Kosh

How many times have we seen this assertion? While it may be argument from authority, the truth is that most of what we claim to know is such. There simply isn't time to verify everything independently by ourselves, so we must rely on experts, and in doing so rely on what they say to make sense (both logically, and authenticated against our own knowledge in science).

However, the power of this one argument lies in that people who are actually "in the know" about the bible, and it's background, and who themselves are often still Christians, have admitted to the absurdities of certain parts of the bible story, and are now admitting that the secular view (often that of myth) is blatantly obvious when investigated critically.

That being said, it still makes the argument sound like a sweeping generalization which the clever theist will immediately dismiss as an unsupported assertion. I for one cannot keep track of the many sources which I have read when researching all the history of the bible. The amount of facts which are present just in this forum alone can be mind boggling, and in the heat of argument, er um, "discussion", one cannot be expected to recall the exact details of which scholar provided the information which you are now reciting. Suggestions like "just come read the articles in the II lib" are rarely accepted by the reluctant theist.

So to the point. I'd like to use this thread to find out if anyone has compiled a comprehensive list, a FAQ if you will of what "Most biblical scholars agree" on. If one has not been compiled, let's put it together here. Then the information can be collated (I'll do it) and hopefully posted in the II lib for later reference.

Usefull information in this endeavor would be:

- Scholars name and credentials
- published sources in which they state their position
- reasons why we should believe them.

Of course, to go with this should probably be a list of those who should not be taken seriously, such as Kent Hoving, Ken Hamm, etc.

General topics which should be covered:

- Genesis/creation/myth borrowing
- Noachian Flood/myth borrowing
- Exodus
- Authorship of the Gospels
- Dating of the Gospels
- Authenticity of "Pauline" letters
- Historicity of Jesus (you knew I couldn't leave that out)
- Standard apologetics (why the claims simply aren't true)

I'll start:

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, archeologists(Finkelstein is director oftheSoniaand Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University)
- "The Bible Unearthed"
- They claim the archeological record contradicts the history of the middle east presented in the OT. Much convincing research and evidence is presented.

Another format would be the topic/claim, and a list of scholars. Ie, "The Global Flood is a myth"(list of scholars).

Peter Kirby

Although I'm not sure what would be accomplished with this project, feel free to mine my ECW web site for quotes.

And I will add one:

John A. T. Robinson, biblical scholar (got a Ph.D. somewhere)
- "Redating the New Testament"
- J. A. T. Robinson claims that the entire New Testament, as well as some extrabiblical texts such as 1 Clement, could have been written before the fall of Jerusalem (70), which isn't mentioned as having happened, with the intent to show that the datings to which most adhere are flimsy. In particular, the Little Apocalypse of Mark 13 is interpreted by Robinson as a response to the Caligula crisis circa 44 CE. Scholars such as J.V.M. Sturdy and R.E. Brown have disagreed with Robinson's contention.

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Er, if that's what you take as the standard, this could well be a very very long list. Let's see, Bill Dever called the Exodus "a dead issue" in the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East. J.C. Laughlin writes in Archaeology and the Bible:

• The more it is appreciated that whatever history there is in the Bible, particularly the earlier periods, has been edited after Israel's catastrophes, especially that of the 587 BC (the "Exile"), the more obvious it seems that the Bible does not contain a contemporary witness to many of the events it describes. The conclusion reached by Joseph Blenkinsopp seems to reflect the consensus of most biblical scholars: "We assume that the Hebrew Bible is a product of the Second Temple period and that it inevitably reflects the concerns of that time and the ideology of the religious and intellectual elite responsible for its final redaction" (1995: 119) [this refers to Blenkinsopp's Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel]. However, this does not mean that no parts of the Bible were in a written form prior to the exilic or post-exilic periods.

The scholarly consensus on almost everything looks nothing like the literalist fundamentalist view.

Joel