Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Questioning the historical existence of Jesus attracts something other than mere curiosity or intellectual debate among many biblical scholars and some of the public who don’t even have any personal interest in religion. I can understand people with a personal faith in Jesus either simply ignoring the question with disdain or amusement or responding with … Continue reading “Understanding the Hostility to the Christ Myth Theory”
Bart Ehrman has a new critic. I have just been notified (thanks, emailers!) of a new paper uploaded to academia.edu by a philosophy lecturer at the University of Oslo, Why Jesus Most Likely Never Existed: Ehrman’s Double Standards by Narve Strand (link is to CV). I especially liked his conclusion since it expresses my own … Continue reading “Another Name to Add to the Who’s Who Page of Mythicists and Mythicist Agnostics”
What if the Testimonium Flavianum, the passage about Jesus and his followers, in Antiquities by Josephus was written in full (or maybe with the exception of no more than 3 words) by Josephus? I know that would raise many questions about the nature of the rest of our sources but let’s imagine the authenticity of … Continue reading “Imagine No Interpolations”
In progress . . . . (begun 18th Dec 2018) Is Earlier Truer? (2006-12-05) “Early” certainly tells us much about the person or events, but “what” it actually tells us may be the very opposite from the “true” person or events. Applying Sound Historical Methodology to “James the Brother of the Lord” (2010-05-02) Illustrating how the … Continue reading “Historical Methods (with reference to the study of Christian Origins/Historicity of Jesus)“
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“