I have never heard of anything like this happening. As I mentioned above, no one would care what the British Museum thinks. In fact, it would make for some great laughs at conferences.
The British Museum doesn’t have the power to do anything like that. University personnel decisions are made by departments, not by outside organizations. No university would care what a museum thinks when make tenuring decisions. On top of that, universities grant tenure to people like for the specific purpose of shielding us from outsiders who want to put pressure on us to modify our conclusions. Not a perfect system, but it’s better than no system.
Can you provide an example? Could it have been because they thought the museum had conclusively answered the question?
He has evidence about the Shroud’s provenance before the middle ages? If so, he has more evidence than I’ve ever seen.
No. I thought I made it clear that I neither know if the Shroud is authentic, nor do I have the expertise to make any determinations about it.
It really doesn’t work that way. The historical profession relies on scholars constantly revising the theories we have, in order to make them better. No one, and I seriously mean, no one will survive long in the profession if they are concerned about not stepping on toes.
Yes he certainly did. I think one of the areas of historical Jesus research that has come closer to a consensus in the last decade has been that he was an apocalyptic preacher who deliberately modeled himself after Elijah.
I have a lot of friends who wish they would have taken this path!
Sorry to hear about Prof. Pitre. It sounds like his college experience wasn’t what he was expecting. That’s always a shame. On the other hand, I’m curious about why his faith was influenced by his professors. I’m always clear in my classes (and my threads!) that I’m a historian, not a theologian. I’m not doing apologetics, my work is based solely on historical evidence. I, and all honest historians, need approach our work not from any particular faith tradition, but from the evidence.
There is historical evidence for these beliefs, so they are legitimate views to hold. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with them.
Yup. That is a major problem in my field. People starting with a conclusion. An honest historian would start with the evidence, and not from any particular faith tradition. That is so much easier said than done, however.
Ok. So what historical evidence is there for the claim the Gospels were originally anonymous?
This gets a bit out of my comfort zone, but I’ll give it a try.
No, Jesus was certainly not a socialist. On the other hand, he was also not a capitalist. In fact, he wasn’t an economist at all.
Not I see any evidence for. Some of the earliest followers lived in collective systems, but there is no evidence that they saw that as an economic system.
I don’t think Jesus proposed anything that can be reasonably considered an economic system. He was an apocalyptic preacher concerned about the coming of the Kingdom of God, not economics or politics, or any other such things.
Excellent! This is a nice rejoinder to those with an economic agenda to push claiming Jesus was this or that label.
His response to your post is # 76
Which ones? I’m looking at a table that shows the oldest manuscripts, dated from 2nd century through 5th century…none are anonymous. Perhaps you can provide me with names of the codices you are referencing?KMC:
The fact that all of the manuscripts are anonymous.
I hear what you are saying; however, that (i.e. he wasn’t an economist at all) is personally difficult to understand based on his teaching. He sure seems to be part economist in my humble opinion. Perhaps something was lost in translation somewhere.