<a190's summary: Farrell Till responds to an Internet Infidels comparison
between the historicity issues of William Tell and Jesus.>
<snip>
TILL
>There is ample reason to doubt the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels,
>and those who don't are merely engaging in wishful thinking.
BEKKENHUIS
??!?
If your understanding of belief in the historical Jesus is belief that
there was a guy whose life corresponds in a straightforward, objective
chronological way to the 4 canonical gospel narratives, then I guess I
don't believe in the historical Jesus!
I've been a Christian for 25 years and I've NEVER believed that.
I would hazard the guess that most ministers from mainline denominations
who have studied the Bible from a historical-critical point of view don't
believe that either.
Presumably, the only Christians who would believe in your conception of the
historical Jesus would be those who've never particularly thought about it
a whole lot or those who are committed to inerrancy.
I can't speak for Peter Kirby, Jeff Lowder or others on the "pro" side of
this argument, but I've always understood the term "historical Jesus" to
refer to the type of reconstruction that Norman Perrin, the Jesus Seminar,
John Dominic Crossan, and the like have done - that is, a hypothetical
re-construction of the teachings of Jesus through the *critical* use of 1st
century writings (canonical and non-canonical).
>
>
>Farrell Till
>Skepticism, Inc.
>jftill@midwest.net
>
Bill
a190@lehigh.edu (Bill Bekkenhuis) Myers-Briggs (INFX)
http://www.lehigh.edu/~a190/a190.html (Updated 6/17/97)
Usenet: Please send copy of posted replies to a190@lehigh.edu