What Is Scholarship?

[John of Japan]

Not too long ago on a thread I objected to the faulty scholarship of a source used by my opponent in the debate. My opponent never fully answered my objections, but showed his ire by putting me on ignore. (BTW, the source's quotes were from centuries after the event in question, so not reliable.) I had two grounds for the objection:

(1) The source was apparently a church of Christ pastor, had pastored 9 CofC churches, and been employed by a major CofC college. In case you don't know, the CofC is generally a baptismal regeneration heresy. I ran into them many times when I lived in Tennessee. My opponent claimed that many CofC preachers didn't believe that heresy, and how dare I insult his friend.

(2) The source my opponent used had a degree from an apparent degree mill. Anytime a college or grad school's website doesn't list the faculty and their experience and degrees, it's a degree mill, you can be sure.

This brings up the question, what is scholarship? My answer:

1. Scholarship is a search for truth. Anyone here on the BB can honestly search for the truth, and do honest and good research to find it.
2. Scholarship does not depend on degrees. I know people with impressive doctorates who are not scholars, but twist facts to fit their own narratives. On the other hand, someone with no advanced degrees can turn out to be a genuine scholar. One example is William G. Pierpont, who along with Dr. Maurice Robinson, edited the Byzantine textform Greek NT (https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Original-Greek/dp/0759800774). Now Dr. Robinson is a well-credentialed, well-known, and highly respected scholar of textual criticism, but Pierpont was a retired engineer. However, Pierpont made himself into a genuine scholar by his diligent research. (Check out his background with the Amazon link I gave.)
3. Scholarship is willing to change its view when genuine evidence is presented.
4. Having said all of that, getting a genuine college or grad school/seminary degree teaches good research methodology, thus good scholarship. In my classes where a research paper is required, I give lectures about how to do research, what sources are acceptable, and how to cite sources. Again, I am working on a D.Min. degree, and the first class I had to take was one on how to do research for the D.Min.

So, what do you think? Do we see much scholarship on the BB?

P. S. My opponent on the above-mentioned thread said at one point, "You claim to be a scholar...." No, I do not claim that, though some have said it about me. But I do try to do good, scholarly work.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The best Teacher that any Christian can ever have, is the Holy Spirit. I have read many books and heard many messages by "scholars", that are shallow and light-weight. Just because a person might be a DD, does not mean that they are any good at what they teach! N T Wright is a "scholar", and teaches a load of codswallop!

 

[John of Japan]

The best Teacher that any Christian can ever have, is the Holy Spirit. I have read many books and heard many messages by "scholars", that are shallow and light-weight. Just because a person might be a DD, does not mean that they are any good at what they teach! N T Wright is a "scholar", and teaches a load of codswallop!

I agree: the Holy Spirit definitely leads to truth, and is a huge help in genuine scholarship. However, "faith without works is dead." In other words, the Holy Spirit will help in research, since one part of the fruit of the Spirit is self-control. However, He will not do the research for us.

Also, what I wrote above applies also to non-Biblical fields. For example, if an evolution-believing scientist will genuinely examine the evidence, he or she will realize that evolution was developed without the scientific method, and will change his or her view.

 

[SavedByGrace]

For example, if an evolution-believing scientist will genuinely examine the evidence, he or she will realize that evolution was developed without the scientific method, and will change his or her view.

I think that most "scholars" or "experts" who believe in the devilish delusion of Evolution, are self-convinced that the "science" is on their said. They will also say that they genuinely examined the evidence, but because of their mind-set, which cannot allow for God to Create, that they will always discount this, and look to their "science" for their answers. I like the KJV's translation on 1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

 

[John of Japan]

I think that most "scholars" or "experts" who believe in the devilish delusion of Evolution, are self-convinced that the "science" is on their said. They will also say that they genuinely examined the evidence, but because of their mind-set, which cannot allow for God to Create, that they will always discount this, and look to their "science" for their answers. I like the KJV's translation on 1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

Well said.

 

[agedman]

Scholars hip.

A large callus built from sitting for extended time reading research.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There are several aspects of true scholarship. For example, true scholarship should involve careful research, careful reflection, careful expression.

A bona fide degree only means one should have the necessary tools. The lack of one does not mean the opposite.

The credentials of scholarship will ultimately be the results. But this raises another question. Who is competent to judge said scholarship?

