New Testament scholarship - who are the gurus?

[unkleE]

Trying to maintain a reasonable viewpoint on NT history isn't easy for a layperson like me. I do not do scholarly research myself (a terrible admission, I know!) so I have to rely on the experts. I recognise that credentialled scholars can hold a range of opinion from faithful to the evangelical traditions through to totally sceptical, so I try to read, and take most notice of, those in the mainstream of scholarly opinion.

A few years ago, I read Mark Powell's "The Jesus Debate", and he suggested the leading lights were: JD Crossan, M Borg, E Sanders, J Meier and NT Wright. Paula Fredriksen's "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" suggested she took most notice of the same five, plus Geza Vermes. I know this isn't as simple as the Billboard latest hits, but that was still helpful to give me a start.

But I think Vermes and Sanders have now retired and NT Wright has moved on to other things, so I'm wondering who is now most influential and most to be trusted. In Victor Reppert's excellent Dangerous Idea blog I came across a reference to a discussion (more like a hatchet job!) by NT scholar Ben Witherington of fellow scholar Bart Ehrman's book, "Jesus Interrupted".

One of Witherington's main points is that Ehrman is not well qualified academically to write this book, he references too few scholarly works, and where he does refer, he depends on older, not cutting edge, scholars. He says:

"A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in—for example Raymond Brown and E.P Sanders, the former long dead, the latter long retired. What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years."

Now I'm not too worried whether Witherington is correct or not (I have formed my own opinion of Ehrman), but this again raised the question (especially since Sanders who he dismisses was on my list): who are the key scholars on the past few decades? I posted the question on both blogs, but haven't got an answer.

Again I want to make clear that I'm not thinking there is a clearcut list, but there must be some scholars who are more generally respected and accepted as representing the mainstream of NT scholarship.

Who do you take most notice of?

[humphreyclarke]

Well, I'm a newcomer to NT scholarship, but it does seem to me that, in general, it has fallen victim to being a forum for people's pet theories and conspiracy theories. We end up with a lot of 'rational histories' with large numbers of hallucinating Israelites, a Paul who has no idea what he saw on the road to Damascus, and, best of all, the 'swoon' and 'evil twin' theories. Relatively minor textual difficulties are taken as evidence of plotting on a massive scale.

[sandwiches]

Interesting question. I have read Sanders, Vermes, Fredriksen, Stanton, Witherington and Bauckham. It just strikes me that Witherington is surely right when he says:

"By this I mean Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever!"

Ie (leaving aside the merits or otherwise of Ehrmann) you have to have immersed yourself in the area and something of the relevant languages, philosophy, literature and theology of the day in order to speak with authority. Bauckham (in Jesus and The Eyewitnesses) spends pages simply discussing the meaning of "eyewitnesses" in Luke's prologue! (not so tedious as it sounds!)

At a basic level you otherwise end up like atheists on messageboards saying the gospels cannot be any kind of record because eg they do not say what Jesus physically looked like, as if you should judge the Gospels by the standard of Cosmopolitan or Hello magazine. Or like Dawkins you claim that Jesus meant "neighbour" to be limited to fellow Jew (ignoring the Good Samaritan!). Like Terry Eagleton commented on The God Delusion, imagine reading a treatise on evolution from someone whose only reading is The British Book of Birds.

I enjoyed Witherington incidently (What Have They Done With Jesus?) but found eg Bauckham on the identity of the writer of John more convinving than Witherington's suggestion of Lazarus.

[bjorn]

IMO the Top Scholars today are

- Richard Bauckham
- James Dunn
- N.T. Wright (still)
- John P. Meier (still)
- Craig Evans
- Martin Hengel
- Dale Allison
- Larry Hurtado

[turoldus]

What about Mark Goodacre?

[bjorn]

He is good too. In fact, there are a lot of good and relevant ones.

And intriguing, if not illuminating, that Ehrman doesn't use any of them. I think he lost it when he got caught by the media and money mania around The Da Vinci Code.

[unkleE]

Thanks everyone.

humphrey:

I'm a newcomer to NT scholarship, but it does seem to me that, in general, it has fallen victim to being a forum for people's pet theories and conspiracy theories

Would you say NT scholarship is more prone to that than other areas of history? Some scholars (I think NT Wright and Michael Grant) have suggested NT historians are far more sceptical and "deconstructive".

sandwiches:
Any comments on whether your list represents the "middle ground" or your preference?

bjorn:
Would you say the scholars you list are middle of the faith-scepticism range?

As an extra question, are most of these scholars historians or theologians? It seems to me that one gets different impressions from classical historians like Michael Grant, A.N. Sherwin-White and Robin L. Fox than one gets from theologians. Anyone have comments on that?

