Of course, no one has this myth of "everything about everything... reduced to 'the Realm of the physical science,'" so that would be a straw man argument. Unless of course, one can give some exact evidence to the contrary, when it comes to the Bible (the name of the forum),  biblical scholars' beliefs. So, that end of the spectrum isn't a part of biblical scholarship. In the Christian religion, on the other hand, the views DO seem to fall completely to the other side of the spectrum, with probably a majority at least reciting the mythical creeds of resurrection, virgin birth, God as creator, etc; believing it as factual. It's easy to create straw men arguments and set up a false scenario like we have below, even though the scenario doesn't exist, because it plays right into the mindset of those whose beliefs feeled threatened... Fear is powerful. We saw that exact reaction, of course, in the early part of the twentieth century, when Darwinism and other scientific discoveries left the religious community threatened to the point that some created Christian "fundamentals," which led to the term "fundamentalism" for those who put the scientific community at odds with some of the Christian community.  

Sep 15, 2010 -- 8:56PM, teilhard wrote:

So ... more from Bultmann, op. cit., p. 10 --

"Myth is an expression of man's conviction that the origin and purpose of the world in which he lives are to be sought not within it but beyond it -- that is, beyond the realm of known and tangible reality ... "

So ... The "Material-ist" World-View, in which EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING is reduced to "The Realm of the Physical Sciences," DOES indeed take on its own "Mythological" Character, i.e., in the CLAIM that  "Origins" and Meaning(s) -- if any -- are to be found ONLY in Matter and Energy, Space and Time ...

"I agree ... Hence my REJECTION of "Materialism" AND "Fundamentalism" and my Embrace of a POST-"Modern" View of these Questions ..."

They aren't questions. You have largely contrived a picture of "materialism" in your own image of it. I submit that your picture of the "materialist" is completely errant when it comes to biblical scholars. They sift through the dusty texts looking for meaning in them, looking for historicity in them. For instance, when they look at the six "exorcisms" in the synoptics, they conclude "Jesus drove out what were thought to be demons" (Acts of Jesus, index). They don't make the value judgment of what "demons" were. When they look at the nineteen "cures and resuscitations" they conlude "Jesus cured some sick people" (Acts of Jesus, index). When they look at the resurrection (raising) of Jesus, they use the "dusty texts" not to conclude that a resurrection of a corpse couldn't have occurred, but that it didn't occur.  It's not a "materialistic" statement denying a resurrection (raising), but several statements comporting to the various source material within the texts, canonical and otherwise. (Also used in addition to the canon are at least the Gospel of Peter, Pseudo-Mark, Gospel of Mary and Gospel of the Hebrews.)

So, in attempting to hang a "materialist" label on biblical scholarship, one misrepresents the scholarship.

So, now that this has been clarified, who are these "materialists" with whom you are at odds? And, is it relevant to biblical studies?

Problem? You've contrived a situation that doesn't exist, setting up a straw man argument based on nothing. At least you have given no specifics - examples and citations of this "materialist" worldview you seem to see as a threat. Threat to what? What threat?