be recovered accurately, it is true. He knew damn well there was at least one guy in the audience with a PhD in New Testament (my friend who actually worked with Evans years ago), and he still made that assbrained claim more that once!

I don't find all members of the seminar to be comical. Some of them are first-rate HJ scholars. The organization as a whole, well that is another story...

Steven Avery · 08-19-2009, 09:40 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

I heard Craig Evans talking in a church this past winter on Scribal Errors in the New Testament. He claimed that the fact that 99.9% of the original New Testament can be recovered accurately, it is true....claim more that once!

Jim .. you are right to point this out. The root of the problem is that evangelical faith and 'modern scientific textual criticism' are paradigmatically antithetical (if one is true the other must be false) yet there are scholars today who attempt to harmonize the irreconcilable. They are in a bind (unlike those evangelicals who affirm the Reformation Bible) and can end up winging it in the manner you saw, to attempt to sooth their audiences and mask and hide their problem.

Shalom,
Steven

rlogan · 08-19-2009, 12:09 PM

heh. Page 1:

Is the Bible 100% historical, or is there some additional interpretation of history in there too?

A bold question. Really pushing back the boundaries.

Quote:

When the gospel writers intended to provide historical information, that information can be trusted as reliable.

*snark*

DrJim · 08-19-2009, 07:24 PM

Steven,
No kidding. Evans completely dismissed ANY kind of serious implication to belief from the multiple endings of Mark and other variants in the gospels. He thought he could "solve" the scribal errors and so that is all he dealt with.

Quote:

When the gospel writers intended to provide historical information, that information can be trusted as reliable.

Yeah, just like we are supposed to trust Dunn's ability to determine the writers' intentions. And of course, their "interpretations" are reliable, too.

spin · 08-19-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

Yeah, the Thinking Shop would be me... It's a silly place...

It looks like there's been a catastrophe.

spin

spamandham · 08-19-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Because Matthew and Mark have a lot in common, this fact alone means there is a 'likelihood' of a 'solid base of historical information'?

This wild illogical leap is mainstream Biblical scholarship?

For the most part, yes.

Hence, the laymen are involved here (and elsewhere) trying to figure out real history alongside a few legitimate scholars who are not merely cranks with degrees. The field is saturated with apologists trained in theological schools with the knowledge of a real scholar, but totally lacking objectivity and methodology.

Celsus · 08-19-2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

Yeah, the Thinking Shop would be me... It's a silly place...

It looks like there's been a catastrophe.

Yeah I've a bad feline about that blog.

spin · 08-19-2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It looks like there's been a catastrophe.

Yeah I've a bad feline about that blog.

It mightn't have been quite up to scratch, but I bet you clawed your way through it anyway.

spin

DrJim · 08-19-2009, 11:54 PM

You guys are so damn much pun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2009, 07:35 AM	#11
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Yeah, the Thinking Shop would be me... It's a silly place... I don't know New Testament scholarship as well as O.T. Is there anything comparable to Davies "In Search of 'Ancient Israel'"? The "minimalist" debate in OT has done a lot of good. The mainstream has shifted a lot over the past two decades although the fringes are still way to large and there is no mechanism with which to snip them off a bit.

08-19-2009, 11:54 PM	#20
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	You guys are so damn much pun.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.