 

[John of Japan]

There are several aspects of true scholarship. For example, true scholarship should involve careful research, careful reflection, careful expression.

A bona fide degree only means one should have the necessary tools. The lack of one does not mean the opposite.

I agree.

The credentials of scholarship will ultimately be the results. But this raises another question. Who is competent to judge said scholarship?

Any true scholar should be competent to judge true scholarship. In other words, if someone loves truth, they can recognize it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not too long ago on a thread I objected to the faulty scholarship of a source used by my opponent in the debate. My opponent never fully answered my objections, but showed his ire by putting me on ignore. (BTW, the source's quotes were from centuries after the event in question, so not reliable.) I had two grounds for the objection:

(1) The source was apparently a church of Christ pastor, had pastored 9 CofC churches, and been employed by a major CofC college. In case you don't know, the CofC is generally a baptismal regeneration heresy. I ran into them many times when I lived in Tennessee. My opponent claimed that many CofC preachers didn't believe that heresy, and how dare I insult his friend.

(2) The source my opponent used had a degree from an apparent degree mill. Anytime a college or grad school's website doesn't list the faculty and their experience and degrees, it's a degree mill, you can be sure.

This brings up the question, what is scholarship? My answer:

1. Scholarship is a search for truth. Anyone here on the BB can honestly search for the truth, and do honest and good research to find it.
2. Scholarship does not depend on degrees. I know people with impressive doctorates who are not scholars, but twist facts to fit their own narratives. On the other hand, someone with no advanced degrees can turn out to be a genuine scholar. One example is William G. Pierpont, who along with Dr. Maurice Robinson, edited the Byzantine textform Greek NT (https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Original-Greek/dp/0759800774). Now Dr. Robinson is a well-credentialed, well-known, and highly respected scholar of textual criticism, but Pierpont was a retired engineer. However, Pierpont made himself into a genuine scholar by his diligent research. (Check out his background with the Amazon link I gave.)
3. Scholarship is willing to change its view when genuine evidence is presented.
4. Having said all of that, getting a genuine college or grad school/seminary degree teaches good research methodology, thus good scholarship. In my classes where a research paper is required, I give lectures about how to do research, what sources are acceptable, and how to cite sources. Again, I am working on a D.Min. degree, and the first class I had to take was one on how to do research for the D.Min.

So, what do you think? Do we see much scholarship on the BB?

P. S. My opponent on the above-mentioned thread said at one point, "You claim to be a scholar...." No, I do not claim that, though some have said it about me. But I do try to do good, scholarly work.

Think one can be both saved and also a good scholar, as sometimes it seemed that higher education was frowned upon in certain circles, as one just needed" the Holy Ghost"
One must be of a biblical mindset thought, as there have been very learned persons who were very foolish, see Bultmann and Wright for examples!

 

[Yeshua1]

The best Teacher that any Christian can ever have, is the Holy Spirit. I have read many books and heard many messages by "scholars", that are shallow and light-weight. Just because a person might be a DD, does not mean that they are any good at what they teach! N T Wright is a "scholar", and teaches a load of codswallop!

You mean NT Wrong? hnis views on the physical resurrection very biblical, but regarding Justification not so much!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that most "scholars" or "experts" who believe in the devilish delusion of Evolution, are self-convinced that the "science" is on their said. They will also say that they genuinely examined the evidence, but because of their mind-set, which cannot allow for God to Create, that they will always discount this, and look to their "science" for their answers. I like the KJV's translation on 1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

They seek to have science and scriptures to be in agreement, but they do that by making "assumed" scientific facts trump and override the scriptures!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…
(1) The source was apparently a church of Christ pastor, had pastored 9 CofC churches, and been employed by a major CofC college. In case you don't know, the CofC is generally a baptismal regeneration heresy. I ran into them many times when I lived in Tennessee. My opponent claimed that many CofC preachers didn't believe that heresy, and how dare I insult his friend.

(2) The source my opponent used had a degree from an apparent degree mill. Anytime a college or grad school's website doesn't list the faculty and their experience and degrees, it's a degree mill, you can be sure.
...

I consider that these two points take the matter sideways, interfere with true scholarly assessment, are in essence ad hominem. Here’s why.

