Hi Robert,
Thanks for acknowledging that I attempt to remain objective when considering this particular topic. I'd like to think I do.
It really is quite astounding that the standards agreed by biblical scholars for considering the existence of Jesus Christ are actually quite different from the standards applied in the rest of history.
What differences are there?
From a pure historical perspective, scholars agree that evidence having a high degree of validity are manuscripts that contain disinterested comments about the existence of the character in question and are as close to the context of that person's time.
The unanimous consensus among mainstream biblical scholars, with recognized scholastic credentials of course, is that Paul authored his writings. They contain "off the cuff" comments related to Christ.
What is the evidence that backs an assertion that biblical scholars are wrong to consider Paul's mentioning of Christ to be embellished, or a patent lie?
Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem,
What are Earl Doherty's credentials? What is his background and how long has he been researching historical biblical matters?
Why is he a "pariah" as you state?
People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist.
Which people? If we are talking about Christians or Catholics, I do not doubt the validity of your claim.
If we are talking about historical scholars who have devoted their lives to researching and concluding, based on the available evidence we have to work with, then I must say that they too believe that Jesus more than likely existed.
All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.
This claim creates a slippery slope.
Historical evidence is based on the discovery of ancient texts, artifacts, and inscriptions. The criterion I previously outlined is used to determine the validity of the discovered source. If Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny's mentioning of Christ is to be thrown out as a canard, then why not simply doubt all their writings? What is to stop us from doing that?
How do we know if what Caesar Augustus wrote was embellished, fabricated, etc? Where do we stop?
He should be analysed with the standards of history, which are neither those of an individual or those of Bible believers.
Biblical scholars that study the historical Jesus and are not of any faith utilized agreed upon standards within the scholarly community. Doherty is outside mainstream scholarship, just as creationists are out of mainstream science. Which brings me to this question:
What are the
similarities between Doherty and other Mysticists of his type, and Creationists? I would outline the similarities for consideration.
I will look at Doherty's website further. It is interesting and I would not entirely dismiss his research. I'm sure you agree that it is not above placing side by side with a scholar like Bart Ehrman. It is true that from a pure evidentiary standpoint, we have little record of Jesus to go by, besides of course the gospels themselves. However, to dismiss him in the fashion that Doherty seems to be doing seems a bit of a stretch at this point.
I'd like to finish a couple of books I'm reading before I look into Doherty's latest. Structure of Scientific Revolutions being one of the two