doubtingt

Your equating rational with logical validity of single arguments.
Logical validity deals only with the relation between stated premises and a particular conclusion. Rationality is often used as a broader term that includes whether the premises are themselves justified.

My argument has been that if they fail to specify what the criteria and how they are justified, then their conclusion is not the result of rational thought.

This is definitely true in the broader sense of rational as justifying one's conclusions AND premises. However, it may also be true in terms of logical validity.

If they fail to specify and justify the criteria, then their arguments amount to:
The Gospels have quality X.
Therefore, they refer to a historical Jesus.

This is logically invalid argument.

In addition, each premise to the final conclusion is a sub-conclusion of its own. If these sub-conclusions lack justifying premises of their own, then these sub-conclusions cannot be the product of a logically valid argument, (even though they are not in themselves logically invalid, because logical
validity only applies to argument structure and not single assertions).

Llyricist

What is an "Historic Jesus"?

I think....assuming Pauline priority.... An "Historic Jesus" would have to be someone named "Jesus" (Yeshua...whatever) who was crucified, and on/around whom the salvific sacrificial saviour religion called Christianity developed. I don't think anything else is required. I think any of Josephus' crucified Yeshus MAY have been the historical kernel, if there was one.

I also think the "Gospels" don't even enter into any "Historical Jesus" speculation, as they are so fictionalized, nothing can be hoped to be recued from them. And that any itinerate preacher THEY may have been based (in any part) on, cannot be considered the "Historical Jesus", but rather as "inspiration" for the character development.

Vorkosigan

I understand what you are saying. But somewhere between rational and irrational there are massive gray areas of sloppiness, social shaping effects, etc. None of us is wholly rational.

Michael

joedad

I'm not a textual critic nor versed in those languages required to do textual criticism justice, but I am inclined to agree with you here. Looking for a person behind the Jesus myth is akin to searching out the historical Superman or Pegasus.

I think this resides in the mind of the author. But the authors are anonymous, generations removed, their works translated, redacted and interpolated. I have doubts that such a feat is possible, and think the best hope lies in new discoveries, new information.