Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/5/2001 5:56 PM (GMT -6)

Hello Doc (and all),

Well, I'm new to the board. I read God At War and tracked down this site. I've gotten to wondering about what it is to be a scholar. I'm under the impression, Doc, that you are a scholar (did you REALLY read all those books and references you document in God At War? I mean, I can speed read, but gads, dude! There's such a thing as chewing and inhaling which I'm not quite up to yet!).

I studied under a Bible teacher in Berkeley, CA for a few years back in the '80s. He refered to material that was "scholarly" and I read some of it but found it difficult at times to follow because there's so much "shop talk" used. I mean, doctors can talk shop too, but that doesn't make them scholars. Same with any profession.

In God At War, you mentioned that you'd keep the scholarly side of the work more in the notes in the back of the book. I felt that you really arrived at a layman's level at about chapter 4 - things rocked well from there with regard to comprehension for me.

With so many references made to "many NT scholars have found" or "current scholarship says" from scholars bent on liberalism in their apriori or presuppositions (hey, I did read some John Warwick Montgomery back when!), I found the question even more puzzling: what is a scholar? Someone who can talk very intellectual, talk shop with other intellictuals?

I've always thought that a scholar is one who works with primary documents: perhaps able to read Greek/Hebrew to work directly with the manuscripts; able to converse and discuss with others of that same caliber about the information they've discovered (and I'm wondering as I go along here if this board has a spell checker??? Shame on you, if it doesn't!).

But what I don't find in much of the "recent scholarship", as in the Jesus Seminar material, for instance, is spiritual discernment of theology or doctrine even the beginner Christian discerns quickly. Doesn't surprise me either, because many of these "scholars" are so far removed from any concept of Biblical orthodoxy that God's Word, God and the life of Jesus that one might as well think Jesus, God and the Word as yet another fairy tale to be told to children before bed.

So I wonder what a scholar is? And secondly, does "scholarly" work amount to anymore validity than the work of Josh McDowell (who, I'm told, is not a scholar I'm told) or someone of even less intellectually and/or academic strength? What of the theologin who's background is academically limited but his insight is tremendous? Does he count?

Just so you know, I enjoyed the book God at War and am greatly looking forward to reading Satan and the Problem of Evil.

Thanks very much,

Thanks,

Starkman

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/7/2001 8:14 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the site Starkman. Sorry, we don't have a spel checker

. But no one cares (that is, unless their unedited discussions appear in "scholarly journals somewhere

-- see the "Disclaimer" thread in this section)

What is a "scholar"? There's no accepted definition. In Wittgensteinian terms, it depends on the "language game" one is a part of. In academic circles, the term is usually reserved for someone who is a recognized, accredited, specialist in a field. By this criteria, a person could be the most insightful theologian in the world but not yet be a scholar.

In certain academic circles -- especially liberal circles -- the term is reserved for "those who accept our presuppositions" (even as they celebrate their open, unbiased, mindsets!). Hence, evangelicals are often ruled out as "unscholarly" in their writings. For example, Burton Mack, one of the most outspoken exponents of the revisionist historical Jesus "scholars," heaped insult upon insult on Gary Habermas ( a Christian apologists), saying point-blank that Habermas was a pretend scholar, in his review of Habermas' debate with Anthony Flew on the resurrection. The only grounds that I could see for these insults was that Habermas didn't agree with Mack's radical revisionist views of the historical Jesus. Mack repeatedly claimed that "scholars agree" that Jesus was this, that, and the other thing. He called Habermas a "fundamentalist" -- but one wonders if the tag wouldn't be more appropriately applied to Mack himself!

This is also why you will notice if you read the writings of liberal scholars (who are supposedly unbiased) that they very rarely (and usually never) cite or interact with evangelical scholars (who are supposedly narrow and biased) while if you read evangelical scholars you will find that they usually interact extensively with liberal scholars.

So, what is a "scholar"? I guess it all depends who you ask.

Blessings Starkman. Hope you stick around and share your thoughts with us.

Greg

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/9/2001 2:41 PM (GMT -6)

Greg,

Thanks very much for your response.
I'm mulling over things right now in the ol' noggin'. Hmm!

Thanks much,

Keith

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual