Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-14-2013, 01:50 PM | #51 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
In fact, the entire "SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS" is quite detailed, although there are often several sections per page. Just about every one of these subjects have been discussed here, mostly by folks who have never read Mead. If you were to ask me, I'd say Mead offers a rather informative introduction to Jewish knowledge and understanding of Jesus and Christianity, and what Christians knew of their understanding, and how they reacted to it. I. FOREWORD PAGEDCH |
|
07-14-2013, 03:27 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
|
I agree. I think there are other almost-forgotten writers who have done the same.
|
07-14-2013, 04:10 PM | #53 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"the relevance of [how] the minimalists [use/d proper *Historical Methodology*] to [do] NT studies" ?? ........... :hobbyhorse: |
|||
07-14-2013, 10:34 PM | #54 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
Andrew Criddle |
||
07-14-2013, 10:44 PM | #55 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
On the question of methodology, it is clear that NT scholarship differs substantially from the methods used in the history of the modern, (late-nedieval onwards), world.
Although true, it is not IMO a particularly interesting fact. It may be more useful to compare NT scholarship with historians of the ancient classical world. EG. the study of early Pythagoreanism, the historical Socrates, the campaigns of Alexander. I don't think that NT scholars are generally less sceptical than other students of the ancient classical world. Andrew Criddle |
07-14-2013, 11:10 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
A priori, I would expect NT scholars to be less skeptical, since most of them are Christians who are studying the origin of their religion. In a similar way I expect "mormon studies" scholars to be less skeptical than classicists. |
|
07-14-2013, 11:18 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
|
Quote:
I disagree; NT & biblical scholars frequently have not applied objective historiography; and many have confirmation bias b/c they are followers the religion they are studying.. |
|
07-15-2013, 10:09 PM | #58 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
In the ancient world there is usually not enough documentation available to write a historical account using only high quality sources. Andrew Criddle |
||
07-16-2013, 01:44 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
|
Quote:
eg. there have been discussion about whether Socrates was a real person, or whether he was merely a character as a literary device of Plato's. |
|
07-16-2013, 08:53 PM | #60 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
|
Quote:
That said, I'm not sure this addresses Neil's earlier suggestion that the NT is playing catch up to the likes of Thompson, since Thompson's suggested method has implications for ancient history at large. I'll cheerily agree that biblical historians do many of the same things-- even use the same methods-- as other ancient historians. I just think they're equally naive in their optimism. We've discussed our divergent views on historical truth claims in the past, so I more wanted to support your appraisal than voice my skepticism, however. Rick Sumner |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|