Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[steeltoes]

You have absolutely no clue as to what my view is and I have no idea why you ramble on about nothing. I provided a quote from a researcher that gave a reason for a wider range date for p52 and all you can do is freak out and go on a rant about mythicists. I don't care what you think of those that don't believe as you do, it's your problem not mine. I don't really care if Jesus is historical or not if you must know because it's not important, it can't possibly make a difference to anything, it's thousands of years after the fact. All this crap about mythicists and what they don't know and how much you know about everything is nauseating.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Legion. . .
Are yu familiar with Joe Atwill's work in his book and website: Caesar's Messiah?
Jonathan

 

[outhouse]

Legion. . .
Are yu familiar with Joe Atwill's work in his book and website: Caesar's Messiah?
Jonathan

I am

he's sort of a quack.

His hypothesis is a joke really and doesnt stand up for beans.


He also used mythicist that are laughable in his online video review of his book.



Its not worth the paper its printed on.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have absolutely no clue as to what my view is and I have no idea why you ramble on about nothing.

Your posts have shown not only a great deal about your views, but also the bases for them, the extend of your research, the types of sources you rely on, and your knowledge of the topic.

My understanding for one of the arguments is that the gospel story was almost unheard of until the second half of the second century which makes some consider if this Jesus was really the founder of Christianity as opposed to the intrigue of the mythology of a dying and rising Son of God that caught on much later.

Philo may have influenced the writer of John, he wrote some essays about the word and logos. I will try to find them online.

The gospels are reliant on gMark so there is basically one story with the exception of the two birth stories which are different from one another as well as the post resurrection stories.

There is argument whether John is reliant on Mark, or to what extent.

And yet not a single person that wrote about him ever met the guy. It's all about the belief from reading the tallest tale ever told, it's all a matter of opinion.

It's a story. Stories are not considered lies, they are considered to be fiction and in the case of the gospels allegorical fiction.

apparently we are in the throes of a third quest for the historical Jesus, wherein scholars of the third quest have been accused of mixing apologetics with scholarship and being one sided.

If scholars have evidence of Jesus they could provide some, just as they have for Pilate.

I thought it was Strauss that explained gospel miracles as natural events, whatever, the point I make on topic is that historical Jesus is still up for debate.

It worked for Paul. Paul never got to read the gospel story, it wasn't written until after he died. In fact it appears that none of the gospel writers heard of a Jesus of Nazareth, of Mary, Judas. So there you go.

And so forth. You have consistently relied on sources like wikipedia. You have made claims about the genre and nature of the gospels without any reference to work on literary production, from history to epic poetry, which could inform you as to the nature of the gospels' genre. Nor have you referenced anything from an expert on the demarcation, style, and content of ancient Greek and/or Roman literature. You have made multiple claims about multiple issues, from how unimpressed you are with Ehrman (whom you have not read and about an issue which requires a historical context you are not familiar with) to the genre of the gospels (without displaying any indication you are familiar with ancient genres or the scholarship on this). You have asserted that bias dictates current scholarship and that "it's all opinion" rather than demonstrate this through analysis of academic sources.

Finally, when called out on the fact that your conception of ancient historiography, ancient religions, historical methods, the available evidence, etc., is inconsistent with specialists in numerous fields, your defense is to sneer at those who have dedicated years and years to studying issues you understand from a website or two, and further malign their integrity by insinuations of biased motivation.

What you have not done is provide any indication that you are sufficiently acquainted with the work of countless scholars in fields as diverse as Near-eastern archaeology and witchcraft & magic (let alone the primary fields) to either make the assertions you have about the state of historical Jesus research, or for the arrogant dismissal of thousands of scholars across the world. scholars whom to you, apparently, are so inept that they can't figure out what you have, or so biased that they refuse to see what is so clear from your "study", or are silenced by "the great conspiracy". A great conspiracy which apparently ensures that while scholars can (and have) consistently produced controversial scholarship for well over 100 years arguing that (often in multiple ways) either christianity and the NT are products of lies motivated by unsavory designs or that Jesus himself was someone many Christians would revile, but for some odd reason the idea that we don't have enough evidence to say Jesus was a historical figure is taboo.

