Interesting article/what is reliable scholarship?

[Tom 1]

Linked here is an interesting article on the whole ‘mythical Jesus’ hypothesis, and why it has gained no adherents among no serious scholars:
Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars

As a general related point it is interesting how bizarre but unsupported ideas can gain so much traction so quickly, outside of the academic world that is. People often seem so desperate to prove their point, whether it’s about religion, politics or any other emotive topic, that they will completely omit the whole process of stopping to think about the reliability of whatever source they are using. I’ve certainly been guilty of it before, when I was a new Christian many years ago I’d grab on to pretty much anything that ‘seemed legit’ if it supported my newly found faith.
I’ve found over time that as well as being dumb this is completely unnecessary, as through a more careful approach to study, truth will out.
What criteria do people use when evaluating a new book or hypothesis relating to Christian theology? For me a basic rule of thumb is if the author starts with established or at least widely agreed on ideas and builds from there or at least outlines those ideas before presenting a coherent challenge then generally he or she is on solid ground, whereas if a writer makes outlandish or unusual claims on the basis of some obscure text, without any developed context, then I’m wasting my time reading it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For me a basic rule of thumb is if the author starts with established or at least widely agreed on ideas and builds from there or at least outlines those ideas before presenting a coherent challenge then generally he or she is on solid ground,

This is as God says "man's wisdom" ...... (man's way(s) )

God does not say good things about this in His Word.

 

[Tom 1]

This is as God says "man's wisdom" ...... (man's way(s) )

God does not say good things about this in His Word.

I think that’s an oversimplification. The Bible tells us to gain knowledge, as in 2 Peter 1:5-6, and to be careful and thorough in how we do this, e.g Acts 17:11, 1 Tim 4:16, so that we can present it accurately and correctly, as in 2 Peter 3:16, and Jer 23:36. Without knowledge, all anyone had are vague notions, and with vague notions we can’t accurately represent the truth - 2 Cor 4:2. What God warns against is getting ‘puffed up’ with knowledge, making this our aim rather than love. Clearly there’s a balance here between the need to have a clear understanding of sound doctrine and the need not to make it all a purely intellectual pursuit.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no 'clearing house' for "reliable scholarship", only the 'Babylon' of thoughts and ideas. There is also the perversion of human thought i.e., seeking the knowledge of health in medical literature. Paraphrasing Jesus, "Why seek the living among the dead?"