NT scholarship: Radicals! Lots of them!

[Sea of red]

I've recently been reading up on NT scholarship by diving into some of the works of authors like Richard Bauckham and NT Wright. One thing I notice that is a common theme among scholars like Wright, Habermas, Craig, Bloomberg, WLC, is to call any one that goes too far against what they consider acceptable methodology as being "radical" and "fringe". Usually, rather than address the conclusions of movements like the Jesus Seminar, I see these conservative authors resort to ad-hominem attacks, questioning the methodology, and accusing the critical scholars of having a bias.

Why does these authors resort to such childish mudslinging? I'm not saying it's never acceptable to bring up your opponents motivations but I think when you've got some underhanded theological motivations yourself, you're better off just trying to address the arguments at hand - which is what people should be doing anyways.

It's funny because I find the level of professionalism in NT scholarship very underwhelming. The whole "most scholars say" nonsense is just that. The reality is that when it comes to the origins of Christianity, there are many different angles scholars take, and they agree on very little.

[One Bad Pig]

If dodgy methodology is demonstrated, then there's little point in addressing conclusions which have been invalidated thereby.

I've been reading a fair bit of NT Wright, and from what I recall, he tends to demonstrate (at great length, even) why a certain methodology is dodgy.

I've read a little Bauckham, and I don't recall him making any unwarranted castigations. Without specific accusations, your post looks a lot like ad hominem, childish mudslinging. If you're going to accuse people of being unprofessional, it doesn't help to do so in an unprofessional manner. And FWIW, I see "most scholars say" brought up here much more from your side of the sandbox.

[KingsGambit]

Blomberg's argumentation style is about as even keeled as they come. His latest book takes great pains to disassociate from extreme claims on both sides of the spectrum in every chapter. Associating him with "childish mudslinging" makes me question how familiar you really are with his writing.

[Juvenal]

If dodgy methodology [...]

That's the one that raised my eyebrow as well. Critiques of methodology are always appropriate. (As a matter of fact, it forms an essential aspect of my criticism of what I've read of Habermas, which admittedly isn't much.) On another note, I'm not at all familiar with most of the authors cited, as authors anyway, but if Craig and WLC aren't the same person, I'm even less familiar with Christian scholarship than I thought.



I think we need examples here.

[JonathanL]

That's the one that raised my eyebrow as well. Critiques of methodology are always appropriate. (As a matter of fact, it forms an essential aspect of my criticism of what I've read of Habermas, which admittedly isn't much.) On another note, I'm not at all familiar with most of the authors cited, as authors anyway, but if Craig and WLC aren't the same person, I'm even less familiar with Christian scholarship than I thought.



I think we need examples here.

I'm not sure, but I think Craig might refer to Craig A. Evans.

[Sea of red]

If dodgy methodology is demonstrated, then there's little point in addressing conclusions which have been invalidated thereby.

I've been reading a fair bit of NT Wright, and from what I recall, he tends to demonstrate (at great length, even) why a certain methodology is dodgy.

I've read a little Bauckham, and I don't recall him making any unwarranted castigations. Without specific accusations, your post looks a lot like ad hominem, childish mudslinging. If you're going to accuse people of being unprofessional, it doesn't help to do so in an unprofessional manner. And FWIW, I see "most scholars say" brought up here much more from your side of the sandbox.

With Wright (and others), it's usually a misunderstanding of the methodology in the first place that leads to the issue. Metaphysical and methodologically naturalism are not the same thing, and historians using the latter is not a kind of bias against miracles, rather than a piratical way of determining probable history.

But go look at this:

Did you hear an argument in any of those videos? It's just the same old "more people argue with us!" kind of bandwagon nonsense. You've got to have more than that. The Jesus Seminar had it's problems no doubt, but to just give an appeal to authority (that mayor may not be true) is not an argument. Miller, Funk, Crossan, Borg, Harris, Mack, etc are accomplished scholars as far as I can tell, and I think they deserve more of a response other than being called "silly people" so smugly. One could just as easily bring up the institutional axe that the more conservative authors are wanting to grind - as well their own theological bias.

