Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I haven't read that book yet, but it seems to not be up to Ehrman's usual standards from what I've heard from the usual crowd I read (who include some mythicists but not exclusively).
I have read some of the blog posts from Carrier about the criticisms he has about the book and some of the responses.
I also haven't read Carrier's first book of two (Proving History) where he talks more about the state of Jesus studies in general rather than specifically on the historicity of Jesus. I'm slowly working through a book on the resurrection but haven't given it much time lately.
As you say I think the biggest issue is that it's just been a foregone conclusion for so long maybe the actual scholarship in the area isn't as mature as it could be.
At the end I don't think it matters all that much to me at least if there was a historical origin or not. And even if scholars did come to a consensus that Jesus was mythical rather than historical, I don't think that would actually change things that much.. more liberal denominations would adapt, and others would ignore scholars like they already do.
|
This is how I approach the question. I strip away the virgin birth, the resurrection and any other supposed miracles and look at Jesus' teachings. They either have meaning to me or they don't. I'm not a Christian in the usual sense but mostly they do have meaning.