[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Michael Grant
Grant, also in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, states that the Resurrection did not happen and that Christ's disciples were mistaken.
Grant asserts that one can't deny the empty tomb, but adds that it does not follow, therefore, that we must believe in a resurrection from the empty tomb.
Where did you find a statement saying he was an Atheist? The best I could find was a statement that he wasn't a Christian, that doesn't necessarily imply he was an Atheist. The ONLY cited source I can find referring to him as an atheist is Christopher Price (where I believe you got the quote from) which doesn't strike me as a reliable source.
(SIDENOTE, Grant died earlier this month at the age of 89)
Regarding Grant, Bede apparently sourced it from Holding’s site as noted here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-88038
Regardless, Grant is a secular writer, and judging his work, it is obvious he has no ‘theological axe to grind’ by Holding’s own words. It’s obvious which side of the fence Grant is on, is it not?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] Will Durant
You described Will Durant as a secular scholar, but he is described as a Christian scholar in the biographical portion of his website.
In fact, he is described as practicing "his religion so fervently that no one doubted that he would become a priest."
He may have had issues with his faith, but that didn't stop him from entering the priesthood.
He discarded his brief stint with atheism and re-embraced his faith after the birth of his daughter.
http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm
Please! Have you actually read any of his work? Yes it’s obvious he was a priest, but it’s also noted that he LEFT the church. There’s no question he had major issues with his faith. No CHRISTIAN would ever write some of the things he did. Whether he reconciled with God on his deathbed is unknown. Please quote where the biographer said he ‘re-embraced’ his faith. Especially when he wrote things like this in the
Story of Civilization, which took most of his life to write.
"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."
"Christianity was to him a means, but not an end… While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, III, 1944, 653-664; quoted by UPCI)
Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgment, and ... reward and punishment (The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Part III, 1944, p. 595)
"Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world." (The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Part III, 1944, p. 595)
There are many more, but I believe I’ve made my point.
No, this man was not a Christian scholar like you would have everyone believe.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the last two. Although looking at your post, it looks like you were lumping them into secularist works.
I’m more than well aware that Meier and Harris are NT scholars. I used their 6 points to illustrate how Jesus was considered a marginal Jew. They are authorities on the subject but not secular and I never said they were secular. My apologies if I didn’t make that clear.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] What about Graham Stanton? You said that Professor Stanton occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University, but failed to mention that Stanton is Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. This would negate him as a secular source, would it not?
Here’s a description of his book,
Jesus and the Gospel:
'Gospel' initially referred to oral proclamation concerning Jesus Christ, but was later used to refer to four written accounts of the life of Jesus. How did this happen? Here, distinguished scholar Graham Stanton uses new evidence and fresh perspectives to tackle this controversial question. He insists that in the early post-Easter period, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was heard against the backdrop of a rival set of 'gospels' concerning the Roman emperors. In later chapters Stanton examines the earliest criticisms of Jesus and of claims concerning his resurrection. Finally, he discusses the early Christian addiction to the codex (book) format as opposed to the ubiquitous roll, and undermines the view that early copies of the Gospels were viewed as downmarket handbooks of an inward looking sect. With half the material previously unpublished and the rest carefully gathered from sources difficult to access, this is a timely study with broad appeal.
So yes he’s a chair in New Testament studies, and that was obviously not hidden from you. I included him because he is a scholar with an objective point of view concerning religious studies and has no fundamentalist agenda at all. As a matter of fact, he’s a moderate and his work is accepted by historians on both sides. This man should not be considered a ‘Christian Scholar’ with an agenda. If you read any of his work, you’ll realize it immediately.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] So which ones were meant to be secular?
I view all of these men as scholars and historians first and foremost. This was not hidden in the post either. The mistake I made was implying that they were all secular historians without explaining my position a little better.
These men are not bound to any religious order at all. In fact they are all considered experts in History and can be trusted through their more than apparent objective points of view on the NT. They approach NT studies from a worldly, moderate view rather than a fundamentalist, conservative one. The writings testify to this fact and their work on the subject is more than acceptable by any serious student of History.
So my apologies DV, the list included a few professors that could technically be considered 'non-secular' but their positions and books on the subjects are scholarly and academically sound nonetheless. In no way can they be considered biased and having an agenda in proving evangelical Christianity.
How should you view the rest of my research? You should be skeptical and do your own research. I trust you will find how silly the Jesus-Myth is and I believe a man of your intellect will also come to the same conclusion that the academic community has.
