« Revisionist, or Realist? | Main | It Never Happened? That's OK, I Still Remember It »

February 07, 2005


David Huff

Not only does Clemenceau's dictum comes to mind. In addition, the stmt that one must be a "professional" Biblical scholar to argue this way strikes me as a form of the argumentum ad verecundiam.


I don't get what he's saying, D.C. (And sorry, it's almost Lent, a period when I prefer less conflict and more reflection and contemplation, so I have no desire at all to read anything on that website right now.)

Is he saying that unless we're trained Bible scholars, we all just have to swallow what we're given without question - but only if we value reason? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

John Wilkins

I'm a bit disappointed in Al in this case. Even biblical scholars have a problem with logic sometimes. There are many different sorts of biblical scholars and their talents are varied. The ones who are good theologians or logicians are few and far between. And the theologians who are good storytellers are equally rare.


You're all spot on. As a "professional" myself I can tell you how often "we" agree. John's point is particularly important. What most laity don't realize is that biblical scholars are trained and formed for the service of the academy--not the church. Many biblical scholars wouldn't know the needs of the church if they hit them in the...yeah, well. Actually, Luke Johnson's *The Real Jesus* in addition to describing the Jesus Wars does a good job of talking about how this situation surfaces there.

Stephen Connelly

"Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, so also is theology too important to be left to the theologians."

Essential addition:
So also is Religion and the Christian Faith much too important to be left to the control of the priests."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Favorite Posts

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow