Search Results for: howell prevenier

How Scholarship (especially historical research into almost any topic except the historical Jesus) Works

Warning: For new readers only. This post is essentially a repeat of a March 17th post this year. So if you were not paying attention back then . . . . Once again a forum post I wrote over a year ago, Rules of Historical Reasoning, has come in for indirect attention from Religion Prof. … Continue reading “How Scholarship (especially historical research into almost any topic except the historical Jesus) Works”

Rules of Historical Reasoning — Still Controversial Among Religion Profs

Professor James McGrath continues to take an interest in my discussions about historical methods in the context of the “quest for the historical Jesus”. I was surprised to read the following words of his earlier today: Reading certain blogs and discussion boards on the internet, you would think that laypeople were being called upon to … Continue reading “Rules of Historical Reasoning — Still Controversial Among Religion Profs”

The Historical Jesus and the Demise of History, 2: The Overlooked Reasons We Know Certain Ancient Persons Existed

In the previous post in this series I concluded by pointing out the fundamental difference between the sources used by historians concerning nonbiblical historical figures such as Napoleon, Alexander or even Socrates, and those used by New Testament scholars for Jesus. In the former, the sources leave no doubt at all that certain individuals lived … Continue reading “The Historical Jesus and the Demise of History, 2: The Overlooked Reasons We Know Certain Ancient Persons Existed”

The Historical Jesus and the Demise of History, 1: What Has History To Do With The Facts?

There is something rotten in the state of historical Jesus studies. Ideology has long trumped inconvenient questioning. Postmodernist flim-flam has recently trumped any hope of sound methodology. Some on that side of New Testament studies have curiously accused me of being “a fact fundamentalist” or an antiquated positivist or one who has unrealistic demands for … Continue reading “The Historical Jesus and the Demise of History, 1: What Has History To Do With The Facts?”

Carrier’s “Proving History”, Chapter 3(a) — Review

I have been studying the first half of Richard Carrier’s chapter 3, “Introducing Bayes’s Theorem”, in his recent book Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I mean studying. I want to be sure I fully understand the argument before tackling the second half of the chapter, headed Mechanics of Bayes’s … Continue reading “Carrier’s “Proving History”, Chapter 3(a) — Review”

Ouch! My own beliefs undermined by my own historical principles!

Well this is really quite embarrassing. I have never read more than snippets by a notorious right-wing Australian historian, Keith Windschuttle, and those I have read have been mostly quotations found in the works of his critics, but I know I have been strongly opposed to whatever Windschuttle has written about the history of the … Continue reading “Ouch! My own beliefs undermined by my own historical principles!”

Historical Jesus Scholarly Ignorance of Historical Methods

On 14th January I posted How Historians Work – Lessons for Historical Jesus Scholars in which I demonstrated that at least some biblical scholars are unaware of normal historical practices by quoting key sections from works recommended to me by Dr McGrath. On 16th January Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament … Continue reading “Historical Jesus Scholarly Ignorance of Historical Methods”

Confusing stories with historical evidence

It’s worth quoting a few passages from Thomas L. Thompson‘s The Mythic Past (aka The Bible in History). I believe they have a relevance that extends beyond the Old Testament. Naively realistic questions about historicity have always been most out of place when it has come to Israel’s origins — if only for the fact … Continue reading “Confusing stories with historical evidence”

Theologians Reject Basics of History: A Way Forward

Edited conclusion and added the last paragraph since first posting this. This is not about mythicism versus the historicity of Jesus. It makes no difference to me if Jesus was a revolutionary or a rabbi, lived 100 b.c.e., 30 c.e. or was philosophical-theological construct. All of that is completely irrelevant for assessing the validity of … Continue reading “Theologians Reject Basics of History: A Way Forward”

Oral History does NOT support “criterion of embarrassment”

Contrary to the understanding of a few theologians oral historian Jan Vansina does NOT use the “criterion of embarrassment” in the same way as a number of historical Jesus scholars do. His discussion of embarrassment in fact supports the arguments of those scholars who argue the criterion is invalid! I asked Dr McGrath for a … Continue reading “Oral History does NOT support “criterion of embarrassment””

Confessions of a Theologian — Bible scholars really do do history differently

Recently a theologian helpfully advised me to do a bit of background reading on how historians work generally in order to come to see that historical Jesus scholars do work by the same principles as applied by historians generally. So I did. I shared what I read there about the basics of how historians ought … Continue reading “Confessions of a Theologian — Bible scholars really do do history differently”

How Historians Work — Lessons for historical Jesus scholars

Recently a theologian kindly advised me to do a bit of background reading on how historians work (specifically to read chapter one of From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods by Martha Howell & Walter Prevenier) in order to come to see that historical Jesus scholars do work by the same principles that all … Continue reading “How Historians Work — Lessons for historical Jesus scholars”