Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
In his latest podcast Mark Goodacre turns his attention to the problem of applying criteria selectively after the fact: . . . I think that there can then be problems when one tries to make historical Jesus criteria like multiple attestation, like the criterion of embarrassment, do too much. When you take them beyond the introductory student level, into … Continue reading “Mark Goodacre, Criteriology, and the “Appearance” of Science”
Just to add here what I left assumed in my previous post . . . . Enough has been written on the contradictory and inconsistent issues arising from the attempts to establish “bedrock evidence” for the life of Jesus from “criteriology”. (I am not addressing the use of criteria in other historical studies where it … Continue reading “Historical methods postcript: Where criteriology leaves us”
Continuing from Ascension of Isaiah: Continuing Questions. . . . . . . In points 6, 7 and 8 of section III of James Barlow’s Commentary on the Vision of Isaiah we enter into detailed discussions of how to assess the priority of different manuscript lines based on comparing particular differences of wording across the … Continue reading “The Ascension of Isaiah: Another Set of Questions”
Catching up with blogs I found myself wanting to comment on one a couple of weeks old, Cognitive Science, Memory, Oral Tradition, and Biblical Studies but don’t have access to the comments there. The misunderstanding wearyingly continues and repeats . . . . I was surprised by [Hector Avalos’s] suggestion that memory is meaningless if … Continue reading “Should a Historian Test a Memory Against an “Original”?”
A Long-standing Tool While searching for other things, I stumbled upon this paragraph in a Wikipedia entry. The criterion of embarrassment is a long-standing tool of New Testament research. The phrase was used by John P. Meier in his book A Marginal Jew; he attributed it to Edward Schillebeeckx, who does not appear to have … Continue reading “The Criterion of Embarrassment: Origins and Emendations”
My post of two days ago Once more on that false courtroom analogy jumped the gun. I see now that Bart Ehrman has just today (19th July) posted his extract from his 1999 book on the courtroom analogy to illustrate his method of historical inquiry: An Important Criterion for Establishing What Actually Happened. Since Ehrman explains … Continue reading “My turn to jump the gun: Bart Ehrman’s courtroom analogy”
[This post has been waiting in draft status since 19 February 2015. This year I’m going to try to finish up some of the series we’ve left dangling on Vridar. –taw] A considerable number of New Testament scholars have recently jumped on the memory bandwagon (see, e.g., Memory, Tradition, and Text, ed. Alan Kirk). Characteristics … Continue reading “The Memory Mavens, Part 11: Origins of the Criteria of Authenticity (1)”
As pointed out in the previous post historians of ancient times have criticized an approach to ancient sources that they call the nugget theory or the Christmas cake analogy. The historical sources need to be analysed at a literary level in order to first determine what sorts of documents they are and what sorts of … Continue reading “How “Biblical History” is Fundamentally Different From Other Historical Research”
This post concludes my notes on the Milwaukee Mythicist sponsored debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert M Price. It is based on notes I took as I listened, and since I have not listened to this part of the debate since, I cannot check my notes for accuracy or to add any completeness. Perhaps some … Continue reading “Conclusion: Ehrman-Price Debate #3”
In our last post, we discussed the genre of the gospels. We saw that Bart Ehrman, at least for this book (Jesus Before the Gospels), chooses to gloss over the issue of genre, and simply assumes that the gospels contain memories of the historical Jesus. Of course, he concedes that those memories may be distorted. … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman: Jesus Before the Gospels, Basic Element 5: Memory Distortion”
In the last installment, we covered oral tradition. As I look over the post now, I see that I missed several opportunities to add the adjective, “rich.” Biblical scholars love to write the words “rich oral tradition.” How, you may ask, do they know such details about something based mostly on conjecture? Watch out! If you keep asking questions like … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman: Jesus Before the Gospels, Basic Element 4: Genre”
Scot McKnight is an American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, theologian, speaker, author and blogger who has written widely on the historical Jesus, early Christianity, the emerging church and missional church movements, spiritual formation and Christian living. He is currently Professor of New Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL. McKnight is … Continue reading “We are not historians; we are Christians — (“I know what you mean, but don’t say it like that!”)”
Richard Carrier presents a “mock analogy” to illustrate the absurdity of so much of the reasoning that lies at the heart of the bulk of serious historical Jesus scholarship today. In fact the analogy is similar to ones Tim and I have independently made here. (One scholar who took himself far too seriously was so … Continue reading ““The Jesus Story Cannot Possibly Have Been Fabricated””
The limits of historical criteria Longtime Vridar readers will recall that both Neil and I view the use of criteriology as employed by historical Jesus researchers with a great deal of skepticism. They consistently ask too much of the criteria. We might be able to say, for example, that applying a given criterion can determine the … Continue reading “Defending the Criterion of Dissimilarity”