How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's a whole truckload in just one sentence mate-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Imp, pp 113–4)

Excellent quote mining. You might wish to consider that fact that informed inference is qualitatively more valuable than baseless and delusional certainty.

 

[Ingledsva]

Later groups turned a Temple Virgin/Maiden - into the Virgin Mary story.

I think you might have the chronology backwards here. Later groups associated the virgin Mary story with the temple virgins.

I've already mentioned, many times, the Temple Virgin connection to the story.


In my reply up above, - I meant they took a normal temple virgin/maiden - pregnancy, - and we end up with the Virgin Mary and Jesus myth.


*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To take this in another direction -

We know they had Temple Virgins - Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by a Temple Virgin.

And how do we "know" this?

 

[oldbadger]

I've already mentioned, many times, the Temple Virgin connection to the story.


In my reply up above, - I meant they took a normal temple virgin/maiden - pregnancy, - and we end up with the Virgin Mary and Jesus myth.


*

There seem to be internet sites that support you on this.

Question:- Could the Galilean Jewish upper classes have been so Hellenised.... so Romanised.... that they had adopted vestal virgins?

Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple ...
taylormarshall.com/2011/.../did-jewish-temple-virgins-exist-and-was.htm...
19 Dec 2011 - Previously we examined the tradition and biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching that Mary was consecrated as a Temple virgin at the age ...

 

[stillsong]

There are many beliefs and everyone has one or two that suit them best. the problem in relgious traditions about Jesus or Buddha or other ancient spiritual figures is that they did not keep a writtten record, and the people that finally wrote down the oral tradition waited 75, or 200 or 500 years (in Buddha's case). A lot can be lost or misconstrued or created in that time.
So if we cannot prove their existence, what do the stories of their lives have to teach us.
Jesus mingled with people of all races and classes and ethnic origins and no one was better than another, he spoke against hypocrisy. we could go through the whole New Testament or a wealth of information about the Buddha and find something to inspire us to act and practice what we hold most dear. We may never come to agreement about questions about did these people really exist or not, but what common ground can we find about how the story of their lives is a fitting guide to mould our lives in new ways closer to that common humanity that we all share. Is this something we can start to do here, find common ground?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And I'd really like to know your criterion for separating fact from fiction.

First, learn the difference between mythology and history.

Well in that case there is no evidence for anything that is considered historical...since everything is based on hearsay. So if there is no evidence that Paul wrote 1Corinithians (which is not disputed among historians anyway), then there is also no evidence that Caesar was stabbed, that George Washington was President, or that Hannibal rode war elephants.

Like I said: learn the difference between mythology and history. Do we have evidence for Paul or any of the other main characters of the NT outside of the NT? Did any historians or writers in general of the period take notice of them and write about them? Surely if at least some of the things attributed to those people in the Christian writings actually occurred, someone would've noticed? Right?

Which "historians" don't dispute that Paul existed? Bible scholars? In fact, if you type "did Paul exist" into Google, you get atheists and skeptics arguing that he didn't and some Christian sites saying that he did and using the Bible as evidence.

Color me not convinced.

 

[Ingledsva]

We know they had Temple Virgins - Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by a Temple Virgin.

From what verse did you get this? Isaiah 7:14 is about the LXX parthenos "virgin", and the Hebrew ha'almah or almah "young woman" and Matthew’s 1:23 “parthenos”

Isaiah received his call from God in the Temple at Jerusalem. God tells him to go in to the virgin/maiden/prophetess, there.

Isa 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

Isa 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (maiden) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.


Isa 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Isa 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Isa 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emmanuel.


Isa 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.


This is a Temple Virgin and Prophetess, in the Temple, Mountain of the Lord.


As you know - at this patriarchal time - a "maiden," or unmarried women, was (generally) expected to be a virgin.


- BUT - we also know that Sacred Prostitutes were set up in the Temples. These are often called Temple Virgins.


It is quite interesting that many Bible heroes went in to "prostitutes."


"The prostitute was an accepted though deprecated member of the Israelite society, both in urban and rural life (Gen. 38:14; Josh. 2:1ff.; I Kings 3:16–27). The Bible refers to Tamar's temporary harlotry and to the professional harlotry of Rahab without passing any moral judgment. The visits of Samson to the harlot of Gaza (Judg. 16:1) are not condemned, but conform with his picaresque life. Harlots had access to the king's tribunal, as other people (I Kings 3:16ff.)."

