"It requires a real courage the profession of a historicist belief based only on the Gospels"
Uh... since when? Until the mid-20th century most people tended to agree that the Testimonia Flaviana were interpolations, regardless of their position on Jesus' historicity.
Ken Olson thinks Jesus existed and rejects the Testimonia Flaviana. So do I (as you noted). So does Ivan Prchlik. Like quite a few people do. It isn't some great or courageous profession at all. Even if he thinks they are authentic, Ehrman still largely thinks the Testimonia Flaviana are useless. E.P. Sanders, R. T. France, etc. also considered the Testimonia Flaviana largely useless for Jesus as well, considering them interpolated beyond recovery (even if they are partially authentic).
I will also say while a minimalist myself, I am actually partial to the seditious Jesus hypothesis. But I have a soft spot for Marxist approaches in particular.
Uh... since when? Until the mid-20th century most people tended to agree that the Testimonia Flaviana were interpolations, regardless of their position on Jesus' historicity.
Ken Olson thinks Jesus existed and rejects the Testimonia Flaviana. So do I (as you noted). So does Ivan Prchlik. Like quite a few people do. It isn't some great or courageous profession at all. Even if he thinks they are authentic, Ehrman still largely thinks the Testimonia Flaviana are useless. E.P. Sanders, R. T. France, etc. also considered the Testimonia Flaviana largely useless for Jesus as well, considering them interpolated beyond recovery (even if they are partially authentic).
I will also say while a minimalist myself, I am actually partial to the seditious Jesus hypothesis. But I have a soft spot for Marxist approaches in particular.
Statistics: Posted by Chrissy Hansen — Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:10 am