It all depends where one enters the circle

Reading Jesus the Healer by Stevan Davies alongside Constructing Jesus by Dale Allison is an interesting exercise in chiaroscuro comparisons. Both agree on the nature of circularity at the heart of historical Jesus studies. Davies begins with a quotation from E. P. Sanders: In regard to Jesus research E. P. Sanders correctly observes, “There is, … Continue reading “It all depends where one enters the circle”


Finding Jesus Under the Stone: The Gospel of Thomas Guide to the Scholarly Search for the Historical Jesus

There is a passage in the Gospel of Thomas that would seem to encapsulate the historical methodology some scholars use to reconstruct the historical Jesus: 77 Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; … Continue reading “Finding Jesus Under the Stone: The Gospel of Thomas Guide to the Scholarly Search for the Historical Jesus”


Respecting the Honesty of Conservative Historical Jesus Scholarship

I have been catching up with two conservative historical Jesus scholars and once again I find their honest perspectives about their historical methods refreshing. Luke Timothy Johnson in The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels is quite upfront with stating the obvious: the historical Jesus … Continue reading “Respecting the Honesty of Conservative Historical Jesus Scholarship”


How a biblical scholar uses sleight of hand to argue against mythicism

McGrath has linked to my post critiquing his comments on the Christ myth proposition and managed to avoid totally the whole point of my post — and the whole point of the particular quotation from Hobsbawm in question. But that is the normal way he “responds” to such critiques. He also seeks to imply that … Continue reading “How a biblical scholar uses sleight of hand to argue against mythicism”


Embarrassing failure of the criterion of embarrassment

So I hear from commenters that a new foray into demolishing mythicism has been launched by James McGrath with yet one more account of the “criterion of embarrassment”. The curious — yet tedious — thing about this is that while McGrath in particular has faulted mythicists for (supposedly) failing to engage with the scholarship on … Continue reading “Embarrassing failure of the criterion of embarrassment”


Crossan’s absolute certainty in the historicity of Christ Crucified

I take it absolutely for granted Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Security about the fact of the crucifixion derives not only from the unlikelihood that Christians would have invented it but also from the existence of two early and independent non-Christian witnesses to it, a Jewish one from 93-94 C.E. and a Roman one … Continue reading “Crossan’s absolute certainty in the historicity of Christ Crucified”


Open invitation to Dr Maurice Casey

I invite Dr Maurice Casey to an online discussion or debate — an open exchange between himself and me in any blog or wiki or “live” public internet forum — about anything I have said in relation to his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth. This all began when I had been wondering what happened to … Continue reading “Open invitation to Dr Maurice Casey”


How Luke Timothy Johnson Stumbles Over the Mythical Jesus

In my previous post I presented Luke Timothy Johnson‘s case against to the opening arguments of Robert M. Price in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Price gives reasons for suspecting there never was a historical Jesus. In this post I am giving both my own views and some of Price’s own “responses” to Johnson’s criticisms. … Continue reading “How Luke Timothy Johnson Stumbles Over the Mythical Jesus”