I was thinking about it today, and I wonder if I would be more content with all of these “biographies” of Jesus if the scholars who wrote them were clear that they weren’t really “biographies” as much as they are metabiographies. At least labeling them as metabiographies would be more honest. A metabiography is the only way to account for the life of Jesus, using current sources, without dipping into the well of historical Jesus scholarship; without projecting ones own modern social constructs into the past anachronistically. Just a random thought, though I will consider this further as a part of my ongoing dialogue with “historicists” to redefine mythicism.
Posted on October 28, 2010 by Tom Verenna