Nistel

Greetings everyone.

After studying the different trends and approaches within the historical-critical approach, it seems interesting to point out how the debate over prophecy is almost non-existent.

On the one hand, there is Bible Prophecy, by Callahan, an amateur. Then there is Crossan with his "prophecy historicized" but not only is he far left, he is in love with his theory.

For political reasons, I assume, critical scholars don't touch upon prophecy.

What strikes me as curious is that there is no scholar of the caliber of Till involved in the non-existant debate. Till, of course, is way too dependant on Jesus Seminar-type scholarship and that invites criticism. But we won't know if he is biased until he plays in the big leagues, if you get my meaning.

I also would like to express my astonishment at the sheer number of authors on this site who are biased. James Still seems to be intellectually honest, but the theme that seems to dominate this site is that of bad scholarship.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nistel ]

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nistel ]</p>

CX

You consider Farrell Till a high caliber scholar? He's a retired English Professor. Furthermore on what basis do you conclude that Dom Crossan is "far right"? Do you mean philosophically? Politically? He seems quite liberal to me. And what has any of that to do with the qualtiy of his work? Who would you consider a "critical scholar"?

I would imagine the reason there is no ongoing discussion regarding prophecy in academia is that there is no critical issue to discuss. Prophecy is a subject best left to metaphyscians and theologians. It seems almost a foregone conclusion in all the critical scholars I've read that supernaturalism is ignored completely as possible answer to text critical questions.

Nistel

Did I say "far right?" I apologize (will edit it). A Freudian slip, obviously.

As for Till, he seems to me to be a human encyclopedia of sorts, who, though biased, should be given a chance to debate a real scholar for a change.

Vorkosigan

For what reason? Till is focused on inerrancy. No real scholar is an inerrantist.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

No, it is because under the naturalistic assumptions used in all the social sciences, prophecy in the sense you mean is impossible, and therefore it is dismissed as a serious scholarly topic.

Vorkosigan