** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary told me, to my face, at an apologetics conference in Dallas, last year, that “most scholars” thought that Luke was written by Luke and John by John. He pointed me to Craig Keener’s huge work on Luke/Acts as the exhaustive guide to everyone’s opinion on the matter. I presume he would consider himself and his aforementioned scholars “critical” scholars, in the sense that they do want to at least see themselves as thinking critically about the question, and not just assuming inerrancy (even if they believe in inerrancy, in the end).
an attempt to dismiss conservative/evangelical scholarship
How do you determine who is a “critical” scholar?
How do you determine whose opinion “counts”?
How do you do this without just simply unfairly brushing off conservative and evangelical scholarship?
Bart:
That most critical scholars think something does not mean they are right.
I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say.
They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.
As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision.
Some scholars are not critical even if they say they are. They end up simply concluding – even based on a survey of all the evidence – precisely what they thought prior to conducting the investigation.
Why would conservative evangelical and fundamentalists scholars think, then, that their views are the majority views among all scholars, not just evangelicals and fundamentalists?
These scholars teach at conservative evangelical schools. Their faculty colleagues are all conservative evangelicals that hold basically the same views they do. Their students are all conservative evangelicals. Their administrators are all conservative evangelicals. The conferences they attend (such as an Apologetics conference) are for conservative evangelicals. When they go to other, broader based conferences, they tend to associate there with the conservative evangelicals, even if they go to other parts of the conference to hear what other scholars have to say. The views they have are reinforced by the majority of people they come in contact with.
Let me stress something since I do not want to be misread: I am NOT saying that Darrell Bock and Craig Keener do not know or talk to non-evangelicals. That’s not true at all.
I know the people who teach New Testament throughout all of North America.
Look at what is taught at the major PhD granting institutions in the country in the field of New Testament.
Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Harvard, Yale, Emory, Virginia, Florida State, Chicago, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and so on. Most Critical Scholars = views held by the research scholars who teach at these schools. All of these programs teach positions on key critical issues that are
different from what is taught in the PhD programs at Dallas Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and so on.
= = = =
If you mean “most scholars total” then you would include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the exact proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country.
I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point.
Steefen
There is no reason to believe a textbook writer would not be getting feedback from the field.
= = = = =
Dr. Ehrman,
When there is a new train of thought, it cannot be critical scholarship because it hasn’t spread from Yale to Stanford?
If it comes from Yale to Stanford, it can be critical scholarship but if it comes from New Orleans or Dallas, it cannot be critical scholarship?
The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship
by Nina E. Livesey (University of Oklahoma).
Book Description
This study argues that the seven letters of Paul, widely assumed as authentic, should be reclassified as pseudonymous.
Saul persecuting Jesus is Saul persecuting David. Therefore, Saul is not authentic let alone no secular evidence of Saul/Paul’s existence except Josephus mentioning in the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum a Pauline figure who exploited the pious.
People wrote fake dialogues and fake letters in ancient times. The authentic letters of Paul are another example of fictive letters (Letter of Aristeas about the Septuagint) and pseudonymous, fictive letter collections were popular (Dr. Owen Hodkinson, Univ of Leeds), the Paul and Seneca letters, etc.
Question: the majority of critical scholars reject Scholar’s A thesis because it has not made it from Yale to Stanford is a premature critique?
Saul persecuting Jesus
is
Saul persecuting David.
Therefore, Saul is not authentic.
Second, there is no secular evidence of Saul/Paul’s existence except Josephus mentioning
in the second passage after the TF a Pauline figure who exploited the pious.
Robert
If you accept one scholarly position–and she is not a major scholar.
Steefen
I am just reading the Bible and Josephus. This does not rely on my accepting one minority scholarly position.
Scholars can read the Bible and josephus, too.
Now, if the game is scholars are given credit for reading sources but they pick and choose what they want for political reasons,
that is neither exemplary nor the goal.
The book just came out, what are you talking about a quantity of great majority rejecting Lisvesey?
Are you, instead saying, a great majority of scholars reject the relationship of King Saul-King David to Saul-Jesus?
Either way, give us three scholarly reviews or articles rejecting whichever one you choose.
Reply to Bart’s answer to the question, Question: the majority of critical scholars reject Scholar’s A thesis because it has not made it from Yale to Stanford is a premature critique?:
No, the question is about timing. Her book, The Letters of Paul in Their Roman Literary Context, was published Dec. 12, 2024. How much time are you giving for “the majority of critical scholars” to accept or reject?
Her amazon page for her book does not show any Editorial Reviews at this time.
For example, your scholarly book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture has reviews from:
The Princeton Seminary Bulletin
and
The Religious Studies Review.
Question 1 Would publication by Oxford University Press and those two reviews indicate the majority of critical scholars approve of your work?
Question 2 As for timing, in addition to the time for a publisher to accept the manuscript for publication and circulate it to academic reviewers is enough time or is less than 9-12 months enough time for the majority of critical scholars to weigh in?
= = =
Ehrman: All of these programs teach positions on key critical issues that are different from what is taught in the PhD programs at Dallas Theological Seminary,
Question 3: majority of “critical” scholars refers to
a) critical issues at non-theological institutions
or
b) KRISIS (devoid of loyalties)
Comment 5
Question 1 Would publication by Oxford University Press and those two reviews indicate the majority of critical scholars approve of your work?
Bart:
No, of course not. We need to realize that OUP and other presses publish hundreds of books a year. That has no bearing on wehether any of them represent the majority view of critical scholars. Most argue against a consensus and fail to move it.
Question 2 As for timing, in addition to the time for a publisher to accept the manuscript for publication and circulate it to academic reviewers is enough time or is less than 9-12 months enough time for the majority of critical scholars to weigh in?
Bart:
Most critical scholars will not read it.
Steefen:
(So why say “the majority of critical scholars” this that and the other thing.
= = =
Ehrman: All of these programs teach positions on key critical issues that are different from what is taught in the PhD programs at Dallas Theological Seminary,
Question 3: majority of “critical” scholars refers to
a) critical issues at non-theological institutions
or
b) KRISIS (devoid of loyalties)
Bart:
No, I learned my critical scholarship at a Presbyterian theological seminary.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)