Red Herring of Parallelomania & 3 shades of Apologetics

[neilgodfrey]

I recommend that anyone wishing to have a serious conversation place outhouse on ignore.

I am so pleased to see Neil, who has previously defended Sandmel, acknowledge the apologetic content in accusations of parallelomania.

Some of these types could not see the parallels in this.

Hanges does not believe that finding parallels and applying them with no theoretical foundation or evidential criteria is the way to do history. That was the problem that Sandmel addressed -- plucking parallels out of sources on the basis of whatever fit the theory. That's groundless confirmation bias. That's the way Acharya S. works.

Hanges is talking about historical forces and relationships that are found in the near-at-hand evidence and context and informed by theories of anthropology and sociology. That's where one understands how to identify parallels that are relevant as historical and cultural forces that shape a new movement.

[outhouse]

. Most scholarship -- including most courses -- are essentially apologetics. That's not me addressing you (don't take it so personally -- remember!) that's Hanges addressing the academy.

That's funny, because I have two very close friends who just graduated, and each hold a scholarship, and one is a current professor, the other soon will be. Debated with both for 5 years.

The professor who started his education to become a priest, is now agnostic, and has fought apologist tooth and nail, and is 100% historically based.

My other friend who has his credentials and faith, also fights apologist tooth and nail. Now he will produce earlier dates for his opinion of the gospels historicity, but he is no where near an apologist and always sides on the historical side of how errant the bible is.


As a third example. Made a friend last week, and this guy is a true conservative Christian, yet has followed every single scholar I follow, and more, and has his papers from a known apologetic institution. Yet he can quote just about every modern and older scholarship, and has a genuine passion. I respected his work 100%. He has reduced the mythology about 90%. And as I questioned him for an hour, not once did he proselytize any apologetic position.



Im going to have to ask you to supply more credible sources.

[Sheshbazzar]

If you provide no names, and no references or writings that can be examined to verify the beliefs and positions of these alleged friends, it remains to us as though they have no existence other than your say so.

And how are we to know with any certainty that they do in fact share and support your views?
Totally on your say so? Why should we trust that? It's a 'Paul says that Peter says ...' unverifiable claim. (at least Paul could supply a first name)

You state that you 'debated' with two for 5 years. Why in the world would you be 'debating' with them for 5 years if they saw eye to eye with your views?

These 'friends' of yours are not credible sources, as even their very existence cannot be verified on what scant information you present. And given that by your own admission they 'debated' with you 5 years, it does not appear that they agreed with your views.

[MrMacSon]

That's funny, because I have two very close friends who just graduated, and each hold a scholarship, and one is a current professor, the other soon will be. Debated with both for 5 years.

The professor who started his education to become a priest, is now agnostic, and has fought apologist tooth and nail, and is 100% historically based.

My other friend who has his credentials and faith, also fights apologist tooth and nail. Now he will produce earlier dates for his opinion of the gospels historicity, but he is no where near an apologist and always sides on the historical side of how errant the bible is.

As a third example. Made a friend last week, and this guy is a true conservative Christian, yet has followed every single scholar I follow, and more, and has his papers from a known apologetic institution. Yet he can quote just about every modern and older scholarship, and has a genuine passion. I respected his work 100%. He has reduced the mythology about 90%. And as I questioned him for an hour, not once did he proselytize any apologetic position.

anecdote and references to you aligning with "a true conservative Christian" don't cut it, outhouse.

Im going to have to ask you to supply more credible sources.

as should you!

[neilgodfrey]

The professor who started his education to become a priest, is now agnostic, and has fought apologist tooth and nail, and is 100% historically based.

My other friend who has his credentials and faith, also fights apologist tooth and nail. . . .

As a third example. . . . . And as I questioned him for an hour, not once did he proselytize any apologetic position.



Im going to have to ask you to supply more credible sources.

Try to understand. Try to think a moment before typing a response. First, read the quotes. Notice the word "apologetic interest". Notice what this means in context.

You are ignoring OP and the quotations in it. You are hung up on the popular use of the word "apologist" and as a result failing to grasp a totally different nuance that is the point of Hanges' remarks.

Notice that what Hanges is saying is that an apologetic interest is expressed as an attempt to maintain Christianity as something so unique it cannot be studied as if subject to the same forces that influence other religions. Apologist does not mean someone who argues for young earth creationism or a literal adam and eve etc or whatever.

Hanges' point is that even sophisticated scholars have their own form of apologetics. They may not argue for the same things fundamentalists do but they are apologists in their own way, in the sense that they believe in the uniqueness of Christianity and its origins.

They treat Christianity differently from any other religion. They do not apply the same historical laws to it as are applied by other scholars to other religions. That is where they fail and their whole enterprise of "historical inquiry" fails and goes off the rails.

[outhouse]

anecdote and references to you aligning with "a true conservative Christian" don't cut it, outhouse.

Really? If you don't know half the coin, your only half educated. And failure to have a real education on the NT or Paul reduces that percentage dramatically leaving you at a severe disadvantage.

Knowing the theology is pretty important, when studying theology.

as should you!

I did.

Even Neil posted Young's interpretation which goes to what is being taught.

All that is needed is to learn the right "code" or method to know how to peel away the layers of myth and legend and theology to identify the true history it really represents.

