My question about scholars' views on Jesus' existence vs. forum views on Jesus' existence got many replies....?
That is, WHY IS there such a "disconnect" between the conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarship of historians and religious studies scholars VERSUS the average Internet "skeptic"?
Usually one hears that the standard for the determination of facts is peer-reviewed scholarship but there is something about the question of Jesus' existence where peer-review is rejected by many and in its place there is even an assumption that some major "unseen/unknown consensus of scholars" actually doubts that Jesus, the founder of the religion named for him, ever lived. SO ONCE AGAIN, WHY THE DISCONNECT when even atheist historians concur that Jesus actually existed (though they reject the New Testament's historicity in terms of miracles, the resurrection, etc.)?
>Why do people who are not academics think they >know anything about academia?
Good question. That is why I asked. I spent my entire professional life teaching Biblical studies and comparative religions (UK) and Biblical languages and history (USA) and the AAR/SBL membership consensus is nothing like what the skeptics try to imagine on R&S. Jesus' existence simply isn't a matter of debate or doubt. Never has been in my 52 years as a member of the societies.
>I did kind of miss the point of the issue about the letter "J" though.
Perhaps the non-linguists missed it. He was making a joke by pretending that "Jesus could not have existed in the first century because the letter J didn't exist until around 600 AD/CE." Yes, it is very dry humor but it reminded me of an satirical essay back in the 1960's which made a similar joke (a longer and more elaborate one) using the same argument for proving that Jehovah (YHWH in Hebrew) never existed because "J" hadn't been invented yet. ["J" as a letter was originally created to represent a "long i" sound....so it was an "i" extending below the line.]
Yes, I suppose one has to be an old dried up and droll professor like myself to enjoy such dry humor!
>REAL scholars DON'T universally agree that the Biblical Jesus existed. "Religious studies scholars", >people who study Christianity so that they can prove that the Bible is correct, aren't scholars, they're >whores.
The Dept of Religious Studies at your nearest major university will be quite shocked to learn that they are all on the taxpayer's payroll in order to "prove that the Bible is correct" and are actually "whores"! (That would be especially shocking to the atheist who is Chairman of my department!)
>Could you point me to some of these "peer-reviewed" articles/work by historians and religious studies scholars? Cause I have done some research to try and see if there's a legitimate argument for Jesus' existence, and all I've found so far is a bunch of evidence/argument that proves that certain places/minor characters (usu. politicians) mentioned in the NT actually existed - but nothing that really substantiates Jesus himself.
Why don't you start with the much-despised (by Christians) "anti-Jesus" scholar cited in the interview of the aforementioned question? (Simply click on the YA link above and then check out Dr Ehrman's interview? The atheist who interviewed him basically shared your skepticism (but because he was not a scholar in this field he was oblivious to what most of us actually afirm about the existence of Jesus.)
And yes, I do place my lifetime as a professor over and above the imaginations/fantasies of a