Search Results for: Logical Fallacies of Historians

Maurice Casey’s Historical Methods for Historical Jesus Studies

Maurice Casey (Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, UK) in his 2010 book Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching devotes his third chapter to a discussion of his historical method, and becomes the latest New Testament scholar to demonstrate (once more) how … Continue reading “Maurice Casey’s Historical Methods for Historical Jesus Studies”

Why Evolution Is True: And Reflections on Historical Jesus Scholars

Someone posted a link to a post on my blog on Jerry Coyne’s blog “Why Evolution Is True” (See his post: I get Christian email: more irreducible complexity)  — and wonderful, wonderful! I like reading books like his (I have referenced Coyne’s book twice here but never knew he also had a blog) — and … Continue reading “Why Evolution Is True: And Reflections on Historical Jesus Scholars”

Evidence for the UNhistorical “fact” of Jesus’ death

The evidence historians use to assert that Jesus’ crucifixion is a historical fact does not match the evidence for the death of Socrates. Normal guidelines for secular historians that are used in their approach to sources are very rarely followed by biblical (in particular historical Jesus and early Christianity) historians. Paula Fredriksen, in her Jesus … Continue reading “Evidence for the UNhistorical “fact” of Jesus’ death”

Did Jesus exist on youtube? Dismantling the “evidence” presented by James McGrath

21:20 Feb 16, Edited to add a quote from Mack in a book, edited by Neusner and others . . . The following is presented by Dr James McGrath on his Did Jesus Exist Youtube video as fundamental evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. It is a standard line, almost a “historicists’ creed”, and … Continue reading “Did Jesus exist on youtube? Dismantling the “evidence” presented by James McGrath”

Reasons to question the historicity of the crucifixion

Jesus’ death by crucifixion at the direction of Pilate is very commonly cited as a “bedrock fact” of Christian history. I have previously shown that early Christianity was not united on Pilate’s role in the crucifixion: there was an early widespread belief that the Jewish King Herod was responsible. I would be very interested to … Continue reading “Reasons to question the historicity of the crucifixion”

The fallacy of argument ad verecundiam (to modesty?)

The quaint Latin term might mean appeal to modesty but in plain English it refers to the fallacy of an appeal to authority. This form of error is an egregious but effective technique which puts an opponent in the awkward position of appearing to commit the sin of pride if he persists in his opposition. … Continue reading “The fallacy of argument ad verecundiam (to modesty?)”

The fallacy of the prevalent proof

David Hackett Fischer back in 1970 in his Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, discussed this fallacy one sometimes encounters in discussions of the history of early Christian origins and biblical studies. It refers to using widespread opinion as a method of verification. Often I’ve noticed this coupled with an argument “from authority” … Continue reading “The fallacy of the prevalent proof”

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 5b

Symbolic Status & Authoritative Status Having passed over any need to argue that the Twelve really were an entity selected by Jesus B proceeds to explain the symbolic and prophetic significance of this group, symbolic of the hope of restoration of an idealized Israel, and prophetic of what God was doing through Jesus.