Wrong link to Allison’s discussion of circularity in historical Jesus studies

In my previous post I misdirected anyone interested in following up where I posted on Dale Allison’s discussion of circularity in historical Jesus studies. I have since corrected that link. Here it is again: Clarity about circularity by Dale Allison The point being that Hobsbawm’s insistence on the need for independent evidence is designed to … Continue reading “Wrong link to Allison’s discussion of circularity in historical Jesus studies”


Clarity about Circularity from Historical Jesus Scholar Dale Allison

James McGrath has given Dale C. Allison’s latest book, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, a bit of a bad press in his recent review of it. He famously wrote that Allison explains how a historian can learn the true sense of what a historical person was about through studying fictional material about that person. … Continue reading “Clarity about Circularity from Historical Jesus Scholar Dale Allison”


Hoffmann’s arguments for an historical Jesus: exercises in circularity and other fallacies

One never thinks to engage seriously with ticks so when Hoffmann calls his mythicist opponents “mythtics” it is clear he has no interest in taking them seriously. When he does speak of the arguments of those he has described as “ghetto-dwelling disease carrying mosquitoes/buggers” he necessarily keeps them anonymous and never cites or quotes them, … Continue reading “Hoffmann’s arguments for an historical Jesus: exercises in circularity and other fallacies”


Response to McGrath’s circularity and avoidance of the methodological argument

In a “response” to a recent post of mine about historical method, James McGrath illustrates well the very problem and question-begging that my post was intended to highlight. McGrath’s opening statement affirms that he simply fails to grasp the argument I am presenting. [Neil Godfrey’s] post begins by stating and commenting on the principle which … Continue reading “Response to McGrath’s circularity and avoidance of the methodological argument”


Thoughts on Dale Allison’s thoughts on memory and historical approaches to the study of the Gospels

Having just read the first chapter of Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History by Dale C. Allison I can finally comment on what surely strikes most people as a curious statement to come from someone who claims to be a historian. In reviewing Allison’s opening chapter McGrath claimed that Allison was contending that Even fabricated … Continue reading “Thoughts on Dale Allison’s thoughts on memory and historical approaches to the study of the Gospels”


Clarification of the Thesis — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 8

All posts reviewing Nathanael Vette’s Writing With Scripture are archived at Vette : Writing With Scripture With thanks to T&T Clark who forwarded me a review copy. I have come to a turning point in my reading and review of Nathanael Vette’s Writing With Scripture. I first learned of the book on the Biblical Criticism … Continue reading “Clarification of the Thesis — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 8”


Creating New Stories from Scripture — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 2

This is the second post in my review of Nathanael Vette’s Writing With Scripture: Scripturalized Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. The series is being archived at Vette: Writing With Scripture. For a richer understanding of the creative literary world that gave rise to our Gospel I highly recommend reading these reviews of Vette’s work … Continue reading “Creating New Stories from Scripture — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 2”


Simon Gathercole’s Failure to Address Mythicism: (#5)

The abstract to Simon Gathercole’s article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus begins The present article seeks to show that the case for the mythical Jesus is seriously undermined by the evidence of the undisputed Pauline epistles. By way of a thought experiment, these letters are taken in isolation from other … Continue reading “Simon Gathercole’s Failure to Address Mythicism: (#5)”


Earl Doherty’s First Day with Biblical Scholars on Crosstalk Forum

I begin by repeating Earl Doherty’s maiden post to Crosstalk. I have colour coded different discussion threads. Links below are to the archive.org site where Earl’s Jesus Puzzle website is as it existed at the time of the Crosstalk exchange. For the current site see http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/index.htm I have decided to present this early conversation to allow … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s First Day with Biblical Scholars on Crosstalk Forum”


Some preliminaries before resuming Gmirkin’s Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible

I originally wrote the following as an introduction to my next post on Russell E. Gmirkin’s new book, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible. On reflection, it was too long to be part of a post addressing the book so here it is a separate introductory post instead. Our historically conditioned deafness to … Continue reading “Some preliminaries before resuming Gmirkin’s Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible


What Biblical Scholars Say About Historical Jesus Studies

Dale C. Allison (November 25, 1955-) is an American New Testament scholar, historian of Early Christianity, and Christian theologian who for years served as Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He is currently the Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. — Wikipedia … Continue reading “What Biblical Scholars Say About Historical Jesus Studies”


Unrecognized Bias in New Testament Scholarship over Christian Origins

From time to time someone – lay person or New Testament scholar – publicly insists that there is no more bias among the professional scholars of the Bible than there is among any other academic guild. The question arose recently on the Bible Criticism and History forum and I found myself scrambling quotations from members … Continue reading “Unrecognized Bias in New Testament Scholarship over Christian Origins”


Hypocritical Christ-mythers: Cameron’s response to Neil Godfrey at Vridar — & my response back

Cameron, a critic of Dave Fitzgerald’s Nailed, has responded to my remarks (Are Mythicist Sceptics Hypocritical for Attacking Creationists) about his accusation that those who reject the historicity of Jesus are hypocritical if they also criticize Creationists for rejecting an academic consensus. As seems to be par for the course with these sorts of attacks, … Continue reading “Hypocritical Christ-mythers: Cameron’s response to Neil Godfrey at Vridar — & my response back”


What mythicists need

What mythicists need is a competent, knowledgeable and intelligent historicist to challenge them. One who doesn’t resort to ad hominem or outright insult. One who doesn’t see “mythicism” in every nook and cranny — whether in creationism or the Piltdown man or even Shakespeare! — wherever he or she even half way suspects he/she just … Continue reading “What mythicists need”