Newsweek is at it again
Every Christmas and Easter, count on Time and Newsweek to trot out long, pretentious articles on the pseudo-scholarship surrounding the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, respectively.
The liberal opinion misrepresented by these magazines as "scientific" is in fact, quite simply, the story as viewed through the partisan lense of unbelief, just as the traditional account represents the matter as seen through the eyes of faith. Each is equally subjective; these matters purport to be miracles- exceptional, supernatural interventions from outside the normal realm of natural events- and thus are simply not subject to objective proof, one way or the other.
You believe, or you don't.
Screwball outfits like the Jesus Seminar actually presume to vote- on the basis, it turns out, of no particular evidence other than the unbelief of the scholars themselves- on whether individual sayints of Jesus are genuine or not. The average member of the public would be both astounded and edified by the knowledge (which they will not get from these newsmagazines) of just how much of what purports to be "scientific, scholarly opinion" on biblical matters is based on literally nothing at all- other than the personal prejudices and inclinations of the "scholars."
There is very, very little that is scientific or scholarly about "modern biblical scholarship." It's as much an assertion of unprovable faith-convictions on the part of the unbelievers at the margins of the Church (listened to, by the way, by almost nobody in the pews- and for good reason) as the simple, childlike faith of the authentic believer. One major difference: traditional belief, at least, is based on the testimony of the earliest available documents; "scholarly" apostasy is based on largely on guesswork and ego.
Anyway, Newsweek is at it again. Read it and weep.
The liberal opinion misrepresented by these magazines as "scientific" is in fact, quite simply, the story as viewed through the partisan lense of unbelief, just as the traditional account represents the matter as seen through the eyes of faith. Each is equally subjective; these matters purport to be miracles- exceptional, supernatural interventions from outside the normal realm of natural events- and thus are simply not subject to objective proof, one way or the other.
You believe, or you don't.
Screwball outfits like the Jesus Seminar actually presume to vote- on the basis, it turns out, of no particular evidence other than the unbelief of the scholars themselves- on whether individual sayints of Jesus are genuine or not. The average member of the public would be both astounded and edified by the knowledge (which they will not get from these newsmagazines) of just how much of what purports to be "scientific, scholarly opinion" on biblical matters is based on literally nothing at all- other than the personal prejudices and inclinations of the "scholars."
There is very, very little that is scientific or scholarly about "modern biblical scholarship." It's as much an assertion of unprovable faith-convictions on the part of the unbelievers at the margins of the Church (listened to, by the way, by almost nobody in the pews- and for good reason) as the simple, childlike faith of the authentic believer. One major difference: traditional belief, at least, is based on the testimony of the earliest available documents; "scholarly" apostasy is based on largely on guesswork and ego.
Anyway, Newsweek is at it again. Read it and weep.
Comments