Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Dr Sarah of FreethoughtBlogs.com Geeky Humanist has posted two interesting posts in favour of the historicity of Jesus. It makes a wonderful change to read arguments on this topic that are expressed in a civil and calmly reasoned tone. Her first post is Jesus mythicism vs. Jesus historicity: an argument in favour of the latter; her … Continue reading “A Response to Dr Sarah, Geeky Humanist, on the Jesus Question”
I have posted a review of R. G. Price’s book , Deciphering the Gospels — proves Jesus never existed, arguing for the Jesus of the gospels being an entirely literary invention on Amazon. At the time of this post it has not yet appeared but I expect it will be processed and published soon. I … Continue reading “Review of R. G. Price’s book on the Christ Myth theory — and a review of Richard Carrier’s to come”
For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus After setting aside a discussion of Richard Carrier’s Bayesian method as “unnecessarily complicated and uninviting” (p. 325) and opting instead to focus on six points in Carrier’s argument, Daniel Gullotta … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Concluding Comments on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus“
For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus We finally arrive at the double-back-flip as Daniel Gullotta’s concluding word on his discussion of how wrong he believes it is to place Jesus in a Rank-Raglan scale. Even if … Continue reading “Gullotta, Carrier and the point of the Rank-Raglan classification (Or, Can Carrier’s RR reference class be justified?)”
The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Rank-Raglan hero types and Gullotta’s criticism of Carrier’s use of them”
The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Misleading Portrayal of Carrier’s Argument (Gospels Myth or Remembered History? – Part 1)”
Here is an annotated list of Vridar posts addressing Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. Gullotta, Daniel N. 2017. “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2–3): 310–46. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455197-01502009. 1. Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (2017-12-13) My first-thoughts … Continue reading “Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus“
The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #3: crucified by demons or Romans?”
The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Gullotta’s review of Carrier’s argument #2: relating to Jesus’ birth and humanity”
Earlier posts: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s OHJ: A Brief Comment How Bayes’ Theorem Proves the Resurrection (Gullotta on Carrier once more) What’s the Matter with Biblical Scholarship? Part 3 (Tim Widowfield) Who Depoliticized Early Christianity? (Tim Widowfield) Gullotta, Homer, and the Training of a Correct … Continue reading “Continuing Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus“
[A]ll we need for the case for the historicity of Jesus to be solid is some evidence that weighs strongly in favor of his historicity. And we have it, and so in theory, mythicism should simply vanish. But as with all forms of denialism, it will persist regardless of the evidence. — McGrath, Jesus Mythicism: … Continue reading “That one piece of solid evidence that weighs strongly in favour of historicity…..”
McGrath does not tell his readers in the post we are addressing what he has in mind as the “clear-cut” evidence for the historicity of Jesus but from previous posts and comments I am convinced that it is the “brother of the Lord” passage in Galatians 1:19 that he has in mind. If I am … Continue reading “Clarification needed for my reply to McGrath’s criticism of the use of Bayesian reasoning”
James McGrath in a recent post, Jesus Mythicism: Two Truths and a Lie, made the following criticism of the use of Bayes’s theorem in the Jesus Mythicism debate: . . . . as I was reminded of the problematic case that Richard Carrier has made for incorporating mathematical probability (and more specifically a Bayesian approach) … Continue reading “Reply to James McGrath’s Criticism of Bayes’s Theorem in the Jesus Mythicism Debate”
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”