Not necessarily, J. You have never heard the term "scholar and theologian" so and so? Many scholar have degrees in theology. And many theologians have embraced the HCM, such as Father Kannengiesser, Emeritus Professor at the University of Notre Dame, who states this with regards to HCM[s]:
"... works of modern textual criticism have revealed data which constitute a 'revolution in methods of Biblical exegesis' so that the facts relating to Jesus recorded in the Gospels are no longer 'to be taken literally', they are 'writings suited to an occasion' or 'combat writings'. Modern knowledge has brought to light the history of Judeo-Christianity and the rivalry between communities which accounts for the existence of facts that today's readers find disconcerting. The concept of eyewitness evangelists is no longer defensible, although numerous Christians still retain it today... It was almost obligatory to have such stories available,” the theologian says; “they were stock stories told to convert people to Jesus.” Tales of virgin births, divine heroes, and miracles workers were relatively common 2,000 years ago and simply did not mean what they do to us today."----Kerry Temple (PhD), Editor, Notre Dame Magazine
So has Reverend Robert Krieg, Professor of Theology, who teaches Christology at Notre Dame. And Reverend Edward Schillebeck, O.P., a top Catholic, Dutch scholar, who said, while there are limitations to HCM, this is what we know:
“... is that there are limitations to what we can know by using the historical-critical approach. The only text that we have show Jesus already proclaimed as Christ by the church and by his first disciples. The New Testament is the testimony of a believing people, and what they are saying is not history but expressions of their belief in Jesus as Christ.’…"--Ibid
In principle, though, I agree with your overall statement.
Edited by seanph, 22 August 2007 - 08:45 PM.