"Thanks for reiterating what I said when noting Blomberg and Craig. I’m not sure what point you were attempting in the previous paragraph.
… It is not a matter of ‘accepting’ the other’s point but in being logically forced to answer it."
JF>> OK. Maybe a bit of clarificaqtion is in order since this has gone many different directions by many different posts. What you have to comment on “fundamentalist” scholars (although no one has really clearly defined what they mean by this or who they think these people are) is not what was originally posted and what J.G. and I have tried to rebut. Eutychus and Opus 1 where clearly using the term “fundamentalist” disparagingly, as a way to justify disregarding the article written by Geisler, a noted biblical scholar, found on John Ankerberg’s web site.
However, your reference to “fundalemntalist” seems to have more to do with:
“Ramsay’s opera (the object of my post) has not been addressed by any serious scholar in decades except as a reference point to a few historical notes that he established.”
JF>>Regarding Ramsay, I haven’t read his work. But if someone is trying to make a name for themselves and do their own research and excavations, it isn’t likely that they would refer to his work except to buttress their position. Quite frankly I don’t find many scholars that are doing there own research that refer to other scholars in general. Not out of disrespect for anyone else, but to let their own work stand on its own two feet.
For instance, I am a lighting designer by trade. I have long since stopped refering to my education and mentors in my resume and biographies for programs because I have a body of work of my own that stands on its own.
So, Tom. Where are you not finding Ramsay mentioned that you think he should be that would indicate him a scholar of more note?
And what body of work that has been presented here are you refering to when you say:
"However, there is no reason why either would be ignored by all the possible factions in the scholarly community. When the only support comes from within any particular ideology and no other ideological group even bothers to offer criticism, that is a pretty clear indicator of polemics. "
(Straying a bit here from what Tom posted) As for whether or not W. Ramsay is noted in an encyclopedia, how many archaeologists are noted at all? So what if Ramsay is not listed. Few archaeologists are, fewer who specialize in one field of study, fewer still any who specialize in biblical scholarship. But since this is the Britanica that was mentioned, I wonder if Ramsay’s work is refered to on topics relating to what he studied.
"Is it possible that Dex was too hasty in dismissing the possibility of an Augustan census prior to 1 C.E.? Sure. "
JF>>I would have to say that is an understatement. And certainly makes his article suspect, as even what you have presented as valid research would indicate.
Overall, Tom, I think you have presented some very good points. Most of which I agree with. But you haven’t really clearly indicated where they are relavent to the discussions posted. You did clear up your point refering to Ramsay, however. Thanks.