Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
PZ Myers is a biologist with a curiosity about how historians determine whether a person appearing in ancient records is considered historical or otherwise. He asks: How does one assess people and events that are contradictory, vague or preserved only in stories passed on by word of mouth? As for figures about whom we have … Continue reading “How do historians decide who was historical, who fictional?”
PZ Myers of Pharyngula has posted an interview with a historian in order to discuss The ontology of historical figures — with a particular view to the question of this historicity of Jesus. I intend to post a critical commentary on the remarks by the historian, Eddie Marcus (I think that was the name but correct … Continue reading “PZ Myers interviews a historian about Jesus mythicism”
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 I will make this the final post in my series examining Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. There is considerably more in the review that … Continue reading “Gullotta on Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: One Final Irony (or Misunderstanding? or…?)”
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 I ended my previous post with these words: From this point Gullotta loses sight of Carrier’s own line of reasoning, sometimes erroneously conflating MacDonald’s and Carrier’s views, and even at … Continue reading “Gullotta’s Dysrepresentation of Carrier’s Case for the Gospels as Myth … Part 3”
The study of the historical Jesus depends on reconstructing oral tradition and honoring it with the same dignity we give the text. That’s from David Galston’s, The 19th Century and Us, on the Westar Institute’s Biblical and Theological Reflections Blog. Those words point to an even more fundamental dependency: The study of the historical Jesus … Continue reading “The Study of the Historical Jesus Depends On . . . . .”
After a long delay, owing to intrusions from the real world, I now wish to end this part of the Memory Mavens series with a discussion of perspectives and methods. For weeks I’ve ruminated over these subjects, concerned (no doubt overly concerned) that I will miss some important points. But when I do, I know … Continue reading “The Memory Mavens, Part 11: Origins of the Criteria of Authenticity (4)”
Damn. I fell for it (again). A professor promoted a new book as “making the most sense of the crucifixion” and “making a fresh contribution to studies of the ‘historical Jesus’” so I made a rush purchase and read it the same day it arrived. Silly me, I should first have checked the University of … Continue reading “Testing the Claim that Jesus Scholars Use the Methods of Other Historians (Part 1)”
Some readers may have come across a very long list of ancient writers who “could or should” have made some mention of Jesus. That list surfaced in another forum discussion today and I found myself faithlessly writing a response to it there instead of spending my time on Vridar. To make amends, hoping Vridar will … Continue reading “Fundamentals of historical research and the difficulties faced by historical Jesus studies”
In a recent comment, Giuseppe asked about Mark 8:27-30 (the Confession at Caesarea Philippi). At issue is a grammatical error in the text, mentioned in Robert M. Price‘s Holy Fable Volume 2, but first (apparently) noticed by Gerd Theissen in The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Both Theissen and Price argue that the error reveals … Continue reading “A Redactional Seam in Mark 8:28?”
[This post has been waiting in draft status since 19 February 2015. This year I’m going to try to finish up some of the series we’ve left dangling on Vridar. –taw] A considerable number of New Testament scholars have recently jumped on the memory bandwagon (see, e.g., Memory, Tradition, and Text, ed. Alan Kirk). Characteristics … Continue reading “The Memory Mavens, Part 11: Origins of the Criteria of Authenticity (1)”
The horses are on the track In Daniel Gullotta’s “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts,” we see a phenomenon common in nearly every apologetic debate, but comparatively rare in print: namely, the Gish Gallop. It works better in a live, oral/aural environment, of course, because the wave of information washes over and stuns the opposition, while on … Continue reading “What’s the Matter with Biblical Scholarship? Part 3”
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””
Is it “hyper-critical” to approach ancient historians like Livy, Plutarch, …. with caution? In response to my previous post on why I do not think of myself as a “Jesus mythicist” one person insisted that we have every right to accept the words of Tacitus and Josephus about some incident that they say happened a couple … Continue reading “The evidence of ancient historians”
Sometimes someone seems to expect me to argue a mythicist case, or accuses me of somehow hypocritically hiding my mythicist views. So let me make my view on the historicity of Jesus question clear. If we approach the question of Christian origins the same way a historian would be expected to approach any other question, … Continue reading “Why I don’t see myself as a Christ Mythicist”