“There is no serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus” “No serious scholar who doubts…”
Thanks to James McGrath for this – who no doubt will have a great time…
I might actually, you know, but Ehrman’s book on this UNLESS JAMES MCGRATH GETS TO IT FIRST.
The radio host proves himself a dilettante.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
I read Dr. Ehrman’s book ‘Jesus, Interrupted’ and enjoyed it — it’s a lot less “scary” to (open-minded) evangelicals than it’s made out to be.
Joel, this sort of hyperbole has no place in scholarship. There are scholars, quite serious, who doubt the existence of Jesus. Doubting should not be dismissed and condemned in Academia. Ehrman was quite wrong.
Tom, don’t get me wrong… I don’t think doubting should be dismissed, but it seems that they have gone beyond doubting to affirming a conspiracy theory. I fully support historical agnosticism
Fair enough Joel. I remember hearing this debate live, about five-six years ago. The host wasn’t at all prepared, and yes, could be called a dilettante.
@Tom Verenna
There are scholars, quite serious, who doubt the existence of Jesus?
Who?
Thomas L. Thompson and Richard Carrier, to name a few. Though I’m sure if you ask around you might find some healthy doubt in a lot of scholars. They might lean towards ‘probably existed’ but that doesn’t negate doubt, now does it?
Also Hector Avalos.
Thomas L. Thompson = Old Testament
His specialization is the Ancient near east, spanning all periods to late antiquity, and even beyond. He has held positions in Old Testament at Copenhagen, but he is qualified to speak on the whole. IN addition, he has published and will publish on New Testament subjects. Since his expertise is in exegesis, he is more than qualified to discuss the rewritten Bible, which is what the New Testament contains.
However, just to be clear, Ehrman didn’t say ‘no serious NT scholar’ he said ‘no serious scholar’…Thomas Thompson is indeed a scholar of good repute. Nice try though.
I think the “NT” bit can be assumed. Obviously he’s aware of octogenarian retired professors of German and septuagenarian retired professors of OT.
Spoken like someone ignorant. I think you’re wrong, and I think you devalue the work of Thompson with your assumptions.
“Spoken like someone ignorant.”
Considering you don’t know anything about me, you’re the one making ignorant assumptions.
“I think you’re wrong”
Then perhaps you can point out where and why?
“and I think you devalue the work of Thompson with your assumptions”
What assumptions? You have yet to establish that. I stated that Thompson is an OT scholar in his seventies. Those are facts, not assumptions. I value his opinions about the historical Jesus as much as I value those of anyone else outside the field.