I’ve been researching the “Historical Jesus“. His existence really doesn’t motivate me one way or the other, its not like finding out there was a man named Jesus is going to convince me he was God, but it’s a story that is culturally relevant to our story. I personally believe Jesus was a Myth, it just makes since to me, the theory that he was a composite of some kind, really adds up.
But I wanted to know exactly how the professional historians come up with the “Historical Jesus.” and in my research I’ve discovered something slightly disturbing to me. I hope I’m wrong, but it seems like they use a very unscientific Method to make these conclusions.
They start with the premise that the New Testament is a historical document mixed with mythology. Then they strip away the things that don’t compute with known science like the Virgin Birth, Resurrection and various Miracles and Jesus being God. Then they overlay the gospels and whatever matches they keep and the stuff that contradicts they throw away. They are left with a mutilated skeleton of the New Testament. To fill in the gaps they created, they pull from Archaeology and Sociology ( and other methods of collecting historic data) plausible Ideas to make it fit. Then they present it to the world as Fact and dogmatically discredit any one who is skeptical of it.
The Method would be fine, in my opinion, for creating realistic historically based fiction, like the movie Troy or Author, but it doesn’t hold up to the scientific method. It seems that its still in a hypothesis stage and yet they act like its as true as Evolution is true. Sounds like another religion to me. Do they do this with other historical records? If so, how can I trust what I read in any history book?
I could do the same thing with any book. Harry Potter is a historic figure, he just never flew on broom stick and waved a wand. He was just a boy caught up in a struggle with a psychotic lunatic who killed his parents.