Richard Carrier has posted Spencer Alexander McDaniel on the Historicity of Jesus which appears to be a comprehensive response “Was Jesus a Historical Figure?” by McDaniel of the Tales of Times Forgotten blog.
I’ve only skimmed some of Tales of Times Forgotten and can understand Carrier’s high assessment of the overall quality of the blog. His article on the historicity of Jesus, though, indicates that he has uncritically followed the methods theologians and biblical scholars have generally (not in every case) used to ascertain historicity instead of the methods of secular historians as set out by leading lights like Moses I. Finley that I have discussed here.
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- “They are Messianic Jewish supremacists, racists, of the worst kind” - 2024-10-07 20:24:10 GMT+0000
- Can We Reliably Study Unique Events? - 2024-10-01 02:11:56 GMT+0000
- Are Historical Sources “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”? - 2024-09-28 22:47:59 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
I am interested about the Carrier’s comment on prof. Robert Price as being an expert, differently from Carrier, about the historiography on mythicism.
I list some cases where really Carrier is partially victim of the his ignorance of the arguments by old mythicists who argued for the his same celestial Jesus in Paul.
But I can confirm, from the my own readings about old mythicists, that very a lot of them assumed a celestial crucifixion for the Paul’s Jesus. To my knowledge, only Arthur Drews would agree with Wells’s version of mythicism (about the Paul’s Jesus). J. M. Robertson and Dujardin assumed an earthly scenario, it’s true, but they talked about a ritual done any year, not precisely the Wells’s view.
I refer this since I feel a new apologetical tactic by historicists, today:
1) they would like «to prove» that Wells gives more plausible view than Doherty.
2) once made the step 1, their next step is to prove that, according to Paul, Jesus lived in a recent time and not in a distant time.
3) hence, they exult and conclude: Jesus existed!
Can you comment on where you have observed this “new apologetic tactic” ?
I have problems to post my answer. This comment is a first try.
See, for an example (in the link above), the particular interest betrayed by GDon in defending Wells’s scenario (for the Paul’s Jesus) against Doherty.
Or see the strange comment by minimalist historicist Ben C. Smith on the his site ( http://www.textexcavation.com/booklist.html#wells ) . Before he writes:
Wells is, in my humble opinion, the best representative of that school of thought that would regard Jesus entirely as a legend. Fun to read, agree or not. (my bold)
And shortly after, he writes:
Wells could probably prove that his own mother did not exist.
Comment by Spencer Alexander McDaniel—3 July 2019—per “Was Jesus a Historical Figure?”. Tales of Times Forgotten. 10 March 2018.
• For comparison, a video presentation with a voluminous bibliography, but with few references given in the presentation.
“Did a Historical Jesus Exist?”. YouTube. Suris. 25 June 2019.
• Godless Engineer engages with Suris per the video presentation by Suris, “Did a Historical Jesus Exist?”.
“A Discussion about the Historicity of Jesus with Suris || GE Discussions”. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 28 June 2019.
• Per Dying-and-rising deities, historicists fail to understand the following points:
“Robert M. Price & Christopher Hansen | Myth Jesus or Historical Jesus? 2019 GREAT INTERVIEW!”. YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 26 May 2019.
• Per Christopher Hansen, “An absolutely magnificent tome” @time 1:39 YouTube.
Cook, John Granger (2018). Empty Tomb, Apotheosis, Resurrection. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 56–57. ISBN 978-3-16-156503-8.
Carrier (1 July 2019). “Spencer Alexander McDaniel on the Historicity of Jesus”. Richard Carrier Blogs.
• Side note: On failing to understand a different myth.
Per the myth that the constitutionally established “United States of America (USA)” was in fact established by “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America by CONGRESS —July 4, 1776.”
Clearly the “States of America” were 13 separate geopolitical entities united in an alliance for the purpose of a rebellion—to be administered by CONGRESS. Later codified by the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”—November 15, 1777—that further enabled CONGRESS to conduct business, conduct diplomacy with foreign nations, and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations.
Mark W. G. Stibbe + Dionysus + Jesus returns a the top of the page:
https://vridar.org/2013/05/09/jesus-and-dionysus-2-comparison-of-johns-gospel-and-euripides-play/
Your segment “What Mark Stibbe is arguing” makes clear McDaniel hadn’t actually read what he was critiquing, even in excerpt. I have to dispute a high assessment of the overall quality of McDaniel’s blog.
Glad you noticed that. McDaniel writes:
Both arguments are slapdash and without any serious indication that the author has read what he criticizes, nor has he read arguments against the points he makes. Further, he embraces the logic of the false dilemma and appears not even to be aware of the evidence that some stories in the gospels are a weaving of Greek and Hebrew sources.
I do hope he is not trying to emulate Tim O’Neill who is very often shallow, uncritical of sources he reads that show a distinct pro-religious bias, and generally a subtle form of all-round appeal to authority of the “correct-thinking” academics.