Search Results for: leopold von ranke

Scholarly attempts to “explain” historical methods for Jesus studies (1)

Scot McKnight of recent controversial article fame, devotes an entire chapter in his book Jesus and His Death to a discussion of the historiography of New Testament scholars, and writes: In fact, the historiography of historical Jesus scholars is eclectic and often unconscious or uninformed of a specific historiography. (p.16) Biblical scholarships’ ignorance of the … Continue reading “Scholarly attempts to “explain” historical methods for Jesus studies (1)”

History as Science, Not Only Art. (History for Dummies, 2)

In my previous post I cited Leopold von Ranke’s famous explanation for history being an art. (I turned to von Ranke because a biblical scholar quoted von Ranke to me without knowing the source of his quotation, nor its meaning.) Now von Ranke’s philosophy of history and views on the nature of historical facts have … Continue reading “History as Science, Not Only Art. (History for Dummies, 2)”

History for Dummies (and Biblical Scholars)

A biblical scholar earlier this year publicly asked: Any recommendations on reading about the philosophy and methods of historical research, written by someone with no connection to Biblical studies? I did provide that professor with a number of suggestions (the post included major figures in the field of twentieth-century historiography and readings that would lead … Continue reading “History for Dummies (and Biblical Scholars)”

Response to James McGrath’s Argument from Wikipedia

In response to my post in which I cited the Game of Avoidance as one played by some HJ scholars in relation to mythicist arguments, one such scholar has posted a series of comments with each one ironically avoiding my argument. Irony seems to be lost on some people. So when challenged to address my … Continue reading “Response to James McGrath’s Argument from Wikipedia”

Historicist Hocus Pocus (Or, What on earth would happen if a course on logic were introduced into biblical studies!)

Since I now have time to go over older posts critiquing the mythicist view of Jesus, I have decided to address head on some of the arguments against mythicism that appear to have been left dangling. Such an exercise, of course, does not argue “for” mythicism. But it is important that bogus arguments, especially from … Continue reading “Historicist Hocus Pocus (Or, What on earth would happen if a course on logic were introduced into biblical studies!)”

Historical methods: how historical Jesus studies fall over before they start

Although a certain professor of religion regularly insists that his historical methods are the same as those of other historians who deal in nonbiblical subjects, he has failed to demonstrate the similarity. Rather, his attempt to establish this particular point is a classic in obfuscation, misrepresentation of the issues and avoidance of the challenges of … Continue reading “Historical methods: how historical Jesus studies fall over before they start”

Observations on McGrath’s “Review” of Robert Price on Mythicism

I place “review” in quotation marks because Associate Professor of Religion of Butler University James McGrath simply avoids addressing Dr Robert Price’s arguments. I used to think McGrath was not very bright, but I have recently come to understand that he is as subtle and smart as a serpent when it comes to those twisting … Continue reading “Observations on McGrath’s “Review” of Robert Price on Mythicism”

The relevance of “minimalists'” arguments to historical Jesus studies

The arguments of the “minimalists” questioning the historical core of many of the narratives of the “Old Testament” — and ultimately the historical existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, and the biblical Kingdom of Israel — apply with as much logical force to questions of the existence of Jesus. The minimalists showed … Continue reading “The relevance of “minimalists’” arguments to historical Jesus studies”

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

Historical Jesus (HJ) scholars have boasted that they use the same sorts of methods as scholarly historians of other (nonbiblical) subjects, but this is a misleading claim. When it comes to the basics of the nature of “facts” and “evidence” this claim is simply not true. Historical Jesus scholars use a completely different standard to … Continue reading “Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies”

Biblical history, literary criticism and logical method

The comments originally sent to my previous post, and my replies to them, were lost. I have retrieved the comments of others but my own are lost (unless someone reading this did catch them in an email — if you can forward them to me that would be great, thanks — my address is in … Continue reading “Biblical history, literary criticism and logical method”

Assumptions of historicity (in part a response to James McGrath)

This is partly in response to “mythicist quote of the day” Allow me to explain why I think so many arguments for the historical Jesus are based on an assumption of historicity. Firstly, when I quote Sanders in this respect, it is not because I am faulting Sanders’ arguments for starting with this assumption. I … Continue reading “Assumptions of historicity (in part a response to James McGrath)”

Historicist Misunderstanding : a reply to James McGrath and others

James McGrath has expressed his concerns about apparent misunderstandings of the historical process on the part of those who argue that Jesus was probably not an historical figure in his blog post: Mythicist Misunderstanding I wish to address his post in some detail, because he brings together the sorts of objections one regularly sees raised … Continue reading “Historicist Misunderstanding : a reply to James McGrath and others”

The Bible’s “Historical” Writings: Histories or Historical Novels or . . .?

Comparing Modern and Biblical “Histories” The idea of history as a scholarly attempt to explain “what really happened in the past” is a relatively young European invention. The “first modern historian” is said to be Edward Gibbon (his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published 1770’s-1780’s); the acknowledged founder of … Continue reading “The Bible’s “Historical” Writings: Histories or Historical Novels or . . .?”

Some “training in history” for Craig A. Evans, Richard Bauckham, et al.

final editing about 2 hours after first posting . . .   In my last post on Fabricating Jesus I discussed Craig Evans’ put-down of sceptical conclusions on the grounds that “no-one trained in history” would entertain such “extreme” doubts as to whether we can know anything historical about Jesus at all or even if … Continue reading “Some “training in history” for Craig A. Evans, Richard Bauckham, et al.”