"It has been supposed that "the women who performed tasks at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting," mentioned in I Samuel 2:22, were sacred prostitutes – though this hardly suits their other occurrence in Exodus 38:8. There were male and female prostitutes in Israel and Judah during the monarchy, and in Judah they were, from time to time, the object of royal decrees of expulsion (cf. I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II Kings 23:7; Hos. 4:14). Sacred prostitution, because of its association with idolatry, was the object of numerous attacks in the Bible, ..."

"Different opinions are expressed in the Talmud with regard to the prostitute of the Bible, both concerning her hire and her marriage to a priest. Some were of the opinion that these references apply only to a professional prostitute, but there were also other opinions. With regard to her hire (Deut. 23:19) the halakhah was decided in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah ha-Nasi that it was not forbidden except to those for whom "cohabitation is a transgression" (Tosef., Tem. 4:8; see Prohibited Marriage)."


"With regard to the unmarried woman who engages in prostitution, however, "her wage is permitted" (i.e., for use in the Temple; Maim. Yad, Issurei ha-Mizbe'ah 4:8)."

"The sages, who realized that the urge to prostitution is greater than that to idolatry (Song R. 7:8), considered it one of the important causes of the destruction of the Temple, and its spread as a sign of the advent of the Messiah (Sot. 9:13, 15)." - Prostitution | Jewish Virtual Library




*

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Shuttlecraft: Dawkins said- "My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Imp, pp 113–4)

Excellent quote mining. You might wish to consider that fact that informed inference is qualitatively more valuable than baseless and delusional certainty.

Dawkins says birds possibly began by gliding out of trees, but he leaves us in midair without talking us through what happened next, that's a typical missing link!
I mean, presumably (according to him) animals use to hurl themselves out of trees and get splatted on the ground, but then they miraculously began sprouting wings out of nowhere and were at last able to zoom off into the wide blue yonder! He's a funny guy..

 

[Ingledsva]

There seem to be internet sites that support you on this.

Question:- Could the Galilean Jewish upper classes have been so Hellenised.... so Romanised.... that they had adopted vestal virgins?

I think so, but I think it also goes back to their own tradition - Isaiah, etc.


We have several texts, including the Qur'an that say Mary lived in the Temple.


EDIT - And as pointed out - the Catholic tradition that she was a Temple Virgin.



*

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah I bought his 'Climbing Mt Improbable' about 15 years ago to get a top-notch scientific explanation of evolution, but was disappointed to find it was full of holes, gaps and missing links, so I snail-mailed Dawkins to tell him how disappointing it was, and he wrote back saying- "Of course it's full of missing links.." as if it was perfectly normal!
So until he and his chums can plug the holes, he might just as well be whistling dixie cos i ain't buying his theories..

Evolutionary ancestory stretches back in an unbroken chain. Each and every link in that chain is either missing or found. If you will not be satisfied without seeing each and every link, then you will have to satisfy yourself with a bible that has lots of missing page and is incredibly internally inconsistent to boot.

Here's a whole truckload in just one sentence mate-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Imp, pp 113–4)

I see no missing links, just hypothesized paths to flight. It is possible that some day fossils that fill in the details may be found, if not ... so what? It does not change the reality of the reptile/bird lineage or the fact that evolution occured.

 

[Prophet]

Ummmm! Did you even read what I wrote?

You gave me a convoluted scenario that attempts to explain the virgin birth doctrine. The issue I take here is your attempted solution of a nonexistant problem. The reasons for developing such a doctrine are fairly obvious. The virgin birth doctrine is there to legitimize and make exclusive Jesus' claim as God's son.

They had Temple Virgins = "young maidens" that lived and worked in the Temples, - not perpetual virgins. The Qur'an says Mary was one of these.
And young girls do get pregnant.

The Qur'an with regards to Mary is fan fiction one step removed and less reliable than the already unreliable NT.

We know perfectly well that we have a huge myth around Jesus, if he even existed.

You don't seem to recognize that Jesus being born of a virgin is part of that huge myth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First, learn the difference between mythology and history.

That (at least in theory) should be an easy and obvious distinction today. However, history in the ancient world didn't just borrow from myth; it relied upon myth as a guide to telling history. Moreover, what we consider to be works of ancient history, such as the biographies by Plutarch, Xenophon, Diogenes Laertius, Philostratus, Lucian, Suetonius, etc., were not considered to belong to the genre "history" or to be historiography.

The so-called "father" of history (Herodotus) uses the word in his opening line as it was used in common parlance: inquiries. He also begins (and throughout his work depends on) borrowing from myths such as the Homeric epics, and his detractors critiqued him not so much for his reliance on such sources but for his style: history became the kind of narrative Herodotus wrote, but more linear.

