Vorkosigan

Here is a comment deserving of larger treatment. Lee Edgar Tyler recently made this on the Bib Studies list:

• I don't see the historicity of Jesus' existence as being a matter in question, because of logical weaknesses and the transparently doctrinaire agendas of those theories that attempt to disprove it. Of course the historicity of the gospels' claims about his deeds is another matter, but the James Ossuary does nothing whatsoever to address them.

As the second sentence shows, Tyler made this in response to remarks made about an article in Christianity Today saying that Ben Witherington, who got massive advance from the publisher to write a book on the Ossuary, still defends that object.

One could, in passing scratch one's head about the journalistic ethics of a magazine that presents Witherington's position with sympathy, and fails to mention that he has considerable financial motive for holding his position (and also teaches at an institution formally committed to inerrancy).

Vorkosigan

Llyricist

The word "projection" wandered through my mind searching for something to connect with.

Toto

Christianity Today is the mouthpiece for modern evangelicals, not a disinterested neutral source of journalism, so I don't know where their "journalistic ethics" would come from. It does aspire to a higher intellectual level than Jerry Falwell's newsletter, but it has no pretense of being neutral. You can't expect them to comment on Witherington's position on inerrancy, because their readership probably knows exactly where Witherington stands on the doctrinal spectrum.

Lee Edgar Tyler's post can be read here without joining the biblical studies yahoogroup.