dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I think this has merrit. Oberon compared the odd man out in historicial studies, the one or two today whol argue well against jesus as a historical figure, to the few biologists who'd argue against evoulition. It makes sence then that any historian going against the grain today, one who does not believe jesus was a real person, would be fighting an up-hill battle, ignored and ridiculled by peers who, after dedicated their lives to the idea that jesus was real, cannot take the idea that they might be wrong and so they automatically deny the descenters research, reading only to discredit it, not to understand it.
Not to mention the serious biblical studies done early in the last century, were still largely done in christian countries, in a time when if you were not a professed christian you couldn't even hold office in most states.
Good point. I think the approach Doherty and Price take in regards to the earliest of Christian writers, namely the epistle writers, as being key to understanding the beginnings of Christianity will make inroads into scholarship, I think it inevitable. For too long the epistle writers have been viewed through a gospel lens by the mainstream, and eventually this will change. The incorrect placement of the epistle writers in the NT in that they are placed after the gospels hasn't helped matters for the reader, it's hard not to read the gospels into the epistles since the gospels are read first.
Last edited: