“It is absurd to suggest . . .” — Shirley Jackson Case on The Historicity of Jesus

Way back in the previous century, I attended Ohio University at Athens. A young, naive freshman, I headed off one gloomy autumn day to the campus library, searching for source material for an astronomy paper. The stacks were vast; I was looking at more books than I had ever seen in one place. By New World … Continue reading ““It is absurd to suggest . . .” — Shirley Jackson Case on The Historicity of Jesus


“It is absurd to suggest. . . . ” (A rare bird among the anti-mythicists)

Good old reliable Professor James McGrath and a few of his peers*, blissfully unaware of some of the highly respected names both within and outside New Testament scholarship who have happened to be bold enough to declare their maverick suspicions that there was no historical Jesus, make it clear that if you come out as … Continue reading ““It is absurd to suggest. . . . ” (A rare bird among the anti-mythicists)”


“It is absurd to suggest. . . “: The Overlooked Critic of Mythicism (+ A Catalog of Early Mythicists and Their Critics)

This continues the little “It’s absurd to suggest that most historians have not considered the strongest case for mythicism” series inspired by the unbearable lightness of the wisdom of Professor James McGrath. The previous post saw how Professor Larry Hurtado’s source for the comprehensive rebuttal to all arguments mythicist, H.G. Wood’s Did Christ Really Live?, in … Continue reading ““It is absurd to suggest. . . “: The Overlooked Critic of Mythicism (+ A Catalog of Early Mythicists and Their Critics)”


“It is absurd to suggest . . . . “: Professor Hurtado’s stock anti-mythicist

This post continues on from It is absurd to suggest. . . . It’s about a much lesser known anti-mythicist than Goguel but I will excuse myself for that anomaly on the grounds that Goguel’s book is freely available on the web and many would have read it already. Maurice Goguel is evidently R. Joseph … Continue reading ““It is absurd to suggest . . . . “: Professor Hurtado’s stock anti-mythicist”


“It is absurd to suggest that most historians have not considered the strongest case for mythicism”

This post continues from my previous one . . . . Maurice Goguel, 1926 Maurice Goguel prefaced his book against mythicism, Jesus the Nazarene, Myth or History?,  with these opening words: The question of the historical character of Jesus is one of present-day interest. It has once again been ably raised by Monsieur P. L. Couchoud … Continue reading ““It is absurd to suggest that most historians have not considered the strongest case for mythicism””


Mythicism and Paul’s Claims to Supernatural Revelation (Engaging with McGrath — 2)

Again waylaid by life experiences so surfacing here another post begun way back. The first post in this series is  Addressing James McGrath’s Arguments Against Mythicism — 1 This time we are addressing McGrath, James F. 2011. “Mythicism and Paul’s Claims to Supernatural Revelation.” Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath (blog). October 18, … Continue reading “Mythicism and Paul’s Claims to Supernatural Revelation (Engaging with McGrath — 2)”


Remembering

Vridar’s first post on a Hermann Detering work was in February 2007: Little Apocalypse and the Bar Kochba Revolt The next “mention” of Hermann Detering was subtle. It was hidden as a link in the last sentence — But that leads us to a new set of questions about dates and identities that will have to be addressed … Continue reading “Remembering”


Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”

One of the purposes of Vridar is to share what its authors have found of interest in biblical scholarship that unfortunately tends not to be easily accessible to the wider lay public. (Of course, our interests extend into political, science and other topics, too. For further background see the authors’ profiles and the explanations linked … Continue reading “Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars””


Shirley Jackson Case: Inadvertent Omissions

When I consulted my reading notes for the recent post on Case’s The Historicity of Jesus, I noticed a couple of things I had meant to comment on, but left out. In this post I seek to atone for my sins of omission.


Can a lay person reasonably evaluate a scholarly argument?

Once again we see a representative of the elite coterie of theologians pouring scorn on the ability of mere lay people to make any valid assessment of their highly learned and scholarly arguments. Carrier suggests that laypeople can and should evaluate the arguments of experts, even with respect to the consensus. That seems to me … Continue reading “Can a lay person reasonably evaluate a scholarly argument?”