No Robots

I am an atheist and I have deep rancour toward the MJ thesis. I have made many attempts to explain why. I think I have seen some progress on this board. There seems to be less hostility than there was before. I am now able to have civil conversations. My rancour toward the MJ thesis hasn't diminished, but this rancour is not exacerbated as frequently as it used to be around here.

Chris Weimer

Does this look familiar?

No, it's really not. It falls perfectly within "Historical Sciences", and should be treated as so.

It's far, far more complicated than that. Essentially, yeah, you got that idea, but the amount of work that goes into that, from the scouring of references, to the interpretation of the actual languages, to the testing the logical waters, so to speak, it's not as easy as you present it. It's not a "puzzle".

One thing a degree in theology does do is prepare one for the languages that we use in understanding what's going on, and also to provide context for the Bible itself.

Arguably, I'd recommend an actual PhD and not a ThD though.

Not always.

Why not? You didn't do anything to knock it down?

Not all Biblical scholars have theology degrees. That's not the only option.

You'd be surprised what the Christians are capable of.

That doesn't exclude you from taking what he has to say and learning from it. Right or wrong, Erhman has a lot of conclusions worthy of consideration.

When can you get past this bias of yours? Not all Christians are out to get you, not all of them fundamentalist, not all of them ready to sacrifice facts for science.

Please, if you would like to review his book, I'm sure we'd all love to find out why you think Dr. James Tabor puts out "obvious crap".

I really, really, really disagree with you here. Half the posters here don't have a clue, 40% of the rest have somewhat of an understanding of what's going on.

Actually, he used Luke's genealogy. It was one of the things I wrote against him as well.

However, what exactly is Luke's genealogy is not yet determined. Have a look at Stephen Cook's note on the genealogy.

Theology is not Biblical Studies. A good number, I'm guessing an overwhelming number, of blogs on my Biblical studies blogroll is comprised of Christian authors. My own blog features three Christian bloggers, Ben Smith, Roger Pearse, and one who has yet to reveal himself (he will soon, won't you?). They all command the utmost respect. I don't hold it against them because they're Christian. The others on my blog are not Christian, but somehow we all can work together. Odd, huh?

Than you've employed a double standard.

Zeichman

Although I suspect someone else will say what I'm going to say here far more eloquently, this post is misguided. No credible graduate theology education is going to be indoctrination, other than teaching one the proper methods to use. I would say that all good scholars I have read have divorced their metaphysical/supernatural/whatever claims from their historical inquiry, though it comes out far more clearly in some than in others. Anyone who accuses Dale Allison, for example, of confirming his own religious beliefs either does not know his work or his beliefs. Though one might point to Borg or Crossan as validating liberal Christian and post-Christian beliefs, one could easily get the same atheistic/non-religious confirmation in the works of Mack or Arnal. I am, of course, not suggesting that any of these scholars are unobjective or anything other than among the best in the world, but the fact is, bias cuts both ways. You may see atheistic skepticism as vanilla, but one needs to remember that vanilla is still a flavor.

Your example of Tabor and Witherington, even if your assessment is correct, is meaningless because you've only cited two examples of such garbage scholarship from an impossibly large field, so this hardly demonstrates an "inordinate number" of "quacks." Indeed, it is far easier to point out a great percentage atheistic/non-religious "scholars" in the past century whose work has been rightfully ignored by scholars than of Christian ones.

Your suggestion that Ehrman's work betrays the vestiges of an evangelical background needs to be backed up, as he is a top notch scholar whose bias is hard to discern unless one knows his biographical background.

Ultimately, education in theology is vital because it allows one to learn about context, so that anachronistic readings which result from uneducated people do not persist. I have a hard time believing that I'm addressing someone who is elitist over education, but whatever. Additionally, learning the ability to assess these "quacks" about which you were talking comes as the result of an education, as you are absolutely incorrect in believing that there is merely a finite amount of material written about the Biblical tradition. When you read Doherty, were you able to percieve the incorrect claims that he was making (to plug myself, like those I pointed out in my paper)? I do not simply mean questionable arguments, but statements that were flat-out wrong. If Doherty had a degree, he would avoid mistakes like these, instead of assuming things and reading his beliefs into the text (especially like the son of man in Q and Daniel 7), like pre-critical scholars.