Biography was freed from such conventions. Thus a biography of Caesar could at one point given an account of him as an adult, and later one of him as a child. Ancient historiography did not do this.

Both, though, included myth, legend, magic, miracles, gods, etc. Strabo directly connects the two (history being born from myth). The distinction between historiography and myth, as we understand these, was mainly whether the authors intended to tell that which they believed happened. This wasn't contrasted so much so with that which they believed didn't happen, but more so the stories bereft of a spatio-temporal context all historiography possessed, the use of literary devices like meter, and their relative unimportance for religion (which was fundamentally a practice; it was something one did, rather than believed). Interestingly, this is why certain biographies were rife with myth and certain myths contained elements of historiography (although far more of the former and far fewer of the latter were written).

Do we have evidence for Paul or any of the other main characters of the NT outside of the NT?

A problem with this question is that it perceives the NT as something that didn't exist for a long, long time after its authors. There is no reason to think of Paul as somehow being "inside" a collection that didn't exist until long after his death. Josephus spends more time on John the Baptist than on Jesus (even if we include, either as is or, as most scholars believe, in some now corrupted form, the early, longer reference to Jesus). Pilate is known mostly through Josephus, Philo, and the NT. Josephus doesn't mention Hillel (despite being a Pharisee), nobody mentions the Teacher of Righteousness outside of the Qumran findings, and even Roman historian Dio Cassius somehow decided to ignore the leader of the Jewish revolt in his account of what was/is usually identified by this leader's name: the Bar Kochba revolt.

For a full review of non-Christian sources, see e.g.,
Van Voorst, R. E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Did any historians or writers in general of the period take notice of them and write about them?

How many historians wrote in the first century whose works survive for us to answer this?

Surely if at last some of the things attributed to those people in the Christian writings actually occurred, someone would've noticed? Right?

Hence the enormous amount of literature generated in a few decades. There is no figure about whom more was written in such a period of time in antiquity.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no figure about whom more was written in such a period of time in antiquity.

Well no. There is more for Julius Ceaser as just one example.

How many historians wrote in the first century whose works survive for us to answer this?

Well at least 25 that are well known.

 

[outhouse]

How many historians wrote in the first century whose works survive for us to answer this?

.

And even later.


Look at how popular Marcion was and we have nothing at all.

His following was hundreds of thousands of times larger then Jesus while jesus was alive.


All we have from Marcion are later church fathers that trashed him, so we know what he stood for.


Other then that nothing and he was huge!

 

[Ingledsva]

Ummmm! Did you even read what I wrote?

You gave me a convoluted scenario that attempts to explain the virgin birth doctrine. The issue I take here is your attempted solution of a nonexistant problem.

ING - Dude! I'm a non-believer, - and I didn't attempt anything. I gave another plausible idea behind the "MYTH!"

The reasons for developing such a doctrine are fairly obvious. The virgin birth doctrine is there to legitimize and make exclusive Jesus' claim as God's son.

ING - Perhaps, perhaps not. Obviously the "end result" is to make Jesus the Messiah, Son of God, trinity God, etc.

However, we know the Hebrew had Temple Virgins, we know there is the Isaiah Temple Virgin story, - and obviously they tried to say this is a prediction of Jesus through a Virgin.

If they still had virgins in the Temples, a pregnant one could easily be written in as the columniation of the prediction, or get one pregnant, - and just add more myth over time.

Now obviously the whole story could also be made up, and Jesus could even be a Mushroom. Gives a whole new meaning to him changing water into intoxicating spirits. Amanita Muscaria anyone?

They had Temple Virgins = "young maidens" that lived and worked in the Temples, - not perpetual virgins. The Qur'an says Mary was one of these.
And young girls do get pregnant.

The Qur'an with regards to Mary is fan fiction one step removed and less reliable than the already unreliable NT.

ING - Again - perhaps, perhaps not. Other texts say the same things, and the Catholic Church also has the tradition that Mary was raised in the Temple. Perhaps they were even purposely raising girls in the Temple/Church to try and fulfill their perceived Isaiah prophecy?

We know perfectly well that we have a huge myth around Jesus, if he even existed.

You don't seem to recognize that Jesus being born of a virgin is part of that huge myth.

Again - perhaps, perhaps not. As has been said - this is virgin as in maiden. Lots of maidens get pregnant. It is the supernatural, and God parts, that are definitely myth, the rest we can speculate on.

*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Legion, I'm aware of pretty much all the non-Biblical sources people turn to to try and present as evidence that Jesus (or Paul or any of the others) existed. None of them are contemporary and most, if not all, are questionable as to whether they are forgeries, interpolations or if they are even meant to reference Jesus in the first place.

