Talk:Robert E. Van Voorst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Awkward sentence[edit]

The current sentence "Van Voorst concludes that some of the non biblical sources discussed serve to corroborate "certain New Testament historical traditions on the family background, time of life, ministry, and death of Jesus", but that the New Testament sources remained more historically valuable." awkwardly lets Van Voorst suggest that he would only consider sources "historically valuable" if they corroborate the New Testament. Though, being a Christian pastor, he very well may have operated that way, consciously or subconsciously, it seems unlikely that he would admit to that in his conclusions. Maybe someone can paste in the full quote. Afasmit (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've quoted Van Voorst more fully. I think that my "serve to corroborate" was a bad choice of wording. Van Voorst does believe that some of the non-Christian sources discussed in the book corroborate parts of the New Testament and that this is useful, but I doubt he meant to imply that that those sources would have no historical value if they didn't. EALacey (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)