You are technically correct in stating that there is not a literal endless supply, but no person could hope to read every book, article or essay of substance written by Biblical scholars in the past 100 years in a single lifetime. The quantity of biblical scholarship is only "finite" in the most literal of ways. The suggestion that uneducation is better than the opposite belongs in the minds of creationists, and not those who hope to make useful contributions to critical scholarship. It is so absurd and offensive to rational thought that it is not worthy of further address. The same can be said of "No Robots" post. Being proud of ignorance indicates that one is content with their unquestioned assumptions, just as you are criticizing others of doing.

Doherty has not subjected his work to extensive criticism. Your criticism might be worthwhile if he did not make several incorrect claims which were totally avoidable. Instead, he has insulated himself and his work among those who are unable to assess the validity of his arguments and claims (i.e., a great number of people on this board), or those who are already sympathetic to them (JHC).

Chris Weimer

Chewing the fat with Malachi151 and looking to someone who speaks Greek to understand a passage are two different things.

Barack Obama had something wise to say on the matter - George Bush is a great guy to go to the bar with, but as a President he's been a complete and utter failure.

Malachi151 may be hella cool to "chew the fat with", but I wouldn't trust him parsing Hebrew.

jgibson000

Nope. Not at all. The only way that this would be analogous, even assuming the historicity of your claim, is if someone was forcibly preventing you from learning the languages in which which the Bible is written.

And since no one is doing so, your complaint has about as much force as one that is directed at the AMA and State Medical Liscensing agencies for not letting someone who won't pursue a medical degree practice medicine without an MD and a license.

JG

Chris Weimer

When was the last time you self-published a book on evolution? I know that I, being totally untrained in biological sciences, would never dare such a thing.

Besides, look at the double standard here. Your two cents going against ID and creationism means that you're going with the status quo, but here, by taking Doherty's position, you've basically assumed the same position that ID has in biology.

I would never suggest that you shouldn't feel free to contribute. There are other lists where some of us can go if we want to discuss things with scholars only. Here is not made for that. However, and you've done this, as far as I can tell, understand limits.

You're right - Archya S., Michael Baigent, Dan Brown etc... have no Greek. But his theories compare perfectly to Theiring's. Crazy as her ideas may be, Doherty's is no better and in some respects much worse.

No Robots

But Bush isn't the danger here. The danger comes from the know-it-all fucktards who stand behind him, people like the Kristols.

What is a historical fact is that vernacular Bibles played an extremely important role in the destruction of Church hegemony. The democratisation of exegesis is finishing the job.


And maybe you should look into the democratisation of health care: alternative medicine, self-education, and, of course, rate your doctor.

Chris Weimer

Bush has done his fair share of dangerous things. Gonzales, anyone?

The introduction of vernacular Bibles also allowed much room for errors. Look at Praxeus - his misunderstanding is only because someone let the "Bible" get too powerful - where it belonged, when it was in the Church, as part of the Church's tradition, which it is, then we wouldn't be having this problem.

Apples and oranges. Rating doctors based on your success is something that's entirely different than performing open-heart surgery on your daughter!

jgibson000

And not a single one of the scholars who translated the bible into the vernacular ever ever thought that they didn't need to know the languages they were translating in order to do their job well, nor would they ever trust anyone who didn't know them to tell them what the Bible said or to be competent to say so.


Whether I should or shouldn't, one thing is certain. I would never come to you to for medical advice, not if I valued my health.

In any case, this reminds me of the ignoramus who said to the college graduate, "What's so good about having an education". To this the graduate replied, "Have you ever met anyone who had one who would trade places with you?".

JG

No Robots

000j:

Your knowledge has been of great benefit to me. You really helped me by pointing me toward the integral text of Schweitzer's book on Christ. This is the positive side of the scholar: pure joy in the sharing of knowledge.

Unfortunately, there is a dark side. Take, for example, your dismissal of Constantin Brunner as a "crank". This is a man who was respected and admired by people like Walther Rathenau, Martin Buber, Kornelis Miskotte and Yehudi Menuhin. The fact is that this kind of smear destroys confidence in the scholarly community, and leads common people to rely on themselves and each other in their pursuit of truth.