J-D

I suppose that makes sense.

But are there no scholars outside the field of New Testament studies who are interested in the early history of the Christian Church, or in the history of first-century Palestine? Just asking.

J-D

I understand your position, and I don't think it's an impossible one. If I gave the impression I was excluding it, that was a mistake.

Why do you consider John the Baptist likely to be a figure of history?

aa5874

Firstly, John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, and secondly, John the Baptist's existence is not challenged, quite unlike Jesus, as is evident in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" the Jew.

Sheshbazzar

The context that is provided by the entirety of my post indicates that I was not making an "across the board statement", else I would not have qualified it with the final sentence;
" particularly in any University with a stated strong Christian tradition and background. " Which implies that Colleges and Universities that are not beholding to upholding an admitted to "Christian tradition" are usually more lenient in allowing their faculty more leeway in expressing their honest personal convictions about Christianity and Jesus, than those institutions who for "faith based reasons" would "find cause" to either stifle or remove them.

spin

It means that one layer of objectivity is lost before one starts one's analysis. It's like cigarette companies hiring scientists to do health research regarding their product. Many non-religious people look on NT studies as they would ancient Greek literary religious studies. It's only obvious that they cannot trust the reports of the cigarette companies' scientists.


spin

eheffa

You gotta love the firing squad smiley...

-evan

eheffa

I think this is a very good example of how verisimilitude or real "historical" setting does not automatically translate an historical sounding narrative into reliable history.

One would expect that the real historical Jesus as described in the Canonical Gospels would have generated a lot of notice & controversy to prompt someone to write about him - even if to deplore his god-like claims as groundless. But instead of the expected maelstorm of controversy, provoked by the Gospel Jesus we find.....nothing!

There are not even any first century writings to deride or react to this supposedly dynamic and fast growing religious movement which according to Acts & the Christian apologists of today was sweeping the empire by storm. No storm, no ripples, no hints,....nothing.

What is the most likely explanation for this?
There was no first century Gospel Jesus - he was a second century creation.

Consensus amongst NT scholars who are dependent on maintaining their faith to keep their occupation and careers intact, may not indicate anything useful in trying to weigh the evidence for & against a mythical Jesus. Consensus amongst historical scholars who are not obliged to adhere to some standard of orthodoxy would be a much more useful thing but I don't know whether this information has been properly collated.

-evan

Sheshbazzar

Yes the manner in which you presented your questions,

providing your own answers in advance is the usual device framing a rhetorical question on which one has already reached a conclusion, and for which no answer to the precise question(s) is desired, or is to be expected. And usually any responses to such rhetorical questions are in the form of counter-arguments and refutations .
As I do not hold that "there is anything impossible about it" there was nothing for me to reply, nor any need to attempt any counter-argument or refutation, thus no reply to that particular question.
The second question, as to "Is it unreasonable to describe their position as including a 'historical Jesus'?" was addressed by my comparisons of the similarity in the employment of "historical" and political settings and situations in the Rambo stories.
My conclusion being that The Gospel stories have nothing more to offer as evidence of any actual "historical core Jesus" , than does the known to be fictional Rambo account offer evidence that a "historical core Rambo" actually existed and was the "historical" Rambo which the writer latter embellished.

So in my view not impossible. Unreasonable?perhaps not, but only the producing of at least some minimal evidence of their characters actual physical existence, and physical evidence that unmistakeably indicates that said hero ever physically interacted with his contemporary world could at all establish the reasonableness of the position.
That is, if he was famous, and had thousands of devoted followers, or even a few hundred at the time, some contemporary evidence would be required to establish whether it is sensible to abandon reason, to accept that holding otherwise is the "unreasonable" position.
If 95% of the stories contained within The NT are fictional, then of what real value in (that unidentifiable) remaining 5%, that a person ought to surrender reason and logic and live their remaining days in subjection to the now lying, and/or "deceived and deceiving" religious leaders of the present Christian churches?

aa5874

And we have the 2nd century "storms" to augment your position. There was a terrible 2nd century "storm" called MARCION.

Solitary Man

That's certainly not how it is in my university. I never had a professor demand I had the "right" answer to his or hers.