I looked at the Amazon page for Robert E. Van Voorst's book and it doesn't seem to present anything new. Plus, that guy is a Christian theologian and a Presbyterian minister, so we know what conclusion he will draw. This is the problem with Biblical scholarship. They have a true conflict of interests and don't seem to be truly engaged in straight-up historical scholarship but are just trying to find "proof" for something they already believe in. That's why I'm skeptical of anything that comes out of those people.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well at least 25 that are well known.

Can you name then? I ask for two reasons:

1) If we include historians for whom only quotations/fragments exist, then we increase the number of references to Jesus. Thallos, for example, is quoted as referring to Jesus in our fragments/remains. He would be the earliest non-Christian reference to Jesus, but is frequently left out of consideration by historians because we have so much more to go with (as opposed to other figures and authors for whom we must rely on quotations within lost works later referenced).

2) In popular works like The Jesus Mysteries, we are given lists like: "Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian, Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial, Plutarch, Appolonius, Pausanius, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius, Columella, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Jermogeones, Lysias, Velerius Maximus."

The problem is that that vast majority of these either weren't historians, wrote works that we don't have, or both.

Quintilian, for example, was an orator/rhetorician whose works are mostly lost to us. Theon of Smyrna was a Greek philosopher whose works are probably mostly unknown to us and the rest are almost entirely lost. Statius was a poet. Columella is virtually unknown to us other than through his supposed work on agriculture. And so on.

Basically, while such lists are easily produced, they turn out to refer to those whose writings are lost to us and/or to those who weren't historians.

 

[Bunyip]

Can you name then? I ask for two reasons:

1) If we include historians for whom only quotations/fragments exist, then we increase the number of references to Jesus. Thallos, for example, is quoted as referring to Jesus in our fragments/remains. He would be the earliest non-Christian reference to Jesus, but is frequently left out of consideration by historians because we have so much more to go with (as opposed to other figures and authors for whom we must rely on quotations within lost works later referenced).

2) In popular works like The Jesus Mysteries, we are given lists like: "Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian, Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial, Plutarch, Appolonius, Pausanius, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius, Columella, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Jermogeones, Lysias, Velerius Maximus."

The problem is that that vast majority of these either weren't historians, wrote works that we don't have, or both.

Quintilian, for example, was an orator/rhetorician whose works are mostly lost to us. Theon of Smyrna was a Greek philosopher whose works are probably mostly unknown to us and the rest are almost entirely lost. Statius was a poet. Columella is virtually unknown to us other than through his supposed work on agriculture. And so on.

Basically, while such lists are easily produced, they turn out to refer to those whose writings are lost to us and/or to those who weren't historians.

So what if some were poets, rhetoricians and so on? Did you actually believe that would eliminate them as historians? Are you seriously going to argue that only full time professionals identifying specifically as historians count?

You asked how many historians from the first century whose works survive - the answer is 25.

 

[oldbadger]

I think so, but I think it also goes back to their own tradition - Isaiah, etc.


We have several texts, including the Qur'an that say Mary lived in the Temple.


EDIT - And as pointed out - the Catholic tradition that she was a Temple Virgin.



*

Thankyou..... for all of this.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I'm aware of pretty much all the non-Biblical sources people turn to to try and present as evidence that Jesus (or Paul or any of the others) existed.

That's never really the problem. Generally speaking, those who haven't studied ancient history aren't really familiar with the nature, paucity, quality, and other short-comings of our evidence for most of ancient history. Historians (and no, not just biblical scholars) don't bother questioning whether Paul exists because the logic behind such radical skepticism would mean we can't trust much of anything anybody has ever written. As virtually all historians believe that authors from ancient history (as well as people in general, in other forms of evidence) preserved information we can scrutinize critically, they don't apply one standard of evidence when it comes to Christian sources and another when it comes to Greek or Roman.

In other words, historians recognize that the NT is a historical source, even those who (contra the majority) don't believe the gospels to be part of a genre of ancient biography of the type Plutarch, Suetonius, Philostratus, etc., wrote. After all, they use Aristophanes' fictional drama The Clouds, the fictional character used by Plato which is in clear contradiction with the Socrates of Xenophon that Aristotle tells us was part of a genre of fiction started by one Simon the Shoemaker, etc.

Even those extremely critical of our ability to uncover historical elements within our earliest Christian sources have determined over and over again that their existence can't be explained without their being an historical Jesus behind them.

