Several posts with interconnected points and themes have come to my attention. One, an article by John Beddington in New Scientist magazine, seeks to explain the relationship between consensus, skepticism, and peer review. It is worth reading the whole thing, but here is a sample to whet your appetite:
Let’s return to what science actually is: the testing and retesting of hypotheses by experiment and scrutiny to create an evidence base. Where the evidence falls primarily on one side of an argument, a consensus is formed. Whether in policy advice, news reports or documentaries, to misrepresent the balance of evidence, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a dereliction of duty.
So I would issue the following challenges:
It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable. In a world of global communication, we cannot afford to only speak to ourselves. We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious.
The same may be said of any field of knowledge. Methods and degrees of certainty may vary, but the same principles apply on the whole.
And bringing these points to bear on the field of New Testament scholarship, Bob Cargill stands with Bart Ehrman against the attempt by some conservative critics to dismiss his methods and his conclusions. Cargill applauds the work Ehrman has done to bring mainstream scholarship into the view of a wider public. And while there is nothing wrong with scholars disagreeing, and doing so in a way that allows a wider public to listen in on the discussion, what we are witnessing in the case of “The Ehrman Project” is an attempt to give the impression that rejection of Ehrman’s methods and conclusions reflects the academic mainstream. But as Cargill notes, if we look closely at who is represented on “The Ehrman Project” site, it consists more or less entirely of professors connected with institutions that require you to sign a statement that essentially forces you to choose between following the evidence where it leads and keeping your job.
So I applaud Bob Cargill’s post, and happily stand alongside him and Bart Ehrman.
On related topics, Christopher Skinner at Peje Iesous continues discussing the general (wrong) impression many have of what academic Biblical studies classes involve. And Jonathan Kirsch discusses a recent book by Timothy Beal about the Bible.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In