Steven Carr

Has anybody ever come up with something Wells said in the book was a fact, which turned out not to be a fact?

Crimson Glory

What if somebody proposes that all so-called NT scholars be dismissed? Most of them believe a priori in a historical Jesus against any scientific approach and without giving any solid proof, so... most of them are biased. As far as I know, any interested "amateur" has more credit than NT scholars, for at least amateurs tend to provide fresh angles and visions about this subject and they are not that tied to religious prejudices as "NT scholars".

I guess many called Doherty an amateur... and he came with the most brilliant and solid hypothesis yet. On the other hand, Crossan in "The Historical Jesus" tries to explain the method for distinguishing History and Myth and nobody (I guess not even himself) could buy such load of c**p without compromising his own intellectual honesty.

Let's take scholars to the Inquisition, then... :devil1: (they would be considered heretics anyway):Cheeky:

Minimalist

Been there....done that!

Zenaphobe

Yes, this is it in a nutshell Steven. I don't want to waste time reading stuff that has been shown to be in error.

Toto

Steven's question was, I think, rhetorical. No one has found any factual problems with Wells. But there is very little hard evidence here in any case; it is all a matter of interpretation and the best explanation of the data.

Solitary Man

It's a matter of inference, just like every other HJ theory, except Wells is far more implausible than the standard one. I can already smell the hypocritical stances seething, hearing the standard "where's the evidence for the HJ"? And you wonder why Wells, Doherty, and Price aren't taken seriously.

Toto

Solitary Man: Congratulations. You are the first to mention the lack of evidence for the HJ in this thread. I know why Wells, Doherty and Price are taken seriously enough to get some people upset.

In any case, implausibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Minimalist

So, remind me again, WHERE is the evidence for HJ?

Solitary Man

Hard evidence, Toto. The same kind of evidence which is lacking for 99.99999% of all figures of history. The kind which is laid aside and ignored when it is shown to be lacking for other figures.

Minimalist: I've said it a million times: gospels, extra-canonical gospels, Paul, the community before Paul, independent traditions, Tacitus, Josephus...

Bring on the hand-waving!

Toto

SM - That was Minimalist, not me. I have no intention of ever asking you about the historical evidence for Jesus, since I don't need to see that same sorry list of unconvincing documents.