I provided a quote from a researcher that gave a reason for a wider range date for p52 and all you can do is freak out and go on a rant about mythicists.

You quoted wikipedia:

, most scholars continue to favour the earlier dating, though the possibility of a later date cannot be entirely discounted. The John Rylands Library continues to maintain Roberts's assessment of the date of

52, that it "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D.",[10] and the date is given as c. 125 in standard reference works. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, my response was to several of your posts, and contained a portion directed solely at your use of wikipedia:

I've read Nongbri's paper, thanks, along with numerous other papers and books on this and other Greek manuscript witnesses. But I'm not an expert in paleograpgy. In fact, I hate having to read from actual inscriptions and manuscripts in general (rather than printed Greek or whatever language), because the script, the damage done by time, the spelling errors, the abbreviations, etc., are a pain. I know a bunch of people, mostly classicists, who specialize in dealing with manuscripts, inscriptions, even coins. I remember a presentation given by an exavator of Crete and the pictures of thousands and thousands of pottery shards which had to be painstakingly put together over years and years. To me, that kind of puzzle is just as tedious and dull as dating paleography. So I leave it to the experts, and they have a consensus.

Also, as you
1) do not have the sufficient background to evaluate how accurately the wiki page is
2) lack the familiarity with paleography to determine how much credence to give to outliers
3) have not read the works cited either in the wiki article or elsewhere regarding the dating
and
4) choose, despite your "neutral" stance and the fact that you have to rely on a wiki article rather than what such sources themselves rely on (scholarship)

how on earth can you say you are neutral or that I

have me confused with someone that gives a crap either way what this Jesus was.

If you really don't care and are as neutral as you pretend, why go out of your way find scholars who don't just disagree with most of their colleagues, but only do so in one particualr direction? I don't see you citing Bauckham, Craig, Worthington, Evans, and other scholars who differ from most in the high level of historical reliability they believe the gospels have?

I don't care what you think of those that don't believe as you do, it's your problem not mine.

And again you mistake me. I don't care if people hold views about this topic I don't. I don't even care if they think Jesus is pure fiction. What I bothers me is those who make statements like this:

I don't really care if Jesus is historical or not if you must know because it's not important

pretending to be neutral when it is so blatantly obvious that this isn't the case. When people who are neutral about some topic are shown evidence, their first response isn't to doubt it and then later (after being prompted) to ask about the evidence. Neutral people who don't care don't rely entirely on non-academic sources which are rejected by thousands of experts and massive amounts of research developed since the modern period. And they don't defend their selective sources and refusal to research beyond sensationalist sources by maligning researchers all over the world even though they haven't read the research.

And when it comes to the historical Jesus, a neutral person who was interested in accuracy would study both the primary sources (including those which provide context) and the secondary sources (again, including those that provide context).

Finally, as there are virtually no experts in any fields relating to historical Jesus studies who believe we lack evidence to say Jesus was historical, a person who is neutral and doesn't care one way or the other would accept this.

Instead, you seek out particular sources while ignoring the vast majority and justify this through accusations regarding the quality of scholarship you haven't read and the integrity of scholars you aren't familiar with.


,

it can't possibly make a difference to anything, it's thousands of years after the fact.

Yet important enough to you that it has dominated the content of your posts.

 

[steeltoes]

If you don't know what makes Jesus historical, you could just say so.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you don't know what makes Jesus historical, you could just say so.

I have. Repeatedly.

I have told you that the gospels were a type of ancient historiography (certainly not the best, but not the worst), with the clear goal of reporting the past and doing so in a way consistent with biography written in and around that time (ancient historiography which was biographical differed from event-narrative historiography in that, among other things, chronology of reported events were far more flexible; that is, it didn't matter if X account really occured before Y, just that they were reported).

I have told you that however mythical the gospels appear to you or most modern readers, to those who have made a study of ancient writings they are clearly different from various types of fiction (epic, drama, fables, etc.). And even if we disregard the literary nature of our evidence and posit Jesus as some "mythic deity", then unlike every other we're dealing with one who didn't start as divine (or at least clearly divine) at all, and only began to really be considered divine by some after the gospels and much early Christian literature was written.
Also, a primary characteristic of literature intended to be fictional/mythic is the setting. Historiography differed not only by specifying the time, places, and people, but also doing so in ways which could be falsified. This is not true of mythic accounts, which take place in some distant, nebulous setting.

