Steven Carr

A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrect...singlefile.pdf This is by Tim and Lydia McGrew

What assumptions should scholars start off with?

'Our argument will proceed on the assumption that we have a substantially accurate text of the four gospels, Acts, and several of the undisputed Pauline epistles (most significantly Galatians and I Corinthians); that the gospels were written, if not by the authors whose names they now bear, at least by disciples of Jesus or people who knew those disciples – people who
knew at first hand the details of his life and teaching or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses....'

I see.

So they start with the assumption that the authors of the Gospels were disciples or people who knew at first hand the details of his life, or people who spoke to those eyewitnesses.

'Where the texts do assert something miraculous – for example,
Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances – we take it, given the basic assumption of authenticity, that the narrative represents what someone relatively close to the situation claimed.'

What assumptions are wrong?

'The role of such naturalism as a motivating factor in the work of the form critics is often explicit, but as an argument against a more traditional position it suffers from the obvious drawback of circularity.'

I see.

So form critics are motivated soley by naturalism (no matter how many Reverends , priests and clerics have done form criticism), and obviously they simply cannot just argue from the assumption of naturalism because of the obvious drawback of circularity.

So the correct assumption to start from is that the Gospels were written by people close to Jesus.

Little wonder that Biblical scholarship is very often a pseudo-subject, not fit for universities.

Toto

BUT - are these people NT scholars? I think they are Catholic apologists who use post-modern concepts to justify their medieval views.

Timothy J. McGrew teaches philosophy at Western Michigan University, and is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers.

Lydia McGrew The mainstream of NT studies has enough problems, without adding this.

Steven Carr

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.ne..._the_resu.html

How more mainstream can you get than Blackwell Publishing?

Toto

But they are doing philosophy and/or theology, not NT studies. Craig had a degree in philosophy, and is a Christian apologist, but I do not think that he counts as an NT scholar, much less a mainstream one.

Clivedurdle

Archbish of Canterbury is also a former Professor of Theology - suppose he also knows nothing about NT! :devil1:

(Isn't NT studies a subset of theology?)

Ben C Smith

Perhaps a new thread bearing the title What assumptions does Steven Carr have about mainstream Biblical scholarship? ought to be started. It appears he assumes that all highly educated Christians qualify as mainstream Bible scholars, even if their field of education is... philosophy or English!

Ben.

Ben C Smith

There has been a book written that attempts to span the gap between biblical studies and theology: Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Note the book description:

This pioneering work bridges the long-standing gap between biblical studies and theology.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic

I agree with Toto that these are not NT scholars and their assumptions are certainly not mainstream. Going by what is quoted above, it appears that they've never even read an introductory book on NT criticism. Their fatuous whining about "materialism" (i.e. the perfectly rational and necessary assumption that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise) is bog-standard, hack apology. It's the sheerest, pseudo-academic sophistry. It all looks very similar to Craig to me. Not only in their obfuscatory, epistemological special pleading but also in their ludicrous expectation that the audience should accept a priori that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. This is intended for naive, unschooled audiences only. This is not NT scholarship.

Solitary Man

NT studies is actually an umbrella term for historical studies of the new testament, literary studies of the new testament, comparative studies of the new testament, and theological studies of the new testament.

Steven Carr

Why then would Blackwell Publishing commission articles from such people?

By way of contrast, there are NT journals which refuse to discuss any aspect of mythicism, even if paid to do so.