Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? We can trust St Mark as he’s the bro-science Jesus evangelist
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.
Much of the ‘historical Jesus’ movements especially since the 1970’s or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it’s fine.
FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line…evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It’s been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV’s for lolz.
Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.
He pops up in Marcion’s New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn’t really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since…the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone’s guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say “Most of our scholars agree xyz” instead of providing any evidence.
This seems like St Paul: why?
Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? We can trust St Mark as he’s the bro-science Jesus evangelist
Good scholars often don’t comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of ‘the historical Jesus’ in NT scholarship here.