The amount of time which passed between the composition and distribution of the gospels and the independently corroborated information they contain, such as that on John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas, Herod, etc., is found in ancient historical works, and is certainly not found in invented genres one reads about online which the gospels "really" are.

The conclusions based on the frequent comparisons between Christianity and other cults around that time, which one can find easily enough with a google search, rely on "logic" which could "prove" Wicca, Islam, and Hindu originated from the Homeric epics. They rely on summaries they distort regarding cultic practices common in the hellenistic world. Christianity developed out of an entirely different cultural and religious background, and one which operated under diametrically opposed structures, practices, and beliefs.


These oppositions existed at the most basic level. The reason Christians continue to argue over Jesus' divine nature has to do with the level of ambiguity in the texts, which meant centuries of controversy until a general resolution was reached. The entire point of myth is to be what is needed to understand cultic practice, not confuse it. Additionally, received myth was extremely flexible, so flexible that the even the conclusions could be dramatically altered. And like other fictional genres, the flow was extremely important, because at the heart of everything from drama to allegory was a fluid story with a beginning that flowed to an end. The gospels largely consist of disparate accounts often very awkwardly joined together (which again is akin to ancient biography).

Then there is the problem of the survival of the texts and the authors that referred to them. For a great many authors and works, we only know that they exist through references from much later authors. We could pretty much reconstruct the gospels from quotations by early christians. As with any religious sect or cult, we have to ask what best explains the evidence we have. If the Jesus sect was akin to the cult of Isis or or Demeter, then we'd expect to find similar evidence. Instead, we find a set of documents completely alien to any such religious tradition, and one which originated in an entirely different culture drawing on an entirely different religious heritage.

Looking at they internal structure and development of the Jesus sect, what we find is far more consistent with types of cults/groups oriented around a central figure, all the way back to Socrates, Plato, Epicuras, etc., and continuing on to modern cult leaders than it is with any known religious group in the ancient world.

Most importantly, perhaps, we have to explain why we have the evidence we do. There are figures who are legendary and who may have existed or may not have, or who probably didn't, such as Pythagoras, Homer, Achilles, and in particular Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus). We also have those we know are almost certainly mythical, like Herakles. For Apollonius and Pythagoras, who are generally thought to be historical, we have almost no information until at least a century after their deaths, and for Pythagoras several centuries. Moreover, even if we ignore the late dates, include the parts which describe magic and myth, we still have less information for both than we do for Jesus. The reason that there are such problems in these cases and others like them is very much an issue of the elapsed time between the sources and the individuals.

With Jesus, we start with a contemporary who probably never met him, but who did meet with Jesus' brother James during his time with Peter. This brother is also attested to by the authors of Mark and Matthew as well as Josephus. In addition to Paul, we have an entire account of Jesus' missionary activities while contemporaries of Jesus were still around. We have three more accounts which, although not completely independent of Mark are not wholly depedent upon Mark either. Unlike almost all documents from the ancient world, these texts survived. Not only did they survive, but they did so far better than any other document, despite the fact that the religious group producing them was persecuted, and persecuted even before most of the gospels (perhaps all) were written.

We have, then, the production of several different accounts which are clearly related to historical accounts of that time, and clearly distinguishable from common forms of fictional literature. We also have internal correspondence about the dynamics of the early Christian community, which corresponds not to cultic practice/worship but to sectarian or similar religious movements which began via a historical leader. The gospels likewise are quite clear on the origin point from which the tradition they set down came, and not just the person but also the place and (quite recent) time. Moreover, they were written to preserve a tradition about the past not some set of morals or origin myths the way epic, poetry, drama, allegory, were.

