How are Biblical scholars still Protestant?

[ethereality]

I'm currently reading The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg. It alarms me that he speaks as a historian yet is still Protestant, if I'm not mistaken, and happily teaching at Denver Seminary. How can one be a good historian regarding the Bible and yet not be Catholic?

Answering that question myself, I regard the manner that an expert physicist and biologist can remain an atheist: We all bring prejudices with which we interpret data to maintain a consistent worldview. But for scientists this question is different: Theology is separate from physics and biology. But regarding historians, our faith rests upon historical claims: For a historian to reject them seems necessarily to imply at least one of the following:

• He's a bad historian.
• He's embracing a lie even while he knows the truth.
• He's ignorant of the history corresponding to these claims.
• The history is ambiguous, so the correct party's case is not as strong as previously believed. Hence we mustn't think we're necessarily right.
• He's a good historian: The claims are false.

There might be a few more options.

What are your thoughts? Have you read this book? (I'm about 62% finished with it at the time of writing this post.) Is Blomberg a good historian? Is he still Protestant? If so, why?

Please note: I use traditional (standard) English gender-neutral writing, 'he' referring to both sexes when the person is not specified: It is redundant and unnecessary to say 'he or she' every time, and it slows down reading, and it is confusing to sometimes say 'he' and other times say 'she'.

[CapitalT]

I can't speak for him or other historians. In my own experience as a Protestant, however, I see now that I consistently and unwittingly came to the Bible and historical Christian writers, such as Augustine and Aquinas and Irenaeus and others, with a very Protestant "lens." And seeing the Bible and early church writings through that lens can work; it isn't an impossible feat. What needs to be questioned is the "lens" itself.

[Cat Herder]

Originally Posted by ethereality

I'm currently reading The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg. It alarms me that he speaks as a historian yet is still Protestant, if I'm not mistaken, and happily teaching at Denver Seminary

He'll probably lose his tenure if he does the right thing.

Pray for his conversion.

[ethereality]

CapitalT, good point. I forget that there are "flavors" to historians. I think there are likewise differing schools of thought regarding economics, politics, psychology, and sociology. (I think that phrase "schools of thought" is itself a descriptive phrase for that lens which you mention, which Steve Ray has spoken about often on the show.) And, regarding those fields, some approaches I see as "more correct" than others (although that may just be a measure of similarity to my own beliefs); likewise for history...

Originally Posted by Cat Herder

He'll probably lose his tenure if he does the right thing.

Pray for his conversion.

Thanks for your concern, and please let's. However, he expressly says in pages 22 and 23 of his introduction that he feels no coercion regarding his beliefs of the Gospel accounts' historical integrity, that he would have no problem finding or taking up another job offer, "rather than sign a doctrinal statement [he] could not affirm with integrity" (23). True, he's talking only about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, but I think he's sitting comfortably in the field so that, even if he were to quit being a Protestant, he would not have difficulty getting hired at a Catholic seminary or university. Then again, I am ignorant of such matters (e.g. how different Protestant and Catholic teaching job markets are).

[BornAgain2010]

I think it also depends on what Bible they are studying from. If its taken from the Lutheran version, then of course its going to be wrong as it was written by man (thus, not divinely inspired and therefore heretical). But if he studies the Catholic Bible, then he would be studying the true Bible.

[po18guy]

Consider that any given word, in a dictionary of your choice, has several meanings that are dependent upon the context in which the word is used. Add together the number of meanings for each word in the bible and scripture then apparently contains at least 35,000 different meanings (and counting). When one's interpretation of these words has only the ego to guide, you get individual doctrine. Each individual pope then disagrees with the one true Pope. By rejecting Church authority, one places himself in authority.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by ethereality

I'm currently reading The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg. It alarms me that he speaks as a historian yet is still Protestant, if I'm not mistaken, and happily teaching at Denver Seminary. How can one be a good historian regarding the Bible and yet not be Catholic?

But regarding historians, our faith rests upon historical claims: For a historian to reject them seems necessarily to imply at least one of the following:

• He's a bad historian.
• He's embracing a lie even while he knows the truth.
• He's ignorant of the history corresponding to these claims.
• The history is ambiguous, so the correct party's case is not as strong as previously believed. Hence we mustn't think we're necessarily right.
• He's a good historian: The claims are false.

There might be a few more options.
What are your thoughts? Have you read this book? (I'm about 62% finished with it at the time of writing this post.) Is Blomberg a good historian? Is he still Protestant? If so, why?

I haven't read that book, but I'm currently reading the books and listening to the lectures of biblical historian Bart Ehrman.
His research is compelling.

