Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:06 pm

• It's noteworthy that Darwin's 'revelations' came in the Galapagos Islands, ie., in a way/essentially, "outside the square"

In the same 'frame' (as both recent discussion in this thread and further to the Darwin analogy), an Augustinian friar was, contemporaneous to Darwin, conducting one of if not the greatest series of scientific studies ever: Gregor Johann Mendel's pea studies, involving 25-28,000! plants, was also one of the most industrious activities ever undertaken by one person.

[Darwin was] interested in the problem of hybrid vigour and its role for evolution. His main question was whether seeds from cross-fertilized flowers would produce superior plants than seeds derived from self-fertilized flowers. It seems he never thought of performing plant breeding experiments to check the results of Mendel, even though he had the required skill, knowledge, resources and the patience to do this sort of work. In his book on The variation of animals and plants under domestication (1868) he wrote that he had planted 41 varieties of English and French edible pea to study the extent of their variation. He observed the variations that Mendel had studied: smooth vs. wrinkled peas; tall plants vs. short ones; differences in flower colour, etc.; but he did not study any hybrids. However, he did do crosses using the common snapdragon with the rarer (peloric) form. In the second generation of hybrids that he obtained, he counted 90 to be the common variety (with two as an intermediate type) and 37 to be the rarer form. He thus obtained a ratio very close to 3:1; but he made no comments on this. Darwin was still thinking along the lines of blending inheritance where one would never expect to get constant ratios in the inheritance of parental traits. And he held this view until his death in 1882.

The unsolved mystery therefore remains: did Darwin actually receive a copy of Mendel's article? And if so did he bother to read it?

---

--Galton, D. (1 August 2009). "Did Darwin read Mendel?". QJM. 102 (8): 587–589. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcp024.

• Darwin, Charles (1868). "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication". Orange Judd.

rgprice wrote, above, in part [Wed Oct 04, 2023 2:03 pm]:
"... I'm saying that divinity/theology/religious studies programs do not teach methodologies for objective assessment of religious doctrines, beliefs, claims, texts, etc. That is not the purpose of those programs."

This seems to be an attempted characterization of my teachers at Brandeis and Duke.
If so, it is false.
And, if so, it may be a rationalization for why your assertions find little acceptance.

I guess the easiest way to say this is that I view understanding the development of these texts and how they relate to one another and other texts as an analytical problem. Theology/Religious Studies programs are not analytical programs. That is not, in any way, what those programs are designed to teach.

I'm a data scientist, with a degree in biology. As far as I'm concerned, solving this problem and understanding the development of these texts is best suited to those with analytical training, such as data scientists, forensic auditors, lawyers, anthropologists, forensic linguistics, cryptologists, etc.

From my perspective, training in theology/divinity/religious studies actually undermines an individual's ability to objectively assess this material. From everything I've seen, theology/religious studies programs specifically mislead people into misunderstanding religion and the histories of religions, so as far as I'm concerned those programs actually do harm.

The methodologies used by Christian theologians for understanding texts are flatly garbage.

Christianity is a religion founded upon misunderstanding of written texts, and to a large degree those misunderstandings are taught in seminary programs. If seminary programs are so great at producing objective analysts, then why aren't Wall Street and Silicon Valley lined up at the seminary schools to recruit all of these brilliant analysts?

rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 7:57 am I guess the easiest way to say this is that I view understanding the development of these texts and how they relate to one another and other texts as an analytical problem.

It is an analytical problem, and certainly data science skills are very under appreciated right now. NT studies is about to go through a bowel-shaking paradigm shift. That being said, don't lose sight of what you are actually analyzing: sacred scripture, used by religious people.

Put it this way: Suppose, 2,000 years from now, archeologists are excavating a garbage dump outside of the ancient city of Little Big Nose, Arizona. They pull out some tattered remains of U.S. $1 bills.

The theology crowd notices that bizarre picture of a pyramid on the back, with the eye on top. They notice similarities with Masonic symbolism, and conclude that these must have been used in the ritualistic initiation practices of secret societies. Pictures of these bills were found on other scraps of paper recovered from the same dump, and these pictures show a communal meeting governed by custom and ritual very different from mundane life, so they speculate that these initiation rituals involved tucking the bills into the garments worn by hierophantic priestesses.

The mythicist crowd see the picture of George Washington, note that the story about him chopping down a cherry tree is obviously a fable, and point out that the picture is very stylized and idealized. It couldn't possibly be a picture of a real person, who wore false teeth and a powdered wig.

The data scientists go crazy on it: They measure the dimensions of the bills, the thickness, etc. They compare the bill's fibers and materials against huge databases of paper and textiles, and note that this particular type of paper wasn't used to make any other thing. They carefully translate the latin phrase "E pluribus Unum"--out of many, one--and speculate that it has to have something to do with the numeral "1" printed all over the bill. We're always on firm ground with numeric, quantitative data!

All great stuff--and actually, all more or less true. But it massively misses the whole point: how did those ancient people, in a very different time and place, actually *use* these dollar bills? We may be living in a star-trek, post-scarcity society where everything we need we can get from replicators. But how did *those* guys get the things they needed? We haven't needed anything like dollar bills for a thousand years--perhaps that's making it difficult for us to recognize what these are actually for?

Its unseemly to poo-poo the expertise of people in another field, but--more to the point--it blinds you. Like the parable of the 10 blind men and the Elephant. Which I probably should have just adverted to in the first place, instead of indulging in a preachy-wall-of-text. Sorry about that.

Unseemly, indeed.
Duke Arts and Sciences Departments do not give seminary degrees.
I am not opposed to biology BS degrees.
My Brandeis BA degree was in literature.
gMark is not an allegory.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 9:51 am gMark is not an allegory.

*sigh* i wrote in vain. just ignore me guys; gassbagging is a normal, expected part of the aging process.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 9:51 am Unseemly, indeed.
Duke Arts and Sciences Departments do not give seminary degrees.
I am not opposed to biology BS degrees.
My Brandeis BA degree was in literature.
gMark is not an allegory.

I'm not speaking specifically to you or your qualifications. Generally speaking, the people who are considered to be "qualified" experts to address the development of the New Testament and the origins or Christianity are theologians, people with PhDs in theology or divinity. I'm simply pushing back against that. Having gone to seminary school does not make one an expert in objectively understanding the provenance of writings in the NT, YET most people would assume otherwise.

As for Religious Studies programs in secular institutions. I have not been through such a program so I can't fully speak to them, but yes, many such programs appear to be better and more objective than seminary programs. Is religious studies the most analytical field? Of course not. Why not classical studies, anthropology, ancient history, etc.? Such programs can provide comparable background in languages and context with more analytical and objective approaches.

Garbled—-still getting used to this wonderful forum software…

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:40 pm I have no objection to anyone who wishes to pay to read the rgprice book.

*chuckle* have it your way man, but end of the day, we're sitting around discussing his books, he's not sitting around discussing our books.

RandyHelzerman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 6:59 pm Garbled—-still getting used to this wonderful forum software…

Hope you stick around. I find your posts enjoyable.