I do disagree with the “Jesus Seminar” findings, which are dated, incomplete, and also determined by their own theological agenda. In fact, I question almost every activity in which John Dominic Crossan is involved.
Ehrman’s findings are unoriginal, derivative, and also determined by his own “Look at me, I am a former Fundie but I have seen the light” agenda. Therefore, I am skeptical of this skeptic.
As I provided to you before, biblical scholarship has moved along its late 1970’s, early 1980’s “facts”, and things are not as “settled” as you portray them to be.
+JMJ,
~Theo
What “theological agenda” do you think these scholars had? They’re people who study the Bible and know it intimately.