Thanks again. I will follow up some of these. Bauckham was one I already had in mind, but I will follow through on others.

[bjorn]

unklee:

The scholars I listed are somewhat in the middle, though leaning more toward "faith" than "scepticism". If you want the "faith" people you should go for great ones like Blomberg, Bock, D.A. Carson and Komoszewski. Or even Montgomery and his brilliant "Suicide of Christian Theology" from the late 60's

One important point in this area is the question of whether miracles are possible at all, and if so may by the subject of historical enquiry.

The ones above are definitely open to look seriously at miracles. Personally I have some difficulty in looking seriously at scholars who don't.

One of the best studies in this area is BTW Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study by Graham H. Twelftree, www.amazon.com/Jesus-Miracle-Worker-Historical-Theological/dp/0830815961/.

I think Gerd Theissen is the best of those leaning toward the "sceptics". Crossan is too much going for headlines, and Lüdeman too agenda ridden.

[unkleE]

Apr 13, 2009 13:15:08 GMT bjorn said:

The scholars I listed are somewhat in the middle, though leaning more toward "faith" than "scepticism". If you want the "faith" people you should go for great ones like Blomberg, Bock, D.A. Carson and Komoszewski. Or even Montgomery and his brilliant "Suicide of Christian Theology" from the late 60's

Thanks again. No I wanted to avoid the obvious "faith" people like Blomberg & Carson, because I am doing apologetics and they are not suitable to quote to non-believers. Likewise I want to avoid outright sceptics like Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar. So your list is probably close to the mark. As I've said here before, I wish there was some way to know who was most respected by their peers, but that assessment is too subjective.

One important point in this area is the question of whether miracles are possible at all, and if so may by the subject of historical enquiry.

I thought that the most objective historians (e.g. Sanders, Meier) didn't pass judgment on miracles in general, saying that belief or disbelief depended on one's metaphysics more than on history. I am happy to start there (for the sake of apologetics), but then bring in my belief as a second stage.

I think Gerd Theissen is the best of those leaning toward the "sceptics". Crossan is too much going for headlines, and Lüdeman too agenda ridden.

I'm only familiar with Crossan, but I agree. I read one review which said to the effect that he was brilliant, readable, well-read, etc, but almost totally wrong!

Thanks again. I've already looked up Evans & Goodacre - the web is great for getting some preliminary assessment - and I think I may buy the Bauckham book on Jesus & eyewitnesses.

[humphreyclarke]

Apr 12, 2009 21:38:55 GMT unkleE said:

Would you say NT scholarship is more prone to that than other areas of history? Some scholars (I think NT Wright and Michael Grant) have suggested NT historians are far more sceptical

Hi Unklee

Hard to say really as my masters is in Modern history and I can't think of a comparable event. The mainstream scholarship looks pretty sound to me, with the principle facts established and the miraculous occurrences left as matters of faith. I think however that the scepticism towards the general outline of Jesus's life (the idea the whole thing was a myth) is unwarranted given the relative abundance of source material. Once you reach the fringe you get a lot of loony conspiracy theories and the sources have been poured over so much that we end up with a proliferation of hypothesises. That being the case, it is refreshing to see that in 'The Unauthorised Version' Robin Lane Fox decides that a lot of it, including the Gospel of John stands up to scrutiny. There seems to be a tendency by a lot of NT scholars to red-line large chunks of material in order to fit in better with their pet thesis.

[sandwiches]

Perhaps one man's guru is another man's atheist hatchetman/Apologist. Perhaps more interesting than trying to compare authors is seeing how opinion perhaps shifts on certain themes. If you read Vermes then there is little of historical value to be gained from John's Gospel. He says that you look to the synoptics for "the Jesus of history". He also dates John unusually late at 110 AD

Fredriksen seemed to hesitantly suggest that John does potentially have geater value particularly in its more realistic suggestion that Jesus was a fairly frequent visitor to Jerusalem. Witherington and Bauckham make a strong case for John as an eyewitness. As pointed out even atheist Robin L Fox (whom I have not read) seems to accept John as an eyewitness.

[hawkinthesnow]

Apr 12, 2009 15:53:30 GMT bjorn said:

IMO the Top Scholars today are

- Richard Bauckham
- James Dunn
- N.T. Wright (still)
- John P. Meier (still)
- Craig Evans
- Martin Hengel
- Dale Allison
- Larry Hurtado

I would add Richard Burridge to that list, if only for his book "What are the Gospels?" About 20 years old now, the book is a detailed comparison between the gospels and ancient biography. It is a landmark study that shows that the gospels were indeed meant to be biographical in form. Burridge has written a more popular work - "Jesus and the Four Gospels" I think it's called.

[bjorn]

Indeed, I've got them both. Seconded!