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”


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”


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”


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”


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”


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”