[outhouse]

Try to understand. Try to think a moment before typing a response

.

That's what Im going to say to you. Stop and think before you quote mine Young out of context.


Lets look at the context of his work.

This article examines how Evangelical Christian inerrantist scholars theorize their bibli-cal scholarship and its relation to the broader academy, highlighting (1) their self-repre-sentation as true academics, and (2) the ways they modulate historical methods to prefer interpretive options that keep the Bible inerrant.

You quote mined Hanges then quote mined Young to make a hybrid point neither really makes.

Here is Hanges in context.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8029.shtml

That is, Paul’s gospel is the result of an individual experience or derived from individual qualities. Moreover, for many of these scholars, this moment of revelation/insight is associated with Paul’s famous “Damascus Road” experience

He is not without fault either, this really is an idiots opinion here. I don't know a single credible scholar that claims this or gives any credibility to the Damascus mythology.

Paul’s “law-free,” faith-based gospel to the non-Jews has been traditionally assumed by the Church, and with most scholars associated with the Church, to be the product of specific revelation

This is his "apologist" context, and this is an example of his misuse of apologist and scholars .

Here, he is claiming typical apologist view of Paul's revelation. And claiming most scholars associated with the Church, simply is not true.

It is sourced to one 1984 opinion here. 30 years old.

[11] E.g., Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 2nd rev. ed., WUNT 2.4 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1984.


He just rhetorically selling his postcolonial, lens horse crap

[neilgodfrey]

Even Neil posted Young's interpretation which goes to what is being taught.

All that is needed is to learn the right "code" or method to know how to peel away the layers of myth and legend and theology to identify the true history it really represents.

You did not read what I wrote, outhouse. I said that was my own addition to what Young said. Young did not say that.

But since you obviously agree with the method I am describing I should try to point out to you that you have also misread the context. I am saying that that method is a bad thing. It is not how other historians handle sources. It is a method unique to bible scholars. I've even seen bible scholars declare that historians study myths to try to peel away what is mythical to discover the historical core behind them. As far as I am aware the only "historians" who do this are the theologians studying the gospels to try to find some history about Jesus behind them.

I've never seen a historian apply form criticism to Homer's Iliad to try to find out what Achilles really said or did. I've never seen a historian apply memory theory to Suetonius to try to find out what Julius Caesar did or said.

The idea would be laughed out of the academy. But if you're studying the Bible and Jesus and the Church then it's considered a "good thing".

[Bernard Muller]

As far as I am aware the only "historians" who do this are the theologians studying the gospels to try to find some history about Jesus behind them.

Then I must be a theologian: that's news to me.
Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Try to understand. Try to think a moment before typing a response

.

That's what Im going to say to you. Stop and think before you quote mine Young out of context.

Um, I did not quote Young at all. I clearly said it was my own addition to what Young said.

Lets look at the context of his work.

This article examines how Evangelical Christian inerrantist scholars theorize their bibli-cal scholarship and its relation to the broader academy, highlighting (1) their self-repre-sentation as true academics, and (2) the ways they modulate historical methods to prefer interpretive options that keep the Bible inerrant.

Very good. And I explained exactly the two types of inerrantist scholars he describes. You're getting there. Keep going.

You quote mined Hanges then quote mined Young to make a hybrid point neither really makes.

I was making a combined point, yes. But if you can show from Hanges and Young that I have distorted anything at all that they ever said or meant then you can find me guilty of "quote-mining". I quoted Hanges enough to show you that there is nothing misrepresented -- nor did I misrepresent anything by Young. Quote-mining is a term that means selectively quoting out of context in a way that misrepresents the quoted author.

Here is Hanges in context.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8029.shtml

Um, actually I cited the source I copied and pasted Hanges' words from so you could have referred to that instead of some other piece of writing of his where he spoke about something else.

Just as you were coming along with Young you go and trip over Hanges. Never mind. Get up. Try again.

That is, Paul’s gospel is the result of an individual experience or derived from individual qualities. Moreover, for many of these scholars, this moment of revelation/insight is associated with Paul’s famous “Damascus Road” experience

He is not without fault either, this really is an idiots opinion here. I don't know a single credible scholar that claims this or gives any credibility to the Damascus mythology.

Oh my god. This has nothing whatever to do with the passages I quoted from Hanges' book or the point he was making in those.

But as for you jumping in to call Hanges an idiot, if you actually read Hanges with any minimal comprehension -- both in the article you quote and in the book from which I quoted -- you would see that Hanges DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A HISTORICAL DAMASCUS ROAD incident at all. He even says the whole story is a myth and he cites the sources for the myth.

The "individual experience" Hanges is referring to is NOT any literal Damascus Road event.

Paul’s “law-free,” faith-based gospel to the non-Jews has been traditionally assumed by the Church, and with most scholars associated with the Church, to be the product of specific revelation

This is his "apologist" context, and this is an example of his misuse of apologist and scholars .

You have no idea what Hanges is talking about.

Here, he is claiming typical apologist view of Paul's revelation. And claiming most scholars associated with the Church, simply is not true.

Sorry, Hanges actually REJECTS the "typical apologist view of Paul's revelation". He rejects it. He says it never happened. Damascus road story is a myth.

Stop being an idiot.