Wednesday, March 28, 2012



SØREN?

Golly, it must be fun to be a “Biblical scholar.”  In what other profession do you get to make up your own facts?

Early Christianity was an oral culture launched by an illiterate Jesus Christ, according to two liberal New Testament scholars who spoke recently at a Jesus Seminar event in Washington, D.C.
Bernard Brandon Scott of Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Joanna Dewey, a professor emerita of Biblical Studies at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, argued that a later move into manuscripts minimalized the role of women in the early church.

Why was that?  Apparently chicks don’t write or something.


“Early Christianity was an oral culture based on oral authority,” Dewey claimed, adding that manuscripts were “inherently male” and eliminated women, while oral story kept them in.

Whatever you say, Jane Austen.


During one session of her presentation, Dewey donned a head covering and dramatically sought to “re-imagine” a female-centered telling of Mark’s gospel, performing as an imaginary late first century woman.

Why?


The Episcopal seminary professor described such a “reimagining” of Mark’s gospel as an important step in countering alleged sexist distortion of Biblical history. Women, Dewey argued, would be at center, rather than periphery, of any actual gospel events.

I guess that means that if it wasn’t for all those dumb men, you Catholics would be saying Hail Josephs all the time.  The dumb broad’s “male” associate agreed with her.


Scott agreed, asserting that “These days, unless you are a right-wing conservative, a feminist reading of the Bible is typical.”

Dude only said that to get laid.


Dewey was firm in her assertion that Jesus was illiterate.

What about that time Jesus read in the synagogue?


Refuting the Luke chapter 4 account of Christ reading in the synagogue as an invention of the gospel writer, Dewey claimed it was “because he couldn’t imagine Jesus as illiterate.”

The gospel writer


“Jesus did not know how to read and write, there was no reason to,” Dewey flatly declared, adding that while modern people take literacy for granted, “this was not true in antiquity.” Dewey offered that the only group among whom literacy was the norm at the time was the elite, with letters orally dictated and then performed before community.

Kind of makes you wonder why anybody in the ancient world ever wrote anything down at all what with there being nobody around to read any of it.  Speaking of reading, these two twits think that everybody ought to do what they spend their days doing.


Sweeping claims by Scott and Dewey, including an assertion that monastics rejected episcopal authority, went mostly unchallenged during the workshop at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill. Scott at one point suggested to the audience of 40 mostly elderly participants to “make up your own canon” of scripture.


“I would trade the book of Revelation for Hamlet any day,” Scott announced, adding that he would swap the Pastoral Epistles for any two Emily Dickinson poems. “We’d be way better off.”

I’m sure you would, cupcake.  These people sure did choose an odd line of work what with hating Christians and Christianity as passionately as they do.


Both Scott and Dewey shared their dismay at the continued worldwide spread of Evangelical Christianity and the failure of liberal religious thought to gain widespread traction. Both of the Jesus Seminar speakers complained that the prevalence of evangelicalism led to assumptions that it is the only viewpoint of Christianity, resulting in either adherence to evangelical belief or a rejection of Christianity altogether.


Mainline Protestants also earned Dewey’s scorn, as the retired Episcopal seminary professor expressed frustration at “pressure still there to preach [Bible] stories as true.”
“We’re not just talking about Evangelicals – but liberal, east coast Episcopalians,” Dewey fumed. Scott agreed, sharing that he no longer revealed to fellow airplane passengers that he was a New Testament scholar out of frustration with preconceived notions he encountered.


Maybe the reason why “liberal religious thought” never gained “traction” has something to do with the fact that too many of its adherents are arrogant, condescending, pseudo-intellectual douchebags(like these two) and most people don’t like being arrogant, condescending, pseudo-intellectual douchebags(like these two).  Just a thought.

Thanks to David Fischler.

No comments: