Mainstream describes those who belong to or are characteristic of a principal and widely-accepted group, i.e. those who do not belong to or are characteristic of a marginal group with extreme views.
This being the case, it is simpler to identify who mainstream does not describe, rather than list all of the members of a mainstream group.
Marginal archaeologists and scholars include but are not limited to Donovan Courville, Peter James, Kenneth Kitchen, David Rohl, Immanuel Velikovsky, and Jennifer Wallace to name a few.
There is no such thing as a "mainstream scholar". They all have their fields and are specialised in that field. To set up an interdiscplinary study on Mediterranean cultures and chonologies (like SCIEM 2000 for instance) one needs a large group of specialists together. And the reality is that people refer for anything outside of their field to others.
I'll give you a little example. You once said your 'mainstream scholars' all reject a chronological revision of the ancient world. Now ask them why exactly and you will find them referring to an extremely small number of people. If case of shortening Iron Age chronology in fact only one man: Dr. Kenneth Kitchen. And they refer to him because he's the only 'mainstream scholar' who knows this stuff. However, this eminent scholar has been doing that work for over 30 years (see how much work one discipline is?) and is not likely to revise his life's work. It's a great piece of work, but not flawless.
Ask these people... ask them what they base their conclusions on and you will find they have quite a limited knowlegde and understanding of anything outside their field.
Someone like Peter James is in fact fairly mainstream these days. He publishes regularly in various scientific magazines (not the popular ones, the ones for scholars) plus, he's working in a large and growing interdisciplinary group of people with a broad scheme of expertise, including quite a number of your so-called 'mainstream scholars'. And these people TALK with each other, they don't just refer to each other. Like most scholars do and never look at teh evidence themselves.
__________________
Last edited by queeq on Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:56 PM
While not all of the above mentioned scholars are Christians, the propensity of many Bible critics to dismiss the work of any scholar who professes belief in the Bible, is both sad and senseless. They set aside legitimate research simply because it points to the truth of the Bible. The work of brilliant people like Walter C. Kaiser whose research definitively supports the historicity of the Old Testament, or Daniel B. Wallace whose labors have proved beyond all mathematical doubt the authenticity of the Greek New Testament, are ignored by those who insist that a Christian scholar cannot possibly be numbered among the so called "mainstream".
You state that the term mainstream "describes those who belong to or are characteristic of a principal and widely-accepted group, i.e. those who do not belong to or are characteristic of a marginal group with extreme views." Unfortunately, while the dictionary definition might be the ideal, the actuality is something far less laudable.
In my many years of graduate study, I have discovered that "mainstream" is often little more than a catchword for "my scholars count, and yours don't." Such wild assertions are foolish, baseless, and entirely unintellectual. I believe the Bible, because the evidence supports the Bible. I trust conservative evangelical scholars, because they believe the evidence, and it has led them to the very same conclusion I have drawn. Jesus lives, and He's worthy of our worship.
This is the bit I don't like. They too choose the evidence that fits their beliefs, just like scholars who pick the evidence taht doesn't support the Bible because they don't believe it's true.
Religious or atheistic background (or anything in between) should not come into play when it comes to assessing the evidence.
I once attended an interestin conference on biblical arcaheology. There a speaker, a Christian scholar, a very very good ceramicist... but he concluded his very scientific lecture by producing some biblical text on the screen saying that archaeological evidence of course supports the Word of God because the Word of God is true. Fine if you believe that, but as a scientific argument you make yoruself completely untrustworthy IMHO. While his ceramic knowledge was impeccable.
acceptable, however, if you are supposing that the historical accuracy of the Bible is a testament to its validity, then the same standard must be held for other religious texts, many of which are much more accurate in their description of specific historical events and figures.
I'm no scholar, but the historicity of Mohammad is much less controversial than the historicity of Jesus.
Any assertion that the four biblical Gospels are historically irrelevant, is exceedingly disinformed. The New Testament Gospels remain the most accurate and trustworthy source of historical data on Jesus of Nazareth.
Strobel does an excellent job of presenting the case for the historicity of the Gospels.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
They are the only historical data on Jesus of Nazareth; with a few exceptions. Sense Jesus was so important in his time, you would think there were more.
Timbo: Regardless of what evidence there is for Jesus, there is still far more documentation for Mohammad, he almost certainly existed, whereas there is considerable doubt about Christ.
If historical accuracy is proof of validity, why then is Islam not more true than Christianity?
KMC Community Forums
Feb 23rd, 2008 07:19 PM
