Great Gods of Garlic Gumbo, the derangement is worse than I thought. I am now forced to bring you another episode of Unclear on the Concept.
A couple days ago I created a post expressing my annoyance with particular problematic practices that I have observed frequently to occur in discussions about the so-called Historic Jesus. I was even quite clear that I wasn’t talking about actual historians writing in actual journals:
I won’t contest how this [methodology] is used in the work of peer reviewed historians. Perhaps that is even the best method, certainly it must be among the better methods or professional historians wouldn’t use it. However in the work of professional historians, I think they better understand exactly how limited is the claim that HJ existed.
Outside of arguments in journals, however, I think that this argument ill suits these less professional audiences.
Got that people? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE JOURNAL ARTICLES WRITTEN BY PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS, SO ASKING ME TO CITE OR CONSIDER THE PERSPECTIVES OF PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS IS A BLATANT SIGN YOU HAVEN’T EVEN TAKEN THE TIME NECESSARY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.