He's a James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina where he's Director of Graduate Studies and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies....he's a graduate of Wheaton College (a Christian liberal arts college)....has a Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude....and he's published approx 20 books on the New Testament and Early Christianity.

He's been studying the NT for thirty-five years and his history is meticulous and exhaustive and he's...agnostic!

I'm very curious as to what you think and feel if/when Blomberg brings up historical data/facts that are different than what you've been taught?

I'm gonna pick up Blomberg's book and tell ya what I think...

[Hokomai]

Forgive me if I am being obtuse, but I cannot immediately bring to mind a dispute about biblical history in which the Catholic/Protestant 'lens' is important. I mean history, as distinct from interpretation for religious purposes of meaning.

[JRKH]

There are any number of reasons why someone can be a Bible Scholar and still be Protestant.
The main one though spin off of being "dyed in the wool" Protestant, attending Protestant university/seminary/bible school so that every fiber of ones being is drenched in the Protestant understanding and interpretation.

In this immersion many things are seen differently. Terms are defined and understood differently. Just as one example the simple term "church" is understood quite differently by a Protestant than by a Catholic. So - when they read the word "church" in Scripture an entirely different thought comes to mind. Likewise with the term "justified" or "righteous".

Because the Protestant community has had some 500 years to work on this, they have cobbled together a pretty fair theology such that doing something simple like pointing out that "The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth" has little effect since they have already fitted this into their understanding....

This continues into the reading of the ECF's and Church history. As someone else mentioned, they tend to read these things through a Protestant lens - also likely acquired through their protestant theological training.
Of course when it comes to history things begin to get more diverse. Some Protestants readily accept the work of the Catholic church up to a point (the reformation or the great Schism) while others reject the "Romish Church" from it's supposed point of creation by Constantine....

So long as the Scholar does not have is world shook by some internal strife - glaring incongruity or whatever, he can happily go along for his entire life. If he DOES have things shook up and is able to take off the Protestant glasses, whole new worlds open up and the next thing you know Marcus Grodi has a new guest on The Journey Home...

Peace
James

[Farsight001]

I believe that a portion of them are Catholic at heart, knowing, consciously, that the Church is the truth, but staying in their positions to guide others in the Church's direction, because they know their teachings and advice would not be afforded an ear if they were openly Catholic.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

I haven't read that book, but I'm currently reading the books and listening to the lectures of biblical historian Bart Ehrman.
His research is compelling.

He's a James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina where he's Director of Graduate Studies and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies....he's a graduate of Wheaton College (a Christian liberal arts college)....has a Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude....and he's published approx 20 books on the New Testament and Early Christianity.

He's been studying the NT for thirty-five years and his history is meticulous and exhaustive and he's...agnostic!

I'm very curious as to what you think and feel if/when Blomberg brings up historical data/facts that are different than what you've been taught?

I'm gonna pick up Blomberg's book and tell ya what I think...

Oh, I meant to add...that Ehrman began his studies of the bible as a "born again" Christian...and became agnostic along the way, as he did his research.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Forgive me if I am being obtuse, but I cannot immediately bring to mind a dispute about biblical history in which the Catholic/Protestant 'lens' is important. I mean history, as distinct from interpretation for religious purposes of meaning.

If by biblical history you mean events recorded in the Bible I would agree with you.

However I think what is being referred to here is the history of Christianity, The Church, Western civilization, the Orthodox, development of the canon and so forth. In these things the "lens" is quite important. For example....
The Catholic says that the Catholic Church began on Pentecost. Certain protestant "Scholars" will say that the Church began around 325 AD and was founded by Constantine.
Different perspectives ("lenses").

Peace
James

[Zenas]

Craig Blomberg is a Baptist scholar teaching in a conservative Baptist seminary. He mostly tells it like it is in his writings. However, like most Protestants of any stripe, he hasn't connected the dots and unless he recognizes that there are dots to connect, he will never try.

[CapitalT]

Originally Posted by JRKH

If by biblical history you mean events recorded in the Bible I would agree with you.

However I think what is being referred to here is the history of Christianity, The Church, Western civilization, the Orthodox, development of the canon and so forth. In these things the "lens" is quite important. For example....
The Catholic says that the Catholic Church began on Pentecost. Certain protestant "Scholars" will say that the Church began around 325 AD and was founded by Constantine.
Different perspectives ("lenses").

Peace
James

Yeah, that is what I meant. Catholics and Protestants look at the same history (events, writings) very differently. I would give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt that he is not actively suppressing truth but acting out of Protestant categories he has already presupposed.

[Rascalking]

Blomberg is a brilliant scholar who is widely respected by both Catholics and Protestants, liberal scholars and conservative ones. He's a role model of mine and I admire him deeply.