Historical Biblical Criticism is one of the least rigorous academic disciplines. It combines the best of presuppositions against the supernatural with historical guesswork. There are so many disagreements among scholars about different issues. Marcus Borg and John Domminick Crossan and the Jesus Seminar once got together and actually had a vote, imagine that, a vote, how surprising, to see what would elements of the New Testament would make it in.
HBC has been going on for hundreds of years since Spinoza and the German school of theology. They haven't really produced any real evidence other than sensational stories and various methods of historical guesswork. Much of what they wrote has been overturned. For instance, some "Bible scholars" insisted that the Gospel of John was not written until hundreds of years until after the first century, obviously it would not have been written by John, but then people found a parchment dating it much earlier, around the start of the 2nd century.
There are hundreds or thousands of books written to refute what the historical casino produces, but people will still cling to ideas not even held by scholars (such as Bart Ehrman) that Jesus never existed. Biblical scholarship has a special place in the hearts of Christians who seek to avoid the duties of scripture, and as such, as always enjoyed a large market and probably always will by those eager to sell to the public a vision of freedom combined with speculation about everything imaginable about the history of the Bible.
History will vindicate scripture, as it already has, the most studied book that still has many, many adherents who are scholars at the very to of the academic Biblical Studies world. The honest interpreter will consider the other side (see FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, NT Wright, etc).
HBC has been going on for hundreds of years since Spinoza and the German school of theology. They haven't really produced any real evidence other than sensational stories and various methods of historical guesswork. Much of what they wrote has been overturned. For instance, some "Bible scholars" insisted that the Gospel of John was not written until hundreds of years until after the first century, obviously it would not have been written by John, but then people found a parchment dating it much earlier, around the start of the 2nd century.
There are hundreds or thousands of books written to refute what the historical casino produces, but people will still cling to ideas not even held by scholars (such as Bart Ehrman) that Jesus never existed. Biblical scholarship has a special place in the hearts of Christians who seek to avoid the duties of scripture, and as such, as always enjoyed a large market and probably always will by those eager to sell to the public a vision of freedom combined with speculation about everything imaginable about the history of the Bible.
History will vindicate scripture, as it already has, the most studied book that still has many, many adherents who are scholars at the very to of the academic Biblical Studies world. The honest interpreter will consider the other side (see FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, NT Wright, etc).
