Search Results for: external controls

Contrasting methods: “nonbiblical” historians vs “Jesus” historians

I have argued (repeatedly) — and demonstrated — that mainstream historians of “the historical Jesus” do not follow the basic procedures in evaluating evidence practiced by regular “nonbiblical” historians. Here is another specific case that illustrates this fact, and demonstrates once again the validity of Thomas L. Thompson’s claim that “historical Jesus” scholars have “always … Continue reading “Contrasting methods: “nonbiblical” historians vs “Jesus” historians”

How Luke Timothy Johnson Stumbles Over the Mythical Jesus

In my previous post I presented Luke Timothy Johnson‘s case against to the opening arguments of Robert M. Price in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Price gives reasons for suspecting there never was a historical Jesus. In this post I am giving both my own views and some of Price’s own “responses” to Johnson’s criticisms. … Continue reading “How Luke Timothy Johnson Stumbles Over the Mythical Jesus”

Further explanation concerning “mythicism”

After my earlier post on Assumptions and Historicity it appears there is still some confusion about mythical Jesus arguments and points I have raised about the need for external controls to establish the historical value of a narrative. External controls are more than just nice extras It has been said that my discussion about absence … Continue reading “Further explanation concerning “mythicism””

A Strange Critique of Doherty

There has appeared recently a blogpost critiquing Doherty’s arguments as found on his Jesus Puzzle website. This post has gained some recognition by an Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University as “worth linking to” because it brings Koester into the “debate” and illustrates “so nicely why [the argument for a mythical Jesus] is problematic.” … Continue reading “A Strange Critique of Doherty”

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)”

Engaging E. P. Sanders point by point: John the Baptist

Of John the Baptist Professor E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism) writes: That John himself was an eschatological prophet of repentance is clearly implied in Josephus’s account. Further, the depiction of John and his message in the Gospels agrees with Josephus’s view: the preaching in the desert; the dress, which recalled Elijah; the message of repentance … Continue reading “Engaging E. P. Sanders point by point: John the Baptist”

Three approaches to researching the mythical Jesus phenomenon

Here are three methodologies used by mainstream biblical scholars for enquiring into the arguments for the historical Jesus with which I have had some direct contact. The first is by an early twentieth century scholar of some repute even today; the second by an “reverent agnostic” scholar; and the third by a liberal Christian scholar … Continue reading “Three approaches to researching the mythical Jesus phenomenon”

3 Unquestioned Assumptions of Historical Jesus Studies

In The Burial of Jesus James McGrath gives an introduction to the methods of scholars who study the Gospels as sources of historical evidence about Jesus. Note how, throughout, this method assumes: That there is a historical Jesus to talk about; That there was an oral tradition that relayed information about this historical Jesus to … Continue reading “3 Unquestioned Assumptions of Historical Jesus Studies”

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”

Response (2): the Bethlehem-Nazareth fallacies

Continued from Responding to standard arguments for Jesus’ historicity (1) . . (ii) he was from Nazareth . . . . Not only is the fact that he was from Nazareth a feature of all versions of the stories but Nazareth itself appears, with Jesus being scorned and rejected there. This was clearly a problem … Continue reading “Response (2): the Bethlehem-Nazareth fallacies”

Marcion and Luke-Acts: Conclusions

In a series of posts (archived here) I have outlined Tyson’s argument (Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle) that both our canonical Luke and Marcion’s gospel were based on a common “original Luke”. The argument does, I think, offer a plausible explanation of the evidence, and Tyson’s discussion of Luke and Acts certainly gives grounds … Continue reading “Marcion and Luke-Acts: Conclusions”

thoughts on “proving” or “disproving” things biblical

While I like to be rational and value healthy scepticism I am not interested in “disproving” the Bible. The idea of having any sort of agenda to “prove” or “disprove” anything to do with things or persons biblical seems quite pointless to me. (Who was it who said when asked if he believed in the … Continue reading “thoughts on “proving” or “disproving” things biblical”

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 17

17. Polycrates and Irenaeus on John Polycrates on John Bauckham proceeds to show that Polycrates knew that John the author of the Gospel was not the Son of Zebedee, member of the Twelve, John. He begins with his letter to the bishop of Rome over the ‘correct’ date on which to observe ‘Easter’ (or the … Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 17”

Ancient Epistolary Fictions / Patricia A. Rosenmeyer (2001). Review

I’ve written this “review” essentially as a commentary on what we can know about the genuineness of the New Testament epistles. The commentary bits are in eyesore bold italics. I read Rosenmeyer’s Ancient Epistolary Fictions (Cambridge University Press, 2001) to inform myself of the literary culture behind the New Testament epistles as part of my … Continue reading “Ancient Epistolary Fictions / Patricia A. Rosenmeyer (2001). Review”