(1)I’ve known some from that non-denominational denomination as well. They can be quite scholarly and should not be discounted on that score. To discount them thus would be quite unscholarly and detract from an otherwise scholarly counterargument.

(2)Having a degree from an apparent degree mill is also not enough to discount the supposed scholarship. It may raise a red flag, but so does discounting something because of its supposed indirect association with that mill. It’s what happens post-mill that is at issue.

I most appreciate true scholarship not because of its conclusions, which can yet be faulty, even biased, but because of its depth and breadth of presentation that allows me to draw my own.

True scholarship takes a great amount of patient effort and affords few if any shortcuts.

 

[John of Japan]

I consider that these two points take the matter sideways, interfere with true scholarly assessment, are in essence ad hominem. Here’s why.

(1)I’ve known some from that non-denominational denomination as well. They can be quite scholarly and should not be discounted on that score. To discount them thus would be quite unscholarly and detract from an otherwise scholarly counterargument.

As necessary for my profession, I'm well acquainted with the world of Bible scholarship, and can't think of any CofC scholars who have made solid contributions. But there's a lot I don't know. At any rate, to promote heresy in the area of the substitutionary atonement of Christ demonstrates a lack of love for the truth. Seeking for truth is my main qualification for scholarship.

I have the book of the 1935 debate between W. L. Oliphant (CofC) and John R. Rice (Baptist). I didn't see much true scholarship on the side of Oliphant.

(2)Having a degree from an apparent degree mill is also not enough to discount the supposed scholarship. It may raise a red flag, but so does discounting something because of its supposed indirect association with that mill. It’s what happens post-mill that is at issue.

Here is the thing. Pursuing a genuine master's or doctorate requires many thousands of hours and many thousands of dollars. Believe me, I know! It thus requires character and tremendous work and expense.

On the other hand, getting a degree mill degree takes a minimum of work (maybe a book report for reading 100 pages for 3 credits) and a few hundred dollars. Thus, getting a degree from a degree mill shows a significant lack of character. The "doctor" with a degree from one of those places simply wishes for the honor but doesn't want to spend the money or time to do it right. Thus--a lack of love for truth.

I recently corresponded with friend who is a genuine scholar with a genuine doctorate, and he asked me to pray for him as he writes a new book and I will. He once advised a young man who was going for a bogus degree to go for a real one, since he had the brains for it. I've followed that man's career, and his lack of scholarship shows.

I most appreciate true scholarship not because of its conclusions, which can yet be faulty, even biased, but because of its depth and breadth of presentation that allows me to draw my own.

Agreed

True scholarship takes a great amount of patient effort and affords few if any shortcuts.

And yet, to get a degree mill advanced degree is a huge shortcut. I have genuine BA, Japanese language school, and MA diplomas. That tells me how hard it is to get a genuine degree. More than that, however, my son has three grad degrees. Watching him get his PhD was a big eye opener as to what a genuine doctorate means in comparison to a degree mill PhD. For example, he had to learn two languages just to be able to read the theologians in those countries, French and German.

 

[percho]

Does being a scholar through scholarship necessarily mean one knows, truth?

I would say a man could be a scholar through his scholarship of eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil yet it would be faulty scholarship if the following hasn't taken place:

Jesus, therefore, said unto the Jews who believed in him, 'If ye may remain in my word, truly my disciples ye are, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' John 8:31,32 YLT
Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.' John 6:29 YLT
the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it doth not behold him, nor know him, and ye know him, because he doth remain with you, and shall be in you. John 14:17 YLT
'And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father -- the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me; John 15:26 YLT
and when He may come -- the Spirit of truth -- He will guide you to all the truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but as many things as He will hear He will speak, and the coming things He will tell you; John 16:13 YLT

BTW I am not and do not consider myself a scholar in anything with my 12 grades of education. And I envy all of you scholars. I would not say I am to old but at 78 I feel I have more time behind than in front.

Consider the following also.

wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus is anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3 YLT
that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:10,11 YLT
having made known to us the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure, that He purposed in Himself, in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him; Eph 1:9,10 YLT

I think I know, it is not scholarly to use the YLT.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is an example of how the theological presuppositions of a liberal Bible translator affected his scholarship. The TEV (Good News for Modern Man) was originally a translation done by one man, a liberal SBC scholar named Robert Bratcher. (See more about him at: Good News Bible translator dies; opposed inerrantists: Robert Bratcher supported dynamic equivalence.) He had been asked by dynamic equivalence inventor Eugene Nida to do a dynamic equivalence version that could serve as a model for missionary translators; thus, the TEV was the first translation done with the DE methodology.

