Posted: May 01, 2012 11:23 pm
dejuror wrote:Blood wrote:angelo wrote:I think the main problem here are the sources. The only source we have of a HJ are the discredited gospels which are chock of block full of supernatural trivia that no clear thinking person would ever accept unless the person has a hidden agenda. Like funding from a certain organisation for example. This third quest for a HJ will end up as the last two unless new evidence is presented, which I doubt exists.
Yes, this "attestation" idea is a canard of epic proportions. It is not the mere fact of a past figure's textual "attestation" that is a determinate to historicity, it is the nature of the sources of that attestation. Robin Hood is well-attested by textual sources, as is Hermes Trismegistus. But the nature of those sources do not give us much, if any, confidence that they are describing actual historical figures.
An historical Jesus cannot be defended and will NOT be found based on the state of the existing texts.
Ehrman ADMITS that Scholars cannot agree on the NT testament texts.
Listen to Ehrman DESTROY his own sources for an historical Jesus.
See http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012 ... liability/
Ehrman has undermined by his own scholarship the kind of naive faith in 'the original text' that his HJ hypothesis requires.
Present-day Ehrman must really resent the actions of yesterday's Ehrman whose peer reviewed work gives rational skeptics every reason in the world to doubt the very words present-day Ehrman needs to make his case.
So we have the spectacle of Scholarly Ehrman in a mud-wrestling match with Polemical Ehrman.
Who will win out?
