Abstract

This article identifies and examines the arguments put forward in the last decades by the proponents of a «non eschatological / non apocalyptic Jesus», in order to assess their explanatory value. It concludes that not one of them withstands critical examination because they are all built on arbitrary grounds and are refuted by extant literary evidence and/or by sound reasoning. Furthermore, the fact that this kind of untenable arguments reappears time and time again in the history of research powerfully suggests that they are the result of an immunisation strategy, contrived by scholars who are embarrassed by the implications of an apocalyptic Jesus