Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, it's not quite like science in that social sciences do not claim the same form of objectivity, yet history does have peer review. Don't get me wrong, there have been some rather interesting trends lately in historical Jesus studies which have incorporated comparative mythology: Thomas L Thompson's "Is this not the Carpenter?" is a great example of this trend, Roland Boer, a New Zealand academic wrote a great chapter in that book on the emergences of historical critical methods in nineteenth century Germany, the importance of Strauss' Lebe Jesu as well as the radical political tradition behind many of these Neo-Hegelian (Marxist?) thinkers. The problem is that the peer review is favouring a different consensus and it has absolutely nothing to do with religious tradition, it is simply the way the data is being analysed today: Jesus mythicism is not popular because most scholars consider there to be something historical about parts of the gospels, not always altogether much but still something.
I stand corrected on the peer review...though I have no idea what they review? Translations?
You honestly think that the reason Jesus as myth isn't popular is because of evidence? I'm not trying to be patronizing...I'm 100% serious. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a "NT historian" for a moment...
Do you think that you'll receive any accolades from your colleagues for your brilliant research showing that evidence for Jesus amounts to nearly zilch? Do you think your peers who've written books, taught at universities, worked as consultants, lectured, etc....do you think they'll be jumping onboard with your conclusions even if they're entirely sound and completely logical? Probably not...right?
They're not going to turn around and say, "Yea...all that speculation about what the real Jesus was like was just speculation and he probably never existed." After all, they've got jobs to protect, and a reputation that's going to immediately be attacked by every other "NT historian" who still wants to make a buck.
And at what point are we drawing the line on the Gospels? Let's be honest...they were never meant to be read as history books...no chance. Not with all the glaring historical and geographical errors. The census...herod's baby hunt...Barabbas...
At what point do you say, "ignoring all the stuff we're certain is completely wrong, and all of the obviously mythological stuff, ....this line right here is probably stuff that happened!" ....because an authorless book that appears to be a series of allegorical mish mash cobbled together from various pagan religions is a "valid" source of history?
On the other hand....I've been wrong before...what "historical parts" of the gospels do "scholars" think lends credence to an actual Jesus Christ?
Upvote
0