Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,net.religion Subject: Re: Biblical Scholarships reply to Dan Boskovich - Objective Evidence... Message-ID: <5424@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 12:01:04 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5424 Posted: Tue Jun 11 12:01:04 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:15:36 EDT References: <612@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 104 Xref: watmath net.religion.christian:777 net.religion:7103 This is a response to Gary Buchholz and Dan Boskovich. First Gary: It's always a little disturbing to me when anyone tries to wear the mantle of "biblical scholarship" in an agrument like this, as if they have the weight of all biblical scholars worth their salt behind them. While I am in fair agreement with Gary (and Tim, but I have some questions about his work also, maybe later) on the intent and shoddiness of his presentation, there are definitely some things in Gary's remarks that don't seem much better. > 3) Dans (and/or McDowells) work is certainly NOT within the >historical tradition of academic biblical scholarship (if one >measures this by such learned societies such as Society of Biblical >Literature(SBL) or American Academy of Religion(AAR)) Learned *liberal* societies, you mean. They have a certain perspective on the issues being discussed here. What makes their perspective more qualified than scholars of equal qualification who disagree with them? Would your have us assume they don't exist? Why do you personify their views as "biblical scholarship". The assumptions you make about your authorities (equating them with a personified "biblical scholarship") are just as gratuitous as Dan's. McDowell's "Evidence" stuff is an anthology of quotations from numerous sources. Dan makes the mistake of using it as a source itself (So do a lot of people). An anthology is a starting point for further study, a reference tool. Dan apparently hasn't bothered to research the sources McDowell uses because he agrees with McDowell's conclusions. But neither have you compared your sources against those of McDowell in order to show us why the conclusions reached by them are more sound than his. Gary uses Helmut Koester's "History and Literature of Early Christianity" as his source. By all means, people interested in this subject should read it. But don't personify Koester's views as "biblical scholarship". One example of a source that I know McDowell uses is "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix. It is also a standard text. You can also find works by Gleason Archer, Merril Tenney, J.I. Packer and many others with credentials on par with those of Koester who would contradict Koester's claims. Look at Vol. 1 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary for a sampling. Why don't these people count as part of "biblical scholarship"? >In Conclusion... > > If Dan really honestly wants to get involved in academic >biblical scholarship and concomitant with that, if he wishes >to pursue it to the bitter end as a discipline respectable in itself >and independent of churchly and dogmatic ends then I suggest he >join SBL and get a subscription to to JBL(Journal of Biblical >Literature) to find out whats going on in the context of these >matters which he writes. > If on the other hand Dan wishes to be the author of merely >edifying religious tracts for those people who sit in church >and attend ice cream socials then let him publish what he has >written as it is written. > Gary Plain snobbery, Gary. I'd question whether any journal or society is "independant" of dogmatic ends. It's easy for scholars to look down their noses at those of another opinion and say others are only edifying their own views with their conclusions. The best you can suggest is that those interested consider your sources for an alternate view. My point is that I think the issue being discussed is too broad for us to reach any sound conclusions here. We don't have any qualified Bible scholars on the net as far as I can tell. All we end up with is people using the work of their favorite "scholar" to support the views they already hold. It's fine if the works are being compared on the same level, but they're not (as I have tried to point out). I have some comments for Dan (I hope he's reading this). Your use of this material AT LEAST comes very close to plagarism. I suggest you use McDowells work for the purpose for which it is best suited i.e. as a pointer to more in depth referece material. Become familiar with the nature of the issues themselves instead of the thin veneer of McDowell's anthology. Yeah, you're going to have to pick out certain specific issues that interest you if you don't have time to research them all (who does?). But unless you can defend ALL of the conclusions you present with a more in-depth personal knowledge, you're going to get nowhere. Do some studying on your own, will you? Read a little of what the other side has to say and present the results of your own reading. It's better to be able to discuss only one aspect of the "Christian Evidences" issue when you have spent the time researching it on your own than to spread a paper-thin veneer of knowledge over it all. It's also a more rewarding experience for yourself. Finally, I question the wisdom of your posting this stuff to both net.religion and net.religion.christian. If your posting something intended to convince non-christians of your views then maybe it should go in net.religion. There it will get the acid test it needs (and fails by itself, anyway). If on the other hand you are giving it as information for other Christians or interested parties to use or consider, then n.r.c is the best place. But your posting isn't useful for that either, since you don't even give references to support the conclusions drawn. Giving a summary or outline of someone's work isn't bad, but you seemed to present it as your own. Shame on you. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd