A Dialog with ChatGPT on Christian Origins

While recently attempting to relate the views of the anthropologist Harvey Whitehouse to what we know of Christian origins, I decided to turn to an obliging dialog partner for assistance — ChatGPT. For background you might want to skim through what I wrote about Whitehouse’s models at https://vridar.org/2020/06/20/modes-of-religiosity/ Me: Given Harvey Whitehouse’s description of the … Continue reading “A Dialog with ChatGPT on Christian Origins”


Gospel and Historical Jesus Criticism — Method and Consistency

Some critics have portrayed me as being like a moth fluttering to the nearest flame, as one who is always attracted to the latest most radical viewpoint, and therefore my views cannot be taken seriously. What those critics generally fail to recognize, however, is the consistency of my readings of the sources and the fact … Continue reading “Gospel and Historical Jesus Criticism — Method and Consistency”


Once more on Nazareth, Relevance and Salm versus Carrier

A comment by VinnyJH has led me to rethink and plan to add a paragraph to my recent post on Nazareth. Of course, Nazareth is a significant factor in the historical Jesus debate. True, it is not necessary for Nazareth to have been settled to support Richard Carrier’s “minimalist historical Jesus” figure that he uses … Continue reading “Once more on Nazareth, Relevance and Salm versus Carrier”


Is the Nazareth Question Important? A Response to Richard Carrier

In his review of the GRC eConference on the historicity of Jesus Richard Carrier wrote with respect to the claim that the town of Nazareth did not exist in the early first century CE There is no good case to be made that Nazareth did not exist as a town in the early first century, … Continue reading “Is the Nazareth Question Important? A Response to Richard Carrier”


“Another Mythicist Discussion” Revisited

Responses to some points made in a larger argument for the historicity of Jesus, Another Jesus Mythicism Discussion (I posted then soon deleted much of what follows about three weeks ago. My initial post was couched in a misunderstanding about the background to the original post.) I did return to the original site to continue … Continue reading ““Another Mythicist Discussion” Revisited”


Logical Fallacies of Historians: “If It Fits — Be Careful!”

If your theory explains the evidence does that mean it is probably correct? If “everything fits”, is your theory therefore surely right? There’s a problem with that way of thinking and it is taken head-on by Paul Newall in a chapter titled “Logical Fallacies of Historians” in Tucker and Kane’s A Companion to the Philosophy … Continue reading “Logical Fallacies of Historians: “If It Fits — Be Careful!””


Review part 4: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Case for Agnosticism – I, Methods)

After reviewing the efforts of Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey to present their respective cases for the historicity of Jesus we now come to chapter 4, Inadequate Methods. By way of summing up the previous discussion Raphael Lataster writes The recent defences of Jesus’ historicity by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey lack lucid and competent … Continue reading “Review part 4: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Case for Agnosticism – I, Methods)”


Should a Historian Test a Memory Against an “Original”?

Catching up with blogs I found myself wanting to comment on one a couple of weeks old, Cognitive Science, Memory, Oral Tradition, and Biblical Studies but don’t have access to the comments there. The misunderstanding wearyingly continues and repeats . . . . I was surprised by [Hector Avalos’s] suggestion that memory is meaningless if … Continue reading “Should a Historian Test a Memory Against an “Original”?”


Historians on the Most Basic Laws of Historical Evidence

The most basic laws of historical evidence are very straightforward. The most basic laws of historical evidence are very straightforward. History must be written from contemporary sources or with the aid of testimony carried to a later era by an identifiable and acceptable line of transmission. Many texts which present themselves for our consideration as … Continue reading “Historians on the Most Basic Laws of Historical Evidence”


“How did traditions of the sayings of Jesus and the events of his history reach the writers of the Gospels?”

How did traditions of the sayings of Jesus and the events of his history reach the writers of the Gospels? That is the opening question of Richard Bauckham’s chapter, “Gospel Traditions: Anonymous Community Traditions or Eyewitness Testimony?”, in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions — The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007. His … Continue reading ““How did traditions of the sayings of Jesus and the events of his history reach the writers of the Gospels?””


An Embarrassing Fallacy in Many Historical Jesus Studies

Recently I was discussing some of the criteria of authenticity that have been used by historical Jesus scholars to supposedly sift the more likely historical events in the gospels from those that are pious fabrications. I was using David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies as my yardstick. One criterion I did not get to then was … Continue reading “An Embarrassing Fallacy in Many Historical Jesus Studies”


Testing the Claim that Jesus Scholars Use the Methods of Other Historians (Part 1)

Damn. I fell for it (again). A professor promoted a new book as “making the most sense of the crucifixion” and “making a fresh contribution to studies of the ‘historical Jesus’” so I made a rush purchase and read it the same day it arrived. Silly me, I should first have checked the University of … Continue reading “Testing the Claim that Jesus Scholars Use the Methods of Other Historians (Part 1)”


Putting 4 sticking points on the historical/mythical Jesus argument into perspective

On the AFA forum someone suggested I address the following 5 points often used to argue for Christianity originating with a historical Jesus. how about addressing the main points of the evidence offered up by the historicists? 1. The Brother of The Lord 2. Born of a woman 3. Born in the line of David … Continue reading “Putting 4 sticking points on the historical/mythical Jesus argument into perspective”


Conclusion: Ehrman-Price Debate #3

This post concludes my notes on the Milwaukee Mythicist sponsored debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert M Price. It is based on notes I took as I listened, and since I have not listened to this part of the debate since, I cannot check my notes for accuracy or to add any completeness. Perhaps some … Continue reading “Conclusion: Ehrman-Price Debate #3”