Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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…..”
As we discussed several months ago, Michael Licona wrote a book about the differences in the gospels in which he tries to explain them away by comparing the evangelists to Plutarch. However, his attempt was stillborn, since his methodology contains a deadly flaw. He proposes that by examining how Plutarch changed stories as he recounted … Continue reading “How the Author of Acts Rewrote Stories from Luke”
Before I address specific points of Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus here is my overall assessment. Despite having the appearance of a comprehensive review of the primary argument of OHJ (37 pages that includes a detailed background discussion on “who Carrier is” certainly has all the appearance of being … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Review of Carrier’s OHJ: A Brief Comment”
Posting here a few more of my responses to questions that were raised on the BC&H forum about my stance on the Jesus mythicism question. (The first post in this series is Why I don’t see myself as a Christ Mythicist) On making reasonable assumptions and seeing where they take us Is it reasonable to assume … Continue reading “Follow up questions to my post on not seeing myself as a “Jesus mythicist””
Larry Hurtado’s ongoing attempts to defend the reasons biblical scholars opt to ignore the arguments of the Christ Myth theory reinforce fundamental points in my original post, Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”. Hurtado’s latest response is Focus, Focus, Focus. Some excerpts and my comments: The question is … Continue reading “Focus, Focus, Focus — but Not Blinkered”
Without citing any instances to support his claim, Bart Ehrman charged “mythicists” as sometimes guilty of dishonestly quote-mining Albert Schweitzer to make it sound as if Schweitzer supported the view that Jesus was not a historical person. Ehrman’s unsubstantiated allegation has been repeated by Cornelis Hoogerwerf on his blog (without any acknowledgement to Ehrman); Jona … Continue reading “Albert Schweitzer on the Christ Myth Debate”
The following is a write up from notes I took at the time of my first listening to the debate supplemented by a second listening earlier today. So there will be more detail than in with my summary of Ehrman’s opener. If anyone thinks I have been unfair to Ehrman then let me know and … Continue reading “Ehrman-Price Debate #2: Price’s Opening Address”
The following is a write up from notes I took at the time of my first listening to the debate. I have not been able to access the online debate since to check the details of the following. I think most listeners on the mythicist side would have been disappointed because this was an opportunity … Continue reading “The Ehrman-Price Debate: Ehrman’s Opening Address”
No doubt there will be to-and-fro on “the brother of the Lord” passage in Galatians 1:19. I would love to see any such discussion go beyond the face-value interpretation of the words and to explore both the provenance and nature of the source containing that line. That is, some serious discussion of the historical evidence … Continue reading “Price-Ehrman Debate Wish”
There is no need for any argument to prove Jesus existed. In Galatians 1:19 Paul says he met Jesus’s brother so of course Jesus existed. What need is there for any further discussion? That’s how the case for the historicity of Jesus goes. But some would say that I’m being unfair. Paul also says in … Continue reading “How Many Bible Verses Does It Take to Prove Jesus Existed?”
Dontcha love the patronizing tone of the header? “Five Reasons Why Mythicism is Disappointing”. Our author was SO hoping for such good things to emerge from mythicism, now, wasn’t he. How mythicism has disappointed him! The post is a response to Valerie Tarico’s Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed Our disappointed scholar explains why Valerie … Continue reading ““Five Reasons Why Mythicism is Disappointing””