I don't see what the point of having a new quest for the historical Jesus when it comes to these scholars. Their presuppositions alone rules out the testimony of the early Christian community because, they're seen as biased uncritical ancient neanderthals who would believe anything without evidence, even if it went against their 1st century Jewish expectations.

I can already guess what the outcome will be. It might go a little something like this: "If Jesus even existed at all he was an unimportant Jewish sage, he had a hippie theology straight from the 1970's. He never claimed to be the Son of God and wasn't considered that until long after his death when legends began to spring up about him. Again that's even if he existed at all, for which there is no good evidence."

That story sounds familiar huh? No one should pay this even more radical Jesus seminar any attention. If I wanted to hear more unsubstantiated claims about the historical Jesus (who probably didn't exist) I'd go to the popularizers. I heard Bob Price is a nice man but he's a joke to me, no offense.