Blood wrote:[Carrier had stated] "as it is a proposal that hasn’t yet convinced a majority, it cannot be asserted as established"? That's not how theological studies operate. In theology, you simply assert your ideas (Q, Son of Man, gnostic redeemer, apocalyptic prophet, cynic Jesus, whatever) until you convince a few fellow theologians of your thesis, and it snowballs from there until it becomes normative and thus "established," even though it may be complete bullshit.
I suppose the meaning of "established" is a bit dependent upon whether the person using it in a statement is "for" or "against" the position that is under discussion.
But, most of the time, isn't one person's thesis just another person's antithesis?
Perhaps there should be certain words we should all just stop using when we discuss historical explanations" "Established [fact]," even "fact" alone, and color commentary words such as "simply," "merely," or any words that imply something about the quality of the position, or the motivations of the person proposing a position.
Blood wrote:[Carrier had stated] "as it is a proposal that hasn’t yet convinced a majority, it cannot be asserted as established"? That's not how theological studies operate. In theology, you simply assert your ideas (Q, Son of Man, gnostic redeemer, apocalyptic prophet, cynic Jesus, whatever) until you convince a few fellow theologians of your thesis, and it snowballs from there until it becomes normative and thus "established," even though it may be complete bullshit.
I suppose the meaning of "established" is a bit dependent upon whether the person using it in a statement is "for" or "against" the position that is under discussion.
But, most of the time, isn't one person's thesis just another person's antithesis?
Long go have such theological slash so-called historical theses on the Historical Jesus been exposed as being based upon subjective elements.
Through examining the works of more than 50 18th- and 19th-century authors and scholars, he shows conclusively
that each historical reconstruction of Jesus was largely a fantasy made in their own self-image.
The largest snowball effect has got to be the "Great [theological] Push for Earlier [historical] Dates". This snowball appears to be quite insidious and is rarely mentioned in the literature. It applies particularly to theological theses on the original authorship chronology of both the canonical and non canonical books. The third century takes theological priority over the fourth century, the second century over the third, and the all important first century over the second. Theological priority is firmly weighted to be fixed on the events of the first century, in which scientific evidence for the first few decades of the Christian Big Bang is highly sought after. The shady variety of antiquities dealers and relic salesmen for century after century know this snowball very well and have pitched their wares accordingly.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