Finally, apart from Josephus and Tacitus, we luckily have an amazingly clear picture of the Jesus sect development into Christianity. Not just through the gospels, or even the NT, but through those like Papias who were around and who could talk to the disciples. The author of Luke/Acts also was clearly familiar with much of the early dynamics of the church. Later epistles and non-canonical texts continue to show evolution as interpretations (beginning early with things like circumcision and later with Jesus' human vs. divine nature).

So how can we possibly explain all this (and much more I can't get into in a post) without a historical Jesus whose followers carried on a tradition which developed into Christianity? We could try to compare the Jesus sect to the followers of Mithras, but we immediately run into the problem that the few similarities between the two are either independent or more likely due to the fact that the Roman Mithras cult (the only version with any traits comparable to Jesus) wasn't around until after the gospels were already written. And with any such cult, we run into the problem of our source material/evidence: highly flexible literary compositions (usually in meter) which legitimize cultic traditions through origin stories, which were often freely adapted in fundamental ways, which do not take place in a setting like the gospels (i.e, one which can be checked out, and we have evidence from Pliny to Celsus and others that non-believers did indeed investigate), which originate out of an entirely different culture with an entirely different approach to religion than the Jesus sect, which have at their center divinity rather than requiring a 100+ development just to get to a point where a divine Jesus was a possibility, and which are fundamentally about cultic performance and sacrifice rather than theology, a set of values and teachings center to the origin figure, and which revolve around orthopraxy and structure typical cross-culturally of such cultic worship instead of a that which (like the Jesus sect) is comparable to numerous movements begun by spiritual teachers before and after Jesus' time.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think Ehrman is that good of scholar.

So name a good one.

 

[oldbadger]

So you want to talk about Price? he is a genius of sorts, and very well educated. Problem is his replacement hypothesis is easily refuted and doesnt carry any credibility and raises more questions then it answers. Carrier is about to bring out his hypothesis that rips Price apart. Which one is right, C? P? or neither? The answer by educated scholars is neither.

If you could only debate using info and argument from one scholar,who would that scholar be?


FGS don't say J D Crosson! His book is a mind-prep of Roman culture, society, politics and theology, preparing all so that he can pop his 'Jesus pill' within. He slowly reduces to eliminate and build what he will soon need to rely upon.

Where he must take a 'step', he then spends a paragraph apologising and offering suggestions as to how this new pill might be taken. .......
See how he side-steps his chosen 'magician'.... page 138 line 22 'If the title magician offends, simply substitute thaumatage, miracle worker, charismatic, holy one, or whatever pleases, ...........'

I am learning much about 'a lot' and learning 'nothing much' about historical Jesus. THis guy should have been a politician. ( 'If 'more tax' sounds upsetting to you, simply substitute this with 'more services, more security for yourselves....' etc etc.)

 

[steeltoes]

So name a good one.

Ehrman is probably a very skilled scholar when he is not doing historical Jesus. In fact, if you want to read some fine scholarship avoid historical Jesus. Biblical scholars doing historical Jesus is not so good. I would recommend Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would recommend Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman.

Cute little book popularizing the DH but hardly scholarship.

 

[oldbadger]

Ehrman is probably a very skilled scholar when he is not doing historical Jesus. In fact, if you want to read some fine scholarship avoid historical Jesus. Biblical scholars doing historical Jesus is not so good. I would recommend Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman.

Hi..... Thanks for the above.

The thing is, I am really keen to discover as much evidence as possible for a historical jesus, but the problem is that some kind of 'rule' seems to have established itself that only 'true-scholars'' opinions have value. Then, when these bloody scholars disagree with each other we debaters are supposed to divide and chuck muck at the opposing 'scholar'.

I'm reading one at this time,and have learned so much 'apart from anything to do with Jesus'!!! (at halfway point). That's why I'm trying to nail down a historic scholar or two.

Just now I would listen to any amateur historian , like:tug-boat skipper, Fast-food takeway boss, anybody yes with a bit of investigative ability and questioning mind......... I might learn something!

But, so far, I do believe in a historic Jesus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ehrman is probably a very skilled scholar when he is not doing historical Jesus. In fact, if you want to read some fine scholarship avoid historical Jesus.

How do you (personally) distinguish scholarship from popular works?

Biblical scholars doing historical Jesus is not so good.