However, it is little understood how historians generally interpret what kind of evidence is available such that the historical figures we are all taught about in summaries in school are somehow "historical". The fact that historians use e.g., a major Greco-Roman biographer like Diogenes Laertius some of whose biographical subjects had died centuries ago and whose works barely survive passes uncritically. The heavy reliance on myth and legend is likewise glossed over because few actually bother to read the primary sources for figures from antiquity. And then of course there is always the comparison between our sources for Jesus and figures so momentous as Julius or Augustus Caesar, rather than Euripides, Antiphon, Pilate, Pythagoras, Diogenes the Cynic, or even many of the names the authors of The Jesus Mysteries proffer as "a list of Pagan writers who wrote at or within a century of the time Jesus is said to have lived".

None of them are contemporary and most

Contemporary is great. We rarely find contemporary sources for anybody from antiquity. For Jesus we have Paul, who is contemporary.

if not all, are questionable as to whether they are forgeries, interpolations or if they are even to reference Jesus in the first place.

In that case Christian sources are among the best we have. For most sources we have a few manuscripts that date from the late medieval period. Not counting quotations from early Christian literature or translations, we have literally thousands upon thousands of NT manuscripts so that NT textual critics have a comparative wealth of evidence to determine what is or isn't a forgery, interpolation, or variant.

I looked at the Amazon page for Robert E. Van Voorst's book and it doesn't seem to present anything new. Plus, that guy is a Christian theologian and a Presbyterian minister, so we know what conclusion he will draw.

Should we discount any atheists or agnostics who determine Jesus likely didn't exist? It is one thing to examine those like W. L. Craig's blundering attempts at historiography and dismiss them for the garbage they are. It is another to dismiss someone whose work you haven't read for a worldview that biases his the way that worldview's bias everyone. His is simply one of the most complete presentations of scholarship (including non-Christian and outside of biblical studies) on the state of research of our sources outside of the NT. If you wish for an historian you can examine Akenson, D. H. (2000). Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus. Oxford University Press. It's more credulous, but the author has a doctorate with the word "history" in it.

This is the problem with Biblical scholarship. They have a true conflict of interests and don't seem to be truly engaged in straight-up historical scholarship

What is your basis for comparison? What, for example, do you find problematic in Michael Grant's scathing dismissal of mythicism despite his prominence as a classical historian, not a biblical scholar? How about Richard Carrier's unquestioning use of Christian and non-Christian sources to reconstruct Roman "science" which includes legendary accounts barely surviving like that of Hypatia or is built upon the use of lists of names on a text which are unknown outside of that list to count the number of "scientists" and of what kind lived during the Roman period?

I didn't begin with historical Jesus studies but with classical languages and classical history. It was one of my majors. I'm used to looking at critical apparati that are vastly smaller than the manuscript evidence excluded from an NT critical apparatus because we have so many so vastly superior manuscript attestation. I'm used to studying figures whom we are not sure are equivalent of others by a similar name because almost nothing was written of them and what was supposedly written by them caused ancient authors to wonder if the two were the same. I'm uses to historians who rely on the Iliad as a source for historical information.

I was not used to the simultaneous credulity and completely unnecessary skepticism one can easily find in NT/historical Jesus studies, except in one case: Socrates. Even here, though, one historian can critically accept a select version of the account we have for Socrates, ignoring 300+ years of critical, skeptical assessment, while another in the very same volume can write all of our sources off as fiction. That was a few years ago.

The point is that historians of antiquity rely on historical methods (whether their doctorate contains the word "history", "classics/classical", etc.) and their work is reviewed by other historians across fields. It is well known that we have less evidence from this time. It is less well known how much the kind of sources we have for Jesus is greater than what we have for virtually any other figure from antiquity. People who refer to textual criticism (interpolation and other problems with our manuscripts) ignore or do not know that this problem is unbelievably worse when it comes to classical and late classical sources (even medieval!). The clearly mythical/legendary nature of the gospels is contrasted not with actually reading sources for those already accepted as historical (still less realizing we don't actually have them), but with some textbook or similarly summary version.

but are just trying to find "proof" for something they already believe in.

This is a natural human tendency. However, as the vast majority of historical Christian literature from it's beginnings in the 18th century, historical Jesus studies has undermined central Christian tenets. In particular, few conservative Christian scholars actually argue that history could possibly support Jesus' resurrection, while others disagree with e.g., whether Schweitzer's early 1900s account that Jesus was a failed messianic prophet mistakes an eschatological Jesus for the magician/egalitarian preacher whose body was eaten by dogs (as argued by the "big names" of the Jesus seminar and esp. by Crossan for that last bit).

That's why I'm skeptical of anything that comes out of those people.

"Those people."

Hm.