andrewcriddle

Tom Brodie is I think something of a special case. In effect he is a Roman Catholic priest who has come to believe that Christianity, (or at least the Roman Catholic version of Christianity), is false and has published a book putting forward his current beliefs.

I don't realistically see how he could expect this not to have implications for his career.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Did Brodie say that Christianity is false if there was no historical Jesus? I didn't get the impression that he was rejection Christianity, although I haven't read the book.

andrewcriddle

What I said was: Brodie IIUC would still consider himself a Christian believer, (although others might feel he is stretching the boundaries of what can meaningfully be called Christian belief). What I honestly don't see is how he can still consider himself a Roman Catholic.

Brodie is not just saying that the historical evidence for Jesus is very flimsy. I think that this would be permissible for a Roman Catholic scholar. He is arguing that there was no historical Jesus and putting forward a radical alternative to the traditional view of Christian origins. An alternative that seems in flat contradiction to the early creeds and councils.

I have the same sort of problem with Loisy. Loisy was a major blblical scholar, (far more important than Brodie), and he was genuinely badly treated by the RC authorities of the time. But I find puzzling the way he continued to be a RC priest for some years after privately rejecting anything resembling traditional RC belief.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

No, Brodie did not reject Christianity.

jakejonesiv

You have made my point. The threat of being fired if you do not tow the dogmatic line has a chilling effect on others who may come to have doubts about a historical Jesus. Thus there can be no open and honest scholarship in the search for truth within religous institutions. That is indeed Tyranny over "Biblical Scholarship"

jakejonesiv

Apologists already know their answer to any question touching dogma before the discussion begins. So no matter how euridite the presentation, it is a false scholarship, a sham. So, you provide examples.:devil1:

andrewcriddle

Do you consider Brodie's views on Christian origins compatible in good faith with a position as an officially recognised teacher of Roman Catholic theology ?

Andrew Criddle

Vallhall

When saying biblical scholarship, is it not with reference to historical scholarship in general? I can not see the claim of a historical Jesus argued by non-believers as being the same historical Jesus argued by believers, and thus there is no historical Jesus agreed upon in terms of historical scholarship.

Without the myth, the only historical claim left is that of the greatest fraud and deceit in human history.

I know my curiosity can come of as basic ignorance. But my approach is influenced by a different cultural context. Jesus have always been referred to as a mythical image, while the historical image and all that follows come with nothing of value or relevance.

Does not Christian biblical scholars by logical necessity argue in favor of the mythicist position, as it is the required frame/context for the historical Jesus they argue under pretext of being work of scholarship?

I find this discussion really confusing. But perhaps that is why it interests me. Nonetheless, I feel more comfortable with simply observing discussion. Just had some questions before I "go back to my seat".

Grog

No. But that doesn't change the inference that scholars then can be motivated by self-interest to suppress conclusions that can jeopardize their careers. That's the point. You are making a different point: that, indeed, one should expect to lose their jobs if they espouse views that directly contradict the goals and objectives of their employer. Sure. No one out to be surprised.

Your position supports the hypothesis.

Grog

His views are not compatible with Roman Catholic teachings. When my views became incompatible with the mother Church, I discontinued my affiliation (to the extent that I can, once RC forever RC, so they say). My mother, definitely on the liberal end of RCism, once asked me at a family get together if I still believed in the transubstantiation. I said, "I can still relate to it and understand it on a theoretical level." (My brother leaned over to me and said, "Good answer.") It satisfied Mom, but I doubt it would pass the Inquisition.