...
I'm sorry. I was referring to zealots that reject the consensus of historical scholarship.
It is disappointing to me that after all this time people are still making the "consensus" argument.
On most issues where objective research can lead to a consensus view among the experts the reasonable argument from authority that experts disagree with a particular view is relevant and probative. But is it possible to infer from this that an alleged consensus about an HJ is probably correct?
I don't think so for a variety of reasons that have been put forth over the years in these threads. A list of what I think are some of the best reasons to completely reject the "consensus" argument when it comes to the issue of the HJ.
1. Nobody knows
It is hard to believe that with all the clues and analysis about the issue of the HJ that nobody alive knows today whether he existed or not, but that is the unassailable truth. The theory of the existence of the HJ hangs by a few thin threads and those threads contain information that is uncorroborated and it is very plausible that the information that underlies the HJ theory was made up entirely or is so corrupted that it is impossible to determine what is true about the information.. So the experts in this alleged consensus can't be right if they claim that some information about the HJ is very reliable. There is no very reliable information about the HJ and experts that claim otherwise are just wrong.
2. Who makes up this alleged consensus?
As IanS has pointed out endlessly, a lot of people that are judged to be part of this alleged consensus have ties to religious institutions, have been believers at some point in time even if they aren't now, or have a livelihood that depends on writing about the HJ. All reasons to at least be suspicious of their objectivity.
Is this supposed to be a consensus of all secular historians? If so why is the group particularly capable of determining if an HJ existed? If the consensus is supposed to consist of secular first century specialists then who are these people and what is it that they believe? Most importantly if their arguments are all that good why even make arguments about what the consensus is? All that is necessary to prove the existence of the HJ or likelihood of the existence of the HJ is to summarize the evidence for their view.
3. Political problems with candidly stating views about the HJ
How many historians are in an independent enough situation that they could candidly express views questioning the existence of the HJ? Clearly expressing a view that questioned the existence of the HJ in many university situations could be politically very difficult. I think many if not most historians are just not going to take on the issue of the HJ so it is reasonable to be very suspicious of any so called consensus of historians on the HJ when a large number of historians might be avoiding the issue entirely to avoid political issues that might threaten their job.
4. Exactly what is this consensus?
Claims about this alleged consensus not only are not clear about who it consists of, they are also unclear about exactly what the consensus view is. With some very loose definitions of what constitutes an HJ there can be no doubt that an HJ existed. Of course, there were religious movements outside the mainstream in first century Palestine and those religious movements had leaders and the NT writers must have had least used their knowledge of first century religious movements to create their Jesus character.
If a tighter definition of HJ is intended then what percentage of secular first century historical specialists believe that an HJ so defined existed? And how strongly do they believe that an HJ so defined existed? Without a clear understanding of the answers to these questions banging on the "consensus" argument drum clearly is pointless. An ambiguous claim about some unspecified consensus amongst an unspecified group clearly doesn't provide additional insight about the question of the HJ.