Blomberg's argumentation style is about as even keeled as they come. His latest book takes great pains to disassociate from extreme claims on both sides of the spectrum in every chapter. Associating him with "childish mudslinging" makes me question how familiar you really are with his writing.

I was actually referring to Craig Evans.

[Sea of red]

I'm not sure, but I think Craig might refer to Craig A. Evans.

Thank you.

[37818]

One Majority Text scholar Wilbur N. Pickering has done much work establishing f35 majority text type.
www.cspmt.org/pdf/kr-f35/Kr_f35_NT.pdf

One place where Pickering admits omitting a majority text reading, 1 Peter 2:2, ". . . εἰς σωτηρίαν." "to salvation." All other majority text works omit this as not being a majority text reading. NKJV foot note only shows it is a NU reading (N = Nestle-Aland, U = United Bible Society). My old Nestle Greek NT shows it as a majority text reading. (Bought it back in about 1968) I just supposed that newer evidence had shown otherwise.

[Sea of red]

One Majority Text scholar Wilbur N. Pickering has done much work establishing f35 majority text type.
www.cspmt.org/pdf/kr-f35/Kr_f35_NT.pdf

One place where Pickering admits omitting a majority text reading, 1 Peter 2:2, ". . . εἰς σωτηρίαν." "to salvation." All other majority text works omit this as not being a majority text reading. NKJV foot note only shows it is a NU reading (N = Nestle-Aland, U = United Bible Society). My old Nestle Greek NT shows it as a majority text reading. (Bought it back in about 1968) I just supposed that newer evidence show otherwise.

What does that have to do with anything?

[JonathanL]

What does that have to do with anything?

Nothing, he's probably posting in the wrong thread.

[KingsGambit]

I was actually referring to Craig Evans.

Then who is "Bloomberg"?

[Juvenal]

If Craig and WLC aren't the same person, I'm even less familiar with Christian scholarship than I thought.

I'm not sure, but I think Craig might refer to Craig A. Evans.

I was actually referring to Craig Evans.

QED.

[37818]

What does that have to do with anything?

He is a NT scholar. I thought it would be of some interest. I guess not. He wrote "The Identity of the New Testament Text." D. A. Carson is critical of Pickering's view.

[JonathanL]

He is a NT scholar. I thought it would be of some interest. I guess not. He wrote "The Identity of the New Testament Text." D. A. Carson is critical of Pickering's view.

I think you're either very confused, or in the wrong thread, unless I'm missing something.

[psstein]

With Wright (and others), it's usually a misunderstanding of the methodology in the first place that leads to the issue. Metaphysical and methodologically naturalism are not the same thing, and historians using the latter is not a kind of bias against miracles, rather than a piratical way of determining probable history.

Did you hear an argument in any of those videos? It's just the same old "more people argue with us!" kind of bandwagon nonsense. You've got to have more than that. The Jesus Seminar had it's problems no doubt, but to just give an appeal to authority (that mayor may not be true) is not an argument. Miller, Funk, Crossan, Borg, Harris, Mack, etc are accomplished scholars as far as I can tell, and I think they deserve more of a response other than being called "silly people" so smugly. One could just as easily bring up the institutional axe that the more conservative authors are wanting to grind - as well their own theological bias.

Blomberg is stating what's wrong: Crossan's "Cross Gospel," a non-eschatological Jesus, etc. I don't consider that "bandwagon nonsense." He's making specific claims about what the Jesus Seminar has wrong. I actually wrote a paper discussing the Gospel of Peter and how Crossan's Cross Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics and (very possibly) John. I imagine that Wright and Blomberg would've gone into more detail if they had more than two minutes in the clip. Actually, I think Wright does in the second book of his five book series (the name is escaping me).