Daily Finds – Can Am Renegade Forum?

Do people here apply a different standard to judging the existence of the historical Jesus than other ancient?

For example, many of the replies to this question about Tacitus went into evaluation of historical sources providing evidence for the existence of a real man, Jesus of Nazareth:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100803135955AA29Qn7&r=w

I am prone to wonder: Do the people who promoted these ideas apply the same skepticism and criteria to the texts which provide evidence of ancient mathematicians, playwrights, poets, and even historians?

====================================================================
====================================================================

OPTIONAL:
A RELATED QUESTION ALONG WITH SOME BACKGROUND TO THE QUESTION

[By the way, I have a D.Phil. in Biblical studies/Ancient Near Eastern Languages and am Professor Emeritus and former chair of the Religious Studies department of a major state university in the U.S. AND I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THIS: Are those who described in detail the alleged absence of evidence for the historical Jesus and your list of criteria which allegedly negates various secular texts as evidence for the historical Jesus --- ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF HISTORIANS AND BIBLICAL SCHOLARS IS THAT (1) Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a real person, and (2) Tacitus and others who provided evidence concerning Jesus from their writings in the early second century ARE CONSIDERED IMPORTANT SOURCES! I spent some 45+ years working with a wide spectrum of scholars including delivering and listening to papers at an uncountable number of American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, and other academic conferences and I can assure you that much of what I read in R&S "answers" such as at the aforementioned link ARE NOT CONSIDERED ANY SORT OF WEIGHTY ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE HISTORICAL JESUS. (As with tabloid news, there is always some vocal "renegades" who can attract media attention through bombastic claims. But media attention -- and websites dedicated to their ideas for quick cut-and-pasting -- is not necessarily accompanied by respect from their academic peers.)]

That said, I have a great interest in how the Internet provides a sounding board for minority and fringe viewpoints — and forums like R&S seem to provide a place for those holding such views to find affirmation and additional reference material for cut-and-pasting the groups position.

SO I AM CURIOUS: Are many of you aware that you are presenting as “fact” a tiny minority position not at all held in high regard in academic circles and the top peer-reviewed journals? (Yes, we can all come up with a few names. But SBL, for example, probably has a membership of around 7,000+, the majority with terminal degrees. And that is the sort of group I’m considering on issues of consensus: the world’s professional Biblical scholars.)
================================

Virtually EVERYONE knows the Josephus insertion is of late origin. Big whoop. Get real.
==================================

Since many here are so enlightened and expert on these topics, I suggest you write and publish in a peer-reviewed journal your “definitive proof” of your contrarian position, and YOU WILL BECOME WORLD FAMOUS IN THE FIELD FOR TRANSFORMING THE CONSENSUS. That’s how academic publishing works. If you are correct and present a cogent argument, you will convince us all — including the atheists and agnostic in my department which freely acknowledge the historical Jesus. Go for it!