To continue, Bratcher had a presupposition that the blood of Christ didn't really save, wasn't efficacious. So in various passages he translated the Greek word for "blood" (haima, αἰμα): Acts 20:28, Col. 1:14, etc.). So, Bratcher proved his lack of scholarship by his obedience to his presupposition about the blood of Christ, and thus abandoned truth. There was such an outcry by Bible believers that the revisions, including the GNB, changed the rendering to the correct "blood." But I have a first edition of the NT, and it certainly has the original rendering. (I did a paper on this issue that I presented at the Bible Faculty Summit some years ago.)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Here is an example of how the theological presuppositions of a liberal Bible translator affected his scholarship. The TEV (Good News for Modern Man) was originally a translation done by one man, a liberal SBC scholar named Robert Bratcher. (See more about him at: Good News Bible translator dies; opposed inerrantists: Robert Bratcher supported dynamic equivalence.) He had been asked by dynamic equivalence inventor Eugene Nida to do a dynamic equivalence version that could serve as a model for missionary translators; thus, the TEV was the first translation done with the DE methodology.

To continue, Bratcher had a presupposition that the blood of Christ didn't really save, wasn't efficacious. So in various passages he translated the Greek word for "blood" (haima, αἰμα): Acts 20:28, Col. 1:14, etc.). So, Bratcher proved his lack of scholarship by his obedience to his presupposition about the blood of Christ, and thus abandoned truth. There was such an outcry by Bible believers that the revisions, including the GNB, changed the rendering to the correct "blood." But I have a first edition of the NT, and it certainly has the original rendering. (I did a paper on this issue that I presented at the Bible Faculty Summit some years ago.)

Yeah, I encountered an old CofC guy who pointed that out to me—“The bloodless gospel.” It didn’t exactly positively promote SBC scholarship.

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah, I encountered an old CofC guy who pointed that out to me—“The bloodless gospel.” It didn’t exactly positively promote SBC scholarship.

There was quite a battle going on in the SBC in those days about inspiration and inerrancy. I still have books about it by Harold Lindsell and W. A. Criswell.

 

[JonC]

I think it important to remember that scholarship is the pursuit of truth (a devotion and striving to arrive at the truth in a given field of study).

Scholar are often known for being taken where they may not want to go in their endeavors to arrive at the truth of a matter. What I mean here is they are not driven to support or prove their view but allow their views to be shaped by what they find.

Somebody mentioned NT Wright. He is an excellent example. Prior to his conclusion that the Reformers understood Paul within the context of the Catholic Church and the Reformation NT Wright was respected in the halls that now denounce his scholarship. Wright was (really still is) very reformed in his views. But his studies took him where he did not necessarily want to go (his statement was that he sees an error but does not know the complete correction).

Another (again reformed) scholar is Karl Barth. But reading his commentary on Romans against his later works it is easy to see Barth studied not to strengthen his view but to shape or transform his understanding.

And often scholars arrive at different places and end up disagreeing with one another. We're men not men Scholars probably would be more uniform in their conclusions.

My point is that scholarship is the opposite of studying with the intention to strengthen an already held understanding.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I envy all of you scholars. I would not say I am to old but at 78 I feel I have more time behind than in front.

Imagine living in the age of the Patriarchs. Isaac lived to be 180. At age 78 he would more than double his years. He'd have to live till 91 to say he thought he had more time behind than in front. (that is, if he would have had the knowledge of his eventual lifespan). In other words you're still a pup Percho.

 

[agedman]

I agree.

Any true scholar should be competent to judge true scholarship. In other words, if someone loves truth, they can recognize it.

I visited a strings appraiser and maker. He had been on the antique road show and is reliably renown with insurance companies.

As we discussed the appraisal industry, we focused on the detection of say a Stradivarius from some close copy.

He said when you experience and are familiar with the original, it is easy to discern the differences.

True scholars can typically recognize recognize scholarship, unless they have become so self important and narcissistic concerning their field they loose perspective.

Consider that such does not just effect scholars, but is the condition of any who lift self rather than exalt God.