Is 'Serious Scholarship' Biased in Favor of Historicity?

[Peter Kirby]

I already explained that a lack of knowledge of Greek is not a huge handicap because of the tools readily available on the internet, except if you want to get fancy. My main goal here in consulting these tools is not to make errors due to misleading translations. I am also very keen about the tense of verbs.
Anyway translations by Greek experts is not an exact science. Very often they come with significantly different renditions from the same source text. And any Greek word comes with many nuances and applications, and sometimes different meanings.

Does Greek matter when looking at 1 Corinthians 9:5 and your theory that Cephas should not be considered a believing 'brother' by Paul?

Does Greek not matter even more when the art of translation is less precise and exact than the art of knowing, actually knowing, Greek, its grammar, and the semantic ranges of its words, which are different than English grammar and English semantic ranges of words (which is why translation is such an art)? The latter you can pick up from a lexicon piecemeal, if you don't mind working very slowly, but the former, the grammar, is why people have to study Greek.

[Bernard Muller]

Google customizes your search results based on your history of selections, geographic location, etc.

Right. I checked that from the public library. Google.com put my website at about 23rd place from the top. What a lesson in humility!
But I am amazed that so many can find me through Google.com.

Top Tier = published by a credentialed academic by a publishing house or in a journal, highly cited.

JP Meier and JD Crossan and EP Sanders are top tier. I'm not. You're not. It's not a debate. It's not even a direct statement about quality. My point regarded what someone might go to read first, if they were a rational individual seeking the best scholarship on the subject.

I never said my website should be top tier. Stephan brought it up.
I do not know much about Meier & Sanders, but I know about Crossan, and he is totally off track. I do not have any confidence with scholars, and their often shifting positions and disagreements between them, despite their PhD, reputation, and superior knowledge of ancient language.
The best scholarship is mostly based on form & credentials, not substance.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

And among the many "historial Jesus" websites, mine is placed on the top 5 in google.com, often at #2 behind the Wikipedia site.

Google customizes your search results based on your history of selections, geographic location, etc.

As another point of evidence in support of this: when I google "historical Jesus" the second ranked hit I get is Raphael Lataster's Conversation article -- no doubt as an indirect spinoff from various searches I undertook at a time I was in direct conversation with Raphael and engaged in online commentaries about his article.

I was overseas last week and logging on to the web via isps and services quite different from the usual and there is nothing quite like that experience from time to time to remind one of just how different is the perspective of the wider web once we step outside of our back yards and home streets.

[Stephan Huller]

I never said my website should be top tier. Stephan brought it up.

I brought up the specific words 'top tier' but I was paraphrasing your own claims about your site.

[Stephan Huller]

Your words Bernard were that your site is 'top shelf'

What would be top shelf material? Some of my readers think my website should be there.

[Peter Kirby]

All I'm saying is that if an eager undergraduate college student wanted to know what he should read first on the HJ, what 2-3 things would the responsible professor recommend? That's it. It was just to indicate something about what was said before, about how I (and apparently everyone else) should -- nay, must! -- read a website by anyone (it is not personal), essentially sight unseen. I mean, sure, if you're dedicated, but by the time you're at that point, you should probably have read tons of stuff already... which just shows that I've been interested in tons of stuff, including *even* Muller's, which should be to my credit, not counted against me. Reading even half of Muller's website, if one is not reading lop-sidedly, shows a very deep commitment to the subject.

Did your investigation include my web site & blog? or will they be considered in the future? or are you only interested by a non existing Jesus?

No. But this is what I'm talking about. How can you even say that? Do you realize how much I've read on the historical Jesus, including much but not all of your website, even though your website is by no means top shelf material here? How can you not realize that? And if so, how can you say that?

Perhaps you've noticed the existence of this webpage? Notice how much and how widely I've read?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

And you may have not known this... but I've transcribed entire books, edited by hand, with potential arguments for a historical Jesus.

http://www.christianorigins.com/case/
http://www.christianorigins.com/goguel/

Or maybe you noticed my website and blog, where I actually don't feature the historical Jesus debate that much at all, relative to the actual documents we actually have and don't need to make-believe we know existed? And that I'm interested in a wide range of questions?

So how can you even say that?

PS -- This is the same kind of more-or-less-delusional attitude frequently on display by the acolytes of the one who will not be named.

[Stephan Huller]

and the term was introduced by Kirby but you Bernard said yes you are 'top shelf'

even though your website is by no means top shelf material here

[Bernard Muller]

Does Greek matter when looking at 1 Corinthians 9:5 and your theory that Cephas should not be considered a believing 'brother' by Paul?

And why Cephas should be considered a 'brother' in 1 Corinthians 9:5?
Do you know something I don't know? Why would be lurking in the Greek?
I do not recall Carrier making some point on 1 Cor 9:5 from the underlying Greek & its grammar. Something he would have done if he found there anything to support his case.
The Greek of the verse is relatively simple to decipher even by an amateur with web tools.

Does Greek not matter even more when the art of translation is less precise and exact than the art of knowing, actually knowing, Greek, its grammar, and the semantic ranges of its words, which are different than English grammar and English semantic ranges of words (which is why translation is such an art)? The latter you can pick up from a lexicon piecemeal, if you don't mind working very slowly, but the former, the grammar, is why people have to study Greek.

I know looking in the Greek is very slow for me and I mind it. But I did it regardless. Of course, it would be much better if someone knew Greek very well.
What I mind is someone saying if you do not know Greek, you should not attempt to research the beginning of Christianity and write about it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

Your words Bernard were that your site is 'top shelf'

What would be top shelf material? Some of my readers think my website should be there

.

I did not even claim my site should be top shelf: I only said (with evidence) "Some of my readers think my website should be there [top shelf]."

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

I do not know much about Meier & Sanders, but I know about Crossan, and he is totally off track. I do not have any confidence with scholars, and their often shifting positions and disagreements between them, despite their PhD, reputation, and superior knowledge of ancient language.



Cordially, Bernard

Going to have to agree.

There is not one scholar I place as having a better or more accurate view in is or her recreation of what happened in the past.



I do have a groups that are at the top, some are at the bottom, and others simply laughable.