I thought I’d share a link to the Wikipedia entry on “Historical Method.” Obviously it is an attempt to outline and summarize what several other books about historical method (only a couple of which I have read or consulted, but in relation to those it seems to get the gist about right). I share it not because it is authoritative but as a basis for discussion of the following question:
Is there anything in the method outlined there (or better yet in the books cited if readers know them well or have time to consult them) that is not in keeping with the practices of historians working on the historical figure of Jesus? Or is there any point at which this survey and summary (or the method set forth in the sources the article cites) is at odds with what most historians do?
I ask because mythicists (who deserve to be ignored but, like young-earth creationists and other such groups, cannot be because people who turn to the internet for knowledge listen to them) regularly claim that what scholars investigating the historical Jesus do is different from what mainstream historical study does.
The irony, of course, is that while mythicists claim that historical Jesus research is dominated by apologetics and Christian dogma, anyone familiar with the history of the field will know that, both in the past and today, historical critical study is rejected and denounced by religious conservatives precisely because they are unhappy that the historicity of so much that they assume is true is called into question or placed under a question mark, because historical critical investigation challenges their dogmas and assumptions.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In