FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-10-2013, 03:46 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
MCGRATH: ...... Historical criticism has shown that much that the early Christians claimed about Jesus was myth, some was legend, and much we cannot tell one way or the other. This is about the fact that there is historical evidence that the myths and legends grew up around a historical figure. That is all my disagreement with mythicists is about: internet denialists setting themselves up as authorities on history when professional historians consistently draw a conclusion different than theirs.......
"historical evidence that the myths and legends grew up around a historical figure" - besides the tautology, wonder what McGrath thinks this "evidence" is?
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:26 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
I think he means Historical_criticism.

I don't know why he thinks that historical criticism had reached such definitive results.
Check the history of that article and one sees it is the creation of biblical scholars and students, of course, since its contents relate to biblical studies.

I guess biblical scholars are entitled to call their work "historical criticism" if they wish, even if their tools are unique to biblical studies.

Unfortunately, since the Christian faith is ideologically grounded in a faith that certain events ever were historical, in this case the term "historical criticism" is itself an ideologically loaded one.
neilgodfrey is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 05:21 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
Unfortunately, since the Christian faith is ideologically grounded in a faith that certain events ever were historical, in this case the term "historical criticism" is itself an ideologically loaded one.
You would be incorrect unless your using that statement only applied to know apologetically inclined scholars. Then i would agree.


That does not apply to the majority of biblical scholarships.


You just have a problem with "historical criticism" and its methodology.



While you may want more then Plausibility, these no excuse for calling plausibility "faith"
outhouse is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 05:50 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
Unfortunately, since the Christian faith is ideologically grounded in a faith that certain events ever were historical, in this case the term "historical criticism" is itself an ideologically loaded one.
You would be incorrect unless your using that statement only applied to know apologetically inclined scholars. Then i would agree.

That does not apply to the majority of biblical scholarships.

You just have a problem with "historical criticism" and its methodology.

While you may want more then Plausibility, these no excuse for calling plausibility "faith"
I think you are confused about what argument you are addressing.

The Christian faith is based on a belief that certain events were historical, as Neil claimed

There are Christian scholars who claim that they have put their faith aside to examine the evidence for the historicity of these events. This is questionable.
Toto is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 05:58 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

You would be incorrect unless your using that statement only applied to know apologetically inclined scholars. Then i would agree.

That does not apply to the majority of biblical scholarships.

You just have a problem with "historical criticism" and its methodology.

While you may want more then Plausibility, these no excuse for calling plausibility "faith"
I think you are confused about what argument you are addressing.

The Christian faith is based on a belief that certain events were historical, as Neil claimed

There are Christian scholars who claim that they have put their faith aside to examine the evidence for the historicity of these events. This is questionable.
Doesnt this put it into context

"ideologically loaded"
outhouse is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:22 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Querner/Bahamuth's specific claims about a 1st century BCE origin for the Jesus tradition do appear idiosyncratic among mythicists/ahistoricists. I very much doubt for example that Mara bar Serapion is an earlier source than the Gospels.

I can understand (without necessarily approving) McGrath's reluctance to directly discuss what probably seems to him a genuinely fringe position.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:04 AM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
...

Doesnt this put it into context

"ideologically loaded"
I have no idea what you mean by this, or what you think Neil Godfrey meant by it.
Toto is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:23 AM   #28
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Querner/Bahamuth's specific claims about a 1st century BCE origin for the Jesus tradition do appear idiosyncratic among mythicists/ahistoricists. I very much doubt for example that Mara bar Serapion is an earlier source than the Gospels.
It is undoubtedly a view well outside the mainstream, but one at least a few scholars seem to have held.

The relevant point for the conversation in question, however, is that whether he's right or wrong, Bahamuth is very familiar with the source materials and studies he bases his opinions on, whereas McGrath is unable to articulate clearly either mythicist or historicist arguments and is left making feeble appeals to consensus.

(And it's about time I got around to reading Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?)
Tenorikuma is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:51 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenorikuma View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Querner/Bahamuth's specific claims about a 1st century BCE origin for the Jesus tradition do appear idiosyncratic among mythicists/ahistoricists. I very much doubt for example that Mara bar Serapion is an earlier source than the Gospels.
It is undoubtedly a view well outside the mainstream, but one at least a few scholars seem to have held.

The relevant point for the conversation in question, however, is that, whether he's right or wrong, Bahamuth is very familiar with the source materials and studies he bases his opinions on ...
(And it's about time I got around to reading Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?)
I reckon there's a reasonable chance the stories, or close-forerunners, originated BC.

Yes, Did Jesus Live 100 BC? by G. R. S. Mead sounds like an interesting read
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 09:40 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenorikuma View Post

It is undoubtedly a view well outside the mainstream, but one at least a few scholars seem to have held.

The relevant point for the conversation in question, however, is that, whether he's right or wrong, Bahamuth is very familiar with the source materials and studies he bases his opinions on ...
(And it's about time I got around to reading Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?)
I reckon there's a reasonable chance the stories, or close-forerunners, originated BC.

Yes, Did Jesus Live 100 BC? by G. R. S. Mead sounds like an interesting read
If you can get hold of it, you could also read something more modern like Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.