tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14521325.post2664623085005771029..comments2008-07-15T17:53:17.522ZJames Crossleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10661575117163837659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14521325.post-80466553484359384752008-07-15T17:53:00.000Z2008-07-15T17:53:00.000ZAndrew, if the present is based on the past, then surely it is important to understand the past, otherwise your present could be based on lies. And how would you know what 'mistakes' had been made? <BR/><BR/>Leon, what makes you think that people with a particular theological/political/historical bent, didn't 'bend' what you describe as the scientific evidence?Geoff Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14521325.post-86056040211623277552008-07-14T20:07:00.000Z2008-07-14T20:07:00.000ZWhy is it that of all the possible combinations of approaches to the Bible, the historical approach is the one that always gets eliminated? The theological approach is the one that dominates since time immemorial, even in the so-called historical study of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>If you follow decent scientific method, it is possible to establish certain things about the historical Jesus beyond reasonable doubt. But this is avoided and I would even say suppressed in historical Jesus studies. There are rules in present-day scholarship and no one examines these rules. The most effective and powerful system in the world is the one that operates unconsciously (that is a paraphrase of something Kierkegaard said). Scholars are bent on eliminating exonerating evidence for Jewish leaders and Judas in the death of Jesus, even though the evidence is right there under their collective noses. No matter what fancy new names anyone gives these studies, it is still rather indecent of scholars to suppress discussion of all this. As Shakespeare complained in "The Tempest", people love filling the Bible with new contents.<BR/><BR/>Leon ZitzerLeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03309421171161805736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14521325.post-76061196263761524692008-07-13T03:27:00.000Z2008-07-13T03:27:00.000ZMy former University (somewhere in West Yorkshire) appears to be following your second interpretation as Biblical Studies as they believe that the present is more important than the past, not that they will repeat any mistakes !!!Andrew Bourne BA(Leeds)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14521325.post-36255955492366374982008-07-12T16:02:00.000Z2008-07-12T16:02:00.000ZSeems like a great escape from the earliest history.Geoff Hudsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.com