So far, you can't given any indication that you've read any, but have given a good indication that you don't realize the difference between scholarship and books like this:

I would recommend Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman.

If books like that are how you judge the quality of biblical scholarship, then you are judging the quality without ever reading any of it.

A great many scholars (in any field), write two different types of books. The main dividing line between scholarship and books like Who Wrote the Bible? is the intended audience. Books like Who Wrote the Bible? are trimmed downed, simplified, sensationalist, misleading (deliberately or unintentionally), and intended only to give an amateur or novice some of the basics (at least the good ones, as some don't even do that).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but the problem is that some kind of 'rule' seems to have established itself that only 'true-scholars'' opinions have value.

It's more about how much value. If you asked me to explain how the differences in sound between Italian and German had on the development of German opera, I could only say that I am pretty sure it did have some. But as I haven't studied the issue, if you want to actually know something about this I'm not the person to ask.

The NT, Jesus, early Christianity, etc., concern an era, culture, and languages quite different from today. When we wish to discover what we can about Jesus, including whether he existed, there is a great deal which needs to be addressed just to get to answering that question, and much more still to develop an answer.

In fact, reading scholars is far less important than reading scholarship. By that I mean the books one typically finds in bookstores such as Who Wrote the Bible? are written by scholars but are not scholarship. They are intended to simplify for (and unfortunately, too often decieve) the non-specialist. And of course this is usually a good thing, because most of the time when someone is interested in a subject, they want to know the basics.

The problem develops when one tries to judge the accuracy of popular sources by comparing them to one another. It's a bit like comparing whether one car manufacturer makes superior, better built cars than another based on how they look. The popular books are just a glimpse, and scholarship means looking at all the mechanics, material, specs, and so on.

Then, when these bloody scholars disagree with each other we debaters are supposed to divide and chuck muck at the opposing 'scholar'.

A great deal of the criticism in this and similar threads has been made by people who haven't actually read any scholarship and who "chuck mud" at the entire scholarly community.

I'm reading one at this time,and have learned so much 'apart from anything to do with Jesus'!!! (at halfway point). That's why I'm trying to nail down a historic scholar or two.

The scholar is far less important than they type of book they are writing. What level of detail and how comprehensive are you looking for?

 

[steeltoes]

I read your post #246, you are hardly one to judge anyone or anything. Convincing yourself that the gospels are an "historiography" so that you can read your Bible as if Jesus is historical is what I would expect to read on a website such as this. Unbelievable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I read your post #246, you are hardly one to judge anyone or anything.

And that post demonstrates this to you? Interesting. You insinuated I didn't know what makes Jesus historical. I gave you a number of reasons why the evidence we have makes this the only plausible answer. I have given you more reasons elsewhere, I have referred you to literature you could use to inform yourself, I have explained the problems inherent your approach, and much more.

And how do you respond? By an analysis of what I write and the sources you are familiar with which indicate I am incorrect? No. I get a line or two which usually consists of misusing the fallacy "argument from authority", claims about my depedence on consensus, and similar dismissive responses which lack any substance.

You have so avoided demonstrating that you have done any real research at all beyond maybe reading some popular books and some webpages, that I have actually asked you to indicate where your information is coming from. For example this:

Convincing yourself that the gospels are an "historiography"

is a response to a claim I made about genres in and around the first century. In order to evaluate whether or not I am correct, you'd need to be quite familiar with ancient historiography. And as it is pointless to reinvent the wheel, it would be a good idea to read some of the major works on the subject over the past few decades.

Instead, you reject what I have said out of hand, without any reason other than implying my understanding isn't based on anything sound.

I don't rely on consensus. But let's say I hadn't done any real research. Is it really better to dismiss the consensus from the standpoint of ignorance? You haven't done the research, but you are comfortable dismissing a massive amount of scholarship and the work of countless specialists in multiple fields without knowing what it is or having read any of it, because...?

If ignoring any and all scholarship weren't enough, you also feel justified in insulting those who produce it with accusations of a particular bias you claim to be intrinsic to their work, despite having never read it.

what I would expect to read on a website such as this. Unbelievable.

