Vorkosigan

www.bibleinterp.com strikes again with this excellent article...

Robert Miller's Thoughtful Defense of the Jesus Seminar


"In an attempt to estimate the depth of this resentment, let me pose a hypothetical scenario. What if the same people in the Jesus Seminar had carried out the same project and had come up with the same results, but had done so in a Society of Biblical Literature seminar and published the results in Semeia, the Society's journal for experimental scholarship? Certainly the public would not have paid any attention, but my question is how much attention would this project have received from scholars? I suspect that the quantity of the critical response would be much less and its quality much better. What do you think?"

"One example is that it is now a viable possibility that the teaching of evolution will disappear or be trivialized as ø_ust a theory?in the public school curricula in certain places. Why have biblical scholars stayed out of this fight and left it up to scientists alone to battle creationism in the public forum? Shame on us."

Miller is dead on. And further, if Biblical Scholars do not get on the front lines soon, they may not be able to practice their trade. Does anyone think that in the Brave New World of the religious reich serious bible scholarship will be permitted?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Robert Miller has also written the book The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, which I have recently ordered for myself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

Hmmm . . . I had wanted to ask, at some point, what posters thought of the Jesus Seminar.

I must confess I have not been "impressed" with the results--particularly the use of "traditional" translations.

At the danger of "name dropping" a few scholars complained to me that "voting on what you like" is not scholarship. Worse it has the "mystique" of science. As one put it, "I think they have proven that he once said 'the.'"

On the other tentacle, one scholar who declined to become part the Seminar, admonished me that I missed Funk's "genius." As he put it:

Anyways, I do applaud the attempt to come out an publically state the obvious--we do not have "the" teaching, we do not know what he said or did, or, with any certainty, that he lived.

Yet, I am afraid, others have said this before without so much pretense.

--J.D.

godfry n. glad

It's been my impression that the Jesus Seminar was hobbled by its initial assumptions, the biggest fault being that they assumed that Jesus existed....a priori. Their objective was to attempt to determine what Jesus really said, not whether he was real or a mythological construct.

One thing I really do appreciate about what the Jesus Seminar had done is to drag the whole discussion out of the exclusive club of NT scholarship (with all its deformities) and subject it to the light of open public discussion. In doing so, I believe criticism from all quarters has been invited and encouraged and the faults and failings of traditional NT scholarship have been exposed for all to see.

Thanks, again, Vork.... So far this week, you've posted up two books I feel I have to add to my library... We're driving each other into penury.

godfry n. glad

Vorkosigan

LOL. Yes, I actually cringed when I saw the Zindler tome, thinking "how can I afford all this?" Amazon.com is going to give us all gold watches or something if we keep this up.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

From Millers article:
A typo? Double negative?

Doctor X

Actually, it makes sense.

It states that we do not possess any evidence that supports the claim that Junior had a father who was not human.

Removing the "double negative" would make it suggest that we have evidence Junior had a human father. Subtle difference, but it is there. Part of it is the difference between having actual evidence and an absence of evidence. Furthermore, the second would imply we have actual evidence of the existence of his dad--shoe size, address, turn-ons. . . .

--J.D.

Ted Hoffman

No.
It states that we do not possess any evidence that supports the claim that Junior did not have a father who was not human.

I believe he meant to write: "There is no historical evidence that Jesus had a human father."

But then again "human father" is a tautology.

What is the opposite of the statement : "There is no historical evidence that Jesus had no human father."?

No, it would remove the double meaning and the statement would have a clear meaning.

It's like saying" "There is no proof of no Doctor X".

That is not the same as saying:

"There is no proof of Doctor X"

Toto

Miller's book was one of the first I read about the Jesus Seminar, and it is a good introduction.

You can read an excerpt on line on the Westar Site. There are also some quotes from Miller's comments on apologetics here.

Doctor X

Jacob:

I afraid that does not seem to be the point he is making.

Consider the context:

Thus,

So, he lists "negative" finding against the supernatural beliefs only to give a negative finding for a supernatural belief?

Aside from simple biology, if your interpretation of the statement is corrct, it ceases to be a tautology since it assumes a "nonhuman father," perhaps a rabbit or something.

I find nothing in the article that would support that, however. Thus, I remain convinced that the statement is correct as demonstrated above.

--J.D.