trae, you keep harping on about the third quest when it's not nearly as significant as you'd like to believe and it has already been addressed in the book, Who Was Jesus?:
as i said, the most notable thing the jesus seminar has done is their sensationalism in the mainstream media, not anything in the academic realm. On the other hand, scholars of the third quest are actually the more significant of the two among the historical experts. Scholars know this but, people outside of academia whose only outlet is popular media probably don't. It's interesting that i brought up specifically what is wrong with crossan's work but, you didn't address any of it.
"The "third quest" is split between those scholars who advocate a return to a non-eschatological picture Jesus and those who see him as leading a eschatological restoration movement."
this is, of course, an irrelevant point for this context. What third quest scholars are in agreement on is that the machinations of the jesus seminar are suspect. Contriving a case that the gospels are second century inventions is pretty much laughable from a historical standpoint.
"The first two quests for the historical Jesus ended in failure because, like an onion, once the gospel material was successively peeled away and discarded there was nothing left of Jesus. There is room for pessimism in the third quest as well."
i once again pose my question to you: if this is the case, if this is an accurate statement, then why do jesus seminar fellows continue to write books, lecture and debate on the existence of Jesus? Btw, if there is a failure or a reason for failure of the second quest it isn't for that reason. William lane craig points out the eclipse of mythology when he says "today, however, scarcely any scholar thinks of myth as an important interpretive category for the gospels. The jewish reclamation of Jesus has helped to make unnecessary any understanding of the gospels' portrait as significantly shaped by mythology."
you have a blatant disregard for the facts and evidence
the discussion surrounding the particulars of the evidence for caesar vs Jesus is still open. When you feel up to it, just respond in that thread. Furthermore, you make the mistaken assertion that christian scholars do not know of the "mythicist" position even though they have dealt with these positions. For example, habermas, william lane craig and n. t. wright recount positions that did not maintain a historical Jesus and implied mythological roots for the stories of Jesus such as david f. strauss, rudolph bultmann, g. a. wells, et al. Incidentally, habermas points out that even michael martin shows how g. a. wells' case lacks scholarship.
in order to support your Christian apologist rhetoric and revisionism needed to shore up your faith at all costs.
what i've posted aren't my beliefs. It's the current state of christology. Anyone is perfectly free to read the latest books, peer reviewed material or attend the debates/lectures to find out for themselves.
you insist on claiming you provided burden of proof even though you did not.
i never claimed that. I quoted the jesus seminar as putting the burden of proof on anyone thinks the ancient manuscripts are historically accurate thus proving to you that they did not approach the texts with an a priori
assumption of Jesus' existence despite your claim that they did.
The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations
while the testimonium flavianum shows signs of christian interpolation, there is still valuable historical information to be gained from the account and historical experts have attested to the veracity of those parts of the account. There isn't a scholarly consensus that the accounts from tacitus and suetonius are edited because they don't say anything particularly sensational or controversial. In fact, there is historicity to be gained from them just like in josephus' tf. Aside from these accounts are thallus, pliny the younger, trajan, hadrian, lucian and tertullian. In each case, the accounts yields historical information. i also find it interesting that you tarnish suetonius...
"And your "third quest" is outdated and has been superseded by our "fourth quest."
first, it's not my quest. Second, if the position you are advocating is that Jesus didn't exist and/or the accounts of Him are of mythical origins, then this is not a new quest. Those kinds of beliefs have been around since the life of Jesus movement ended with schweitzer. Needless to say, one should question why such ideas have never gained a foothold among the most knowledgeable scholars despite an approximate 200 year life span.
(And I might add that your contentions are inaccurate in the first place, as this second-century timeline has hardly been part of any organized movement. It was laid out by Bronson Keeler and Charles Waite, not any organized "second quest" group.)
no matter how many times you repeat the accusation, it's still not my contention. It's the contention of pretty much any scholar who has studied christology. it can readily be verified by reading the requisite geschichte
. Besides, they're not referring to a movement that is as crystallized as the jesus seminar. They're referring to the reaction to the life of Jesus movement associated with the scholars of the first quest period. second quest scholars started from the assumption that any knowledge of Jesus had to be rooted in real history as opposed to the idea that history was a hindrance to the theological or mythological basis for study of Jesus.
(Oh yes, it's much less "hilarious" to believe that a Jewish man 2,000 years ago was really and truly the Son of God and God Himself, come down to Earth through the womb of a virgin girl, walked on water, raised the dead, transfigured on a mount, himself resurrected from the dead and flew off into heaven! Much more sensible and less ridiculous than supposing this figure to be yet another manmade artifact of mythology!)
here is a bit of special pleading. It's ok to accuse someone who supports the historical Jesus as being theologically biased but, here is a comment that exhibits a blatant rejection of the supernatural. Why is the one bias any greater than the other? Well, because it fits your dogmatic agenda. moreover, the comment is completely out of context. we're not discussing the probability of miracles. we're discussing the historical Jesus. the "hilarity" isn't about the miraculous. it's about the pathetic historiography of the jesus seminar that exemplifies the intellectual gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the NT is a late invention.
The simple fact will remain that there is no credible, scientific evidence for the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the last quarter of the second century."
this is nothing more than a provocative, sensational quote because the current evidence does not support it. Even historical experts who are under no obligation to christianity do not agree with this.