Rick Sumner

Your percentage would be closer to 90 or 95. And that's probably a modest number. Apparently you're unaware just how large SBL membership is.

No, there isn't a "significant camp," there is a very distinct minority, who get a lot of play on this forum, but nowhere else.

You can count published scholarly mythicists on your hands. Rightly or wrongly, that's just reality.

I didn't say the consensus was inherently right, I said it existed, and that those operating outside their interest--those who do not engage the source material or methodologies regularly--but still side against the consensus are not doing so evidentially. That is true by definition; one cannot formulate conclusions from evidence they do not know.

Perhaps instead of getting defensive based on what you'd like to argue against, we could engage the actual material of my posts.

dog-on

As you seem to know, can you tell me what the actual consensus is regarding who Jesus actually was?

Can you also point me to the evidence that supports the case that this consensus actually believes?

Thanks.

Rick Sumner

I'm puzzled as to how you think this is relevant to anything I've said. Perhaps you can elaborate. While you're elaborating, you might want to scroll back up the page and take a look at what, specific, consensus I suggested exists.

Thanks.

jgoodguy

Some of the problems as I see it:

1. A lack of hard primary evidence for any side.
2. Lots of secondary evidence that has to be interpreted and analyzed leading to informed speculation by professionals in the field.
3. Most professionals agree here was likely a HJ fellow, but outside of he lived, preached, was a Jewish fellow and was executed there is little agreement.
4. There is lots of speculation by HJ types about what the HJ was beyond #3.
5. The minimalist HJ in #3 adsorbed or merged with mythical elements can explain much of the MJ position. Leading to the question of just how unique the MJ position is. Is the argument there was no HJ whatsoever or just that he is a minimal part of what became the Christian Religion.

Steven Carr

So you accept that scholars have failed in their many quests to find the Historical Jesus.

Steven Carr

Historicists do not engage the source material.

If Paul claims the advantage the Jews had was that they had ben entrusted the words of God - ie Scripture,historicists simply do not ask who had been entrusted with the words of Jesus.

Historicists don't even question the existence of Judas!

dog-on

You claimed that 95% of the SBL shared a consensus on HJ. I simply asked what exactly that consensus was, especially in light of this:

Rick Sumner

Ah, I see the problem. You're quote mining me.

The consensus is, as should be rather clear by even the most cursory perusal of the thread, that he existed.

I'm not interested in whether you think the consensus is right or not. Your thoughts on the consensus are, at the moment, irrelevant. The only point that matters is that that consensus exists.

People seem to be inclined to argue against opponents who aren't here. Or they must be, because I keep getting responses to things I haven't said.

Let's try this from the top. People see the word "consensus" and react like I've touched the Ark of the Covenant. I'll lay it out nice and easy, two premises, one conclusion.

1) A poster has sided with Earl Doherty, against the consensus, precluding a justifiable reliance on authority.

2) That poster is admittedly not familiar with the discipline or the evidence.

3) Therefore that poster did not reach that conclusion based on the evidence.

It's really, really straightforward. Honest it is.

Thanks again.

dog-on

Thanks, Rick.


(Of course, I doubt that the consensus, itself, was reached based on evidence... )

spamandham

You're welcome to present the results of a scholarly poll if you think an accurate assessment is important.

I wasn't talking about mythicists, I was talking about the radicals, F.C. Baur, Detering, etc. The number of scholars in this camp may not be large, but the exact ratios are not important to the point, which is that their hypothesis is consistent even if most of their peers find it unconvincing.

...and I disagree that a meaningful consensus exists at all. A consensus needs to be more substantial than simply "Jesus existed and was crucified by Pilate" (or something similar) in order to be of any use. It would need to be a complete hypothesis with details that are broadly accepted and based on something of substance, that helps us to understand what really happened and why.

Well, my post was directed toward gurugeorge not you, so I'm not sure how you took that as defensiveness. I'm not sure what particular point(s) you're wanting me to address.