Camio

Following a recent thread on the alleged christian faith of the majority of NT scholars...

I've just stumbled upon a reference which puzzles me in "An Introduction to the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by the late Raymond E. Brown. It is page 30. The book is searchable on Amazon.com.

Here it is:

So it would mean that the most scientific, rational approach (presented page 29 with Reimarus, Strauss and Baur as godfathers) is not shared by the majority of the NT researchers? In other words, that their faith interferes in their work?

I hope I misunderstood what Brown is saying, or that he is himself mistaken regarding the majority "location".

Roger Pearse

It is generally a mistake to presume that only an atheist position on matters of religion is scientific or rational. It does, at the least, beg a large number of questions. I would hope that whatever NT researchers are doing should not depend on whatever their theological opinions are either way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Brown has not done a survey, but note that he refers to "teachers and writers," not researchers. I think that most teachers have a religious orientation and are employed by religious institutions.

mountainman

Dear Camio,

The key field shared between NT scholars and the rest of the planet is that of ancient history. If a thinking and rational NT scholar has faith in anything in an academic sense, the faith is placed in the authorities which have been established wrongly or rightfully in the field of ancient history. People like Hector Avalos have pointed out that in the last 100 years the field of archaeology has removed a great deal of blind faith surrounding much of the OT (Hebrew Bible) and the NT. No evidence has been forthcoming from the field of archaeology to support the contentions of NT history --- it has been becoming increasingly insular, and the tide keeps rising.

My research has demonstrated to me time and time again that people who are straight-faced atheists will still have faith in the claim that there was an historical jesus because of assertions made for centuries by great and dangerously powerful authorities. The key historical source for the NT history is Eusebius of Caesarea. Whether this is stated, or whether in fact it remains an unspoken assumption, the authority placed in this history is enormous, and even atheists have faith that it must be correct.

NT scholars are obliged to run with some theory of the history of the NT and the corresponding "christian origins", and in nearly all cases this history is sourced in Eusebius. So I dont know whether this helps your OP question, except to summarise by saying that "faith in the HJ" and "faith in the prenicene history of Eusebius regarding the HJ" are two separate faiths, only one of which has relevance (or otherwise) to the field of ancient history (IMO).

Best wishes,


Pete