Toto

Anyone who quoted any of those scholars as the last word, without taking more recent scholarship into account, would have to be a bit incredulous.

You need to read things more closely. Biblical scholars have done some decent work, especially on textual criticism, not so much on history. But even the best have to contend with apologists in their field.

srsly

Much of what Strauss wrote is still relevant, and I'd dare you to show where it's been better put than by him, or where he's been answered well-enough for your liking.
The bit about 'taking more recent scholarship into account' is a shade of meaning you've only added now. I take that to mean you consider your original statement to be wrong, unless modified.

Take a swipe at something other than substance, then appeal to consensus.
'Blunt's theory is ancient, and nobody agrees with him.'
'Baur's theory was influenced by Hegelian philosophy, and nobody agrees with him.'
The latter is quite common in apologetic circles. Neither are effective criticisms.
That Blunt is obviously wrong, by no means strengthens the irrelevant poo-pooing over his antiquity and lack of support.

As Bart Ehrman has shown, this dichotomy is false. Textual criticism is as much a matter of history as vis à vis.
Besides, this has nothing to do with your original statement, which in the most general terms objected to the use of old scholarship. Your clear implication was that only someone who can't find modern scholarly support would be pouncing on dated arguments.
It's an argument that can be logically flip-flopped to disparage people like Robert Price, who still think The Life of Jesus Critically Examined is an unsurpassed masterwork.

Toto

srsly - what the hell? I made a rather casual comment about some outdated apologetics, and you want to turn it into a battle over splitting hairs.

Old is not necessarily bad, but a consensus of scholars is a way of getting closer to the truth. The idea of consensus has been misused by some recent apologists, especially on the specific issue of the historicity of Jesus.

If you want to start a thread on a related topic, go ahead. But don't drag this thread off topic.

srsly

No, not a battle, Toto. A discussion.
I took issue with something you said, explained why, protested a little when you avoided the issue... and now here we are.
I have no idea where this went wrong. I seem to have broken some unstated rule.
If my tone was off-center, then oops.

Declaring it offtopic doesn't make it so.
The topic was a certain argument which you ruled out of court with criticisms that would cut both ways, if they even worked at all.
Luckily though, I don't have all that more to say.
People may now return to their regularly scheduled, moderator-defined ontopicness.

Toto

Your tone was bristling with hostility. You insisted on parsing through my comment and drawing implications that were not there.

It was not a well developed argument. I would agree that not everything that is old is wrong, and scholarly consensus is not always the last word. But Blunt's work is old, and there have in fact been advances in understanding since that time.

If you can calm down a bit, I am curious about what you meant about Bart Ehrman.