Originally posted by lao tzu
View Post
Honestly, the perceived theology of the scholars is a non issue for me, something that would only come up if I perceived a contradiction in their assembled stories. Assuming a bias against Evangelical scholars is not helpful. You should be aware I am only familiar with "Craig" from a previous discussion of NT scholarship, and am even less familiar with Daniel Wallace.
I've always been more interested in early Israelite religion than early Christianity, and more interested in the anthropology than the theology in any case. Does the theology of the scholars make a difference?
I've always been more interested in early Israelite religion than early Christianity, and more interested in the anthropology than the theology in any case. Does the theology of the scholars make a difference?
It was clear from the beginning that, even if authentic, the fragment would never trace back to anything more than a minor splinter group less relevant to the mainstream Christianity of its time than the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are to ours. With no hint of a wife in the canon or early church fathers, and no reason to believe the presence of a wife would create an embarrassment, the fragment itself never had a chance to move opinion on whether Jesus actually had a wife.
Racking my memory here, was that a portion of John? In any case, this is where I last remember the discussion.
I understand this is a blog, but I'm still going to object to the language here, as in the triumphal partisanship of "becomes irrefutable." It's unnecessarily and unhelpfully combative. I just want to know if the fragment is a forgery.
Compare the above with:
And there you have it. Powerful arguments don't require the stomping of feet into faces.
Compare the above with:
And there you have it. Powerful arguments don't require the stomping of feet into faces.
This would be a good point to mention why I prefer to use the indent tags:
It's because they preserve the text when using the quote button.
Directly to the post, honestly, it reads as two parts hand-waving, "in a way," to three parts conspiracy theory, "and Harvard," "even if they don't call it a theology anymore." I don't see any value in it. It doesn't address the authenticity of the papyrus in any way.
Within bounds, there's always been a good deal of diversity within any religious tradition. I assume there will always be active debate on the extent of that diversity, and further, that new finds generally will increase the scope of that debate.
i think in part you have to separate Dr. King the scholar and Dr. King the theologian. She (and Harvard) in a way are forging a theology, one where Christianity is much broader and more inclusive than conservative Christian theology. as a theologian, her life work is validated by this evidence. so then she is as respectable as BYU professors when it comes to Mormonism. I think her reputation as a professor is really more on developing a palatable theology for modern (or post-modern) thinkers than as an academic with papyrus work. if you seriously consider their theology (even if they don't call it a theology anymore), must of it is not grounded in ancient history, but on how theology [of] the past can be useful in today's context.
It's because they preserve the text when using the quote button.
Directly to the post, honestly, it reads as two parts hand-waving, "in a way," to three parts conspiracy theory, "and Harvard," "even if they don't call it a theology anymore." I don't see any value in it. It doesn't address the authenticity of the papyrus in any way.
Within bounds, there's always been a good deal of diversity within any religious tradition. I assume there will always be active debate on the extent of that diversity, and further, that new finds generally will increase the scope of that debate.
Comment