Then don't depend on websites. Do some research.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you keep :banghead3 you'll inevitable end up

This much is certain: attempting to :fight: the Dunning-Gruger Effect will prove to be a fools errand. :yes:​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm so tired of the misuse of the "argument to authority" fallacy which seems to appear (at least on this forum) mostly when it comes to the historical Jesus or early Christianity:

Dunn does not offer any argument for historical Jesus in that book besides another circular appeal to authority, and a few rhetorical questions

As for dating gJohn, take your own advice, "leave it to the experts, they have a consensus." Arguments from authority are wonderful that way

Also see the fallacious appeal to authority, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.[/FONT]

Not only has this "fallacy" been beaten to death by misapplication, the name ("appeal to authority" or "argument from authority") itself is almost part of its misuse. In an age in which "authority" is often synonymous with expert, the basis for categorizing this as a fallacy is largely absent. So much so that for years there are those who have sought not just to clarify what the fallacy actually is, but also those who think it is so inapplicable it causes more harm than good. As an example of such a view, which can be freely accessed from the journal Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice, see Coleman's paper "There is no Fallacy of Arguing from Authority" (you can download the full paper in .pdf form from this link).


In fact, so important is the appeal to/argument from authority that quite apart from its ubiquitous use in academia and beyond (e.g., citations), it is an important area of research in machine learning & artificial intelligence, as it relates to the field of expert systems, subjective probability, formal logic, and so on. Hence studies like:
"The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion" (Argumentation vol. 24(3) 2011), which understand as a given that far from being a blanket fallacy, appeal to experts is a central tool for making judgments and for basing beliefs.

Another demonstration of how important Argumentum ad Verecundiam/Appeal to authority/argument from authority actually is as a tool (and not just in scholarship or expert systems and so on) is how much time, effort, and study individuals working in everything from education to public policy to philosophy have devoted to trying to determine not if an appeal can be legitimate, but how the correct use of authority can be systematically characterized. The opening of Goodwin's "Forms of authority and the real Argumentum ad Verecundiam" is important first because it reveals why the use of authority was ever thought of as a fallacy, and second why it is clearly required when not misused: "On one side, appeals to authority appear to us suspicious. Arising in protestant attacks on Catholic dogmatics, extended by Bacon to all the idols on show in the theaters of knowledge, the suspicion about the rational force of authority received its paradigmatic expression in Locke, who placed the appeal as the first on his ur-list of arguments ad. On the other side, appeals to authority are manifestly inevitable."

Nor does one need to read philosophy, logic, or other journals. There are textbooks on critical thinking which explain (among other things) in detail when the use of expert opinion or authority constitutes a fallacy and when it does not. There are even popular works (e.g., How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic) which go over this.

So why is it that pretty much the only time someone claims "fallacy! that's an argument from authority" (or, just as bad, equates the "bandwagon" fallacy with expert consensus), it is misused?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've addressed this myself more than once. The abuse is little more than the handmaiden of ad hominem attacks on scholarship replete with the conspiracy theories that necessarily accompanies such hubris.

 

[savagewind]

This much is certain: attempting to the Dunning-Gruger Effect will prove to be a fools errand. [/indent]

Dunning and Kruger quoted Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge...")

Some good information there. Thanks for sharing.

 

[oldbadger]

The scholar is far less important than they type of book they are writing. What level of detail and how comprehensive are you looking for?

Thankyou for that whole post.

I tell you what..... exasperating as this might be ......I'm searching at random for whatever I can find, from whatever source, slowly trying to build a picture.

The JDC book has introduced me to a level of geography about Galilee and surrounding area that I had not grasped before. I understand a little more about Roman life and mindset than before, and hope (when Jesus is finally introduced) to learn more about Jesus.

What I'm sad about is JDC's 'mindset preparation' as he guides his reader towards his 'picture of all'. Some of this manipulation just jumps out of the page at me. I think this particular book is a kind of 'intellectual presentation', or to be more rude a 'mechanical sell'.

And so I'll finish it, gather what I've learned, and wander on. It's OT's fault! He got me interested, even though I now want to stray from his tenets.

And so.........please......whose book should I get hold of for a positive view of the historic Jesus?