Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:The following excerpts come from Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism. Notice the emphasis on a priori "belief" .

WE all know there are apologetic scholars and authors pandering to the faithful.

This book is no really representative of historians that are creating any credible history.

Alright but back to the original point of the thread - is professional scholarship predisposed (is that a word?) toward the idea of a historical Jesus because it supports the respectability of research into Jesus and early Christianity (and the life pursuit of the individuals in question)? I think it's like the phenomenon of males exposing their genitals in public. Is there a relationship between penis size and the type of person who would expose themselves in public? I think so. Do flat chested girls report greater satisfaction in their breast size than women with average or above average breast sizes? I think not. Are people who constantly bring up sex and sexual allegories in a forum devoted to Biblical studies likely to be engaging in regular sex with their partner? Unlikely. Are people who regularly participate in a forum devoted to Biblical studies likely to be 'getting it' on a regular basis? Probably not.

As such I think that the opinion of 'respected Biblical scholars' on the subject of the likelihood of there being a real 'historical Jesus' can be taken with a grain of salt.

1. almost no one would want to go through the rigo(u)rs of becoming a Biblical scholar if they believed a priori that the gospel was a make believe fable
2. once in the field few would want to admit (publicly at least) that they wasted their time publishing paper after paper on something which never happened, was made up etc.

Yeah pretty much. Even the 'mythicists' often do a half ass job of it, and you think they don't have the same kind of motivation and stamina as guys like Dunn and Wright.

Doherty and Godfrey are the most advanced in recent years, IMO, and neither has devoted their entire lives to it. To their credit really. But a lot of the others around are basically pikers.

Stephan Huller wrote:1. almost no one would want to go through the rigo(u)rs of becoming a Biblical scholar if they believed a priori that the gospel was a make believe fable
2. once in the field few would want to admit (publicly at least) that they wasted their time publishing paper after paper on something which never happened, was made up etc.

I see this as a fallacy.

Nothing changes dramatically if it had a mythical core.


People would still study the origins of Christianity the same way they do now.

Since Jesus is 90% to 95% mythological now, changing 10% changes little.


There would still be many of the same unanswered questions to debate. To write about and study.

I see this as a fallacy.

Just a point about grammar. How are two points (which you explicitly cite in your response) 'this ... a fallacy'? If you had actually considered each point it would be 'these ... are fallacies.'

Stephan Huller wrote:

I see this as a fallacy.

Just a point about grammar. How are two points (which you explicitly cite in your response) 'this ... a fallacy'? If you had actually considered each point it would be 'these ... are fallacies.'

Originally was just addressing #1 and left the second in afterwards.

Sorry you had to find my weak link.

Peter Kirby wrote:Doherty and Godfrey are the most advanced in recent years, IMO

I should not forget Detering. Too often we English speakers forget our friends in foreign languages. Of course Detering is completely different than Doherty, and I have not had recourse to his lengthiest German works, but he and the tradition of scholarship that he rests upon raised many questions that are now, to our loss, regarded as settled without any real inquiry by those joining the ranks of researchers today (the truly lamentable "assured results" of criticism, which actually are most everywhere taken as "assured" in the unthinking sense). At least Schweitzer could give them a chapter in Paul and His Interpreters. If nothing else we could learn whatever we'd learn by putting it to bed with solid evidence and argument.

outhouse wrote: Two widely accepted historical facts

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts

Can you tell us why "almost all modern scholars" consider each of these to be "historical facts"?

Peter Kirby wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:Doherty and Godfrey are the most advanced in recent years, IMO

I should not forget Detering.

He is usually ignored in German-speaking countries, too. In the rare case an NT scholar notices he actually exists, Detering's ideas tend to be summarily dismissed without discussion. I guess his growing list of books that he thinks were written in the Middle Ages, like the "Confessions" of Augustine of Hippo or the complete Book X of the letters of Plinius the Younger, makes him something like an "untouchable". Doubting Paul is not well received, either. His (rare) critics come from both sides, bible scholars and freethinkers.

His last book was about freedom through frugality, something completely different.

Interesting. I was not aware of his business elsewhere.