spamandham

You're welcome to accept the historicity of Peter Pan if you like. On the other hand, I flat out reject the historicity of obviously theological foundational characters such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, and strongly doubt the historicity of Jesus too. Is it *possible* there is some vague historical basis for these characters? Sure, but there's no reason to suppose it.

I think I'm going to start wearing "HJ Denialist" as a badge of honor.

wavy_wonder1

Well, I just punched three of the quotes into Google (I don't feel the need to check them all) and found every one of them verbatim, so I assume these are pasted from somewhere, which is why he hasn't provided us with the usual courtesies of documentation...

Finis,
ELB

DCHindley

Again, "The rest is interpretation, ancient & modern, about the significance of these facts." All that folks said about him, the "color" if you like, is interpretation as a means to "explain" what happened to him.

Some Lubavitch Chasids hoped to see the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson resurrected from the dead, as the first token of all those who will be raised at the time of the coming of messiah. This is really close to Christian beliefs about Jesus, and arguably has been influenced by Christianity, similar to the way Christianity was arguably influenced by the belief systems of that time.

What if some fraternity pranksters had stolen the casket of the rabbi from the Ohel? As the attendants remove shreds of prayer letters thrown into the crypt well, they realize the casket is gone! Heat comes down and the pranksters panic, then burn it in a ravine by a junkyard 200 miles away and no one knows the wiser. Could some of them think "Rebbe" had actually been resurrected? Doubters could point to tire marks or broken gates to the Ohel all they like, but the true believers will explain it away.

DCH

TimBowe

One of the most publicized portraits of Jesus is that of a wandering Cynic preacher.

TimBowe

From Europe A History (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Toto

And yet, the author of this little summary of European history accepts most of the gospel accounts as being historical. This is just warmed over conventional wisdom.

ercatli

Mainstream because they hold recognised academic positions, are recognised by their peers, and are from the centre of NT scholarship. I deliberately didn't quote from people at either the extreme christian end or the extreme sceptical end of scholarship. Such authors don't enjoy the same degree of support from their peers.

I started to list their academic qualifications, but it was too long and too tedious. Suffice it to say that all hold positions in NT literature and history, which makes them historians and not theologians. And do you want me to add quotes by ancient historians like Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox and AN Sherwin-White???

I hope that you are not judging by what you want to read rather than the qualifications of the scholars.

I'm not sure what difference it makes, as the conclusions of the experts stand regardless of how I obtained them. But, yes, they are most from books or articles I have read:

Marcus Borg - quoted in MA Powell - see below. But for the record, I have read three (I think) books authored or co-authored by Borg.

M A Powell - The Jesus Debate: Modern Historians Investigate the Life of Christ (2000) (or via: amazon.co.uk). Powell is not just offering his own opinion (he specifically eschews that) but his summary of the most respected names in NT history and literature.

James H. Charlesworth - The quote comes from "Jesus Within Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (1988), which I haven't read, but he says some similar things in "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (1995) which I have read - I just used the most succinct quote.

Tom Wright - "The resurrection was as shocking then as it is now" in the Guardian's Comment is Free (2009). Again for the record, I have read two books co-authored by Wright.

Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2007).

Thanks for asking.

ercatli

I comment again here because this is an interesting parable. You found the quotes were verbatim, so you drew the conclusion that I pasted them from somewhere. You didn't apparently conclude that I had copied them accurately.

In fact, two were pasted - the one by Charlesworth (because, yes, I found it as a quote and thought it more convenient than the quotes I had in my notes from a different book), and the one by Wright (because the original document was online). But the others were copied out longhand when I read the books, a practice I use so I have the quotes available (most of the books I read come from the local library, so I don't have them readily available to refer to).

I have in my notes quotes from about 20-30 NT scholars.

So, if you are able to so misunderstand and wrongly accuse someone who lives in the same time as you and speaks the same language, perhaps you should mistrust your own judgments about the historical Jesus and trust the scholars who have given it careful study??

Best wishes.

wavy_wonder1

I don't recall saying a word about trust or distrust of any of those scholars' quotes.


Finis,
ELB

ercatli

My answer to the OP has generated some adverse comment (not surprisingly). I am not much interested in arguing tedious points about the historical Jesus, but simply answering the OP's questions about the views of scholars.

But I find it interesting how willing some people are to dismiss the views of those who are expert in this field. Some sample comments from the thread:

These are strong statements to make about reputable scholars working at established universities. You have asked me to provide sources and I have done so.

So is anyone going to tell us all what their qualifications are for making these accusations and comments, and why we should believe them rather than the recognised experts?

Thank you.