Toto

McGrath's academic work seems to be centered on the Bible and science fiction, or popular culture. I don't think he can speak for professional historians.

maryhelena

I just had a look at his profile:

So, then - he looks to be more of an apologist than someone interested in really engaging with the mythicist position - that explains his tone....

Rick Sumner

The distinction between biblical historians and "professional historians" is arbitrary, not actual.

I generally disagree with McGrath. Routinely and with impunity. But he is not an apologist.

Toto

Richard Carrier would disagree. But I see no indication that McGrath is a historian of any sort.

The second part of your quote is from maryhelena, not me. I don't see McGrath as an apologist.

ReligionProf

I don't see how the endowed chair to which I was recently installed makes me an apologist. Amy-Jill Levine is E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School. By your reasoning that would make her an apologist for Christianity, presumably.

There's at least one hitch in your argument: she's Jewish.

:huh:

mountainman

As would the Jewish ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano according to whom the simple common sense difference between biblical historians and classical historians is that the biblical historians are ~~~ "INSIDERS" ~~~~ . Presumeably we might say that they are privileged to "Inside Information" concerning the ... ahem ... "Historical" .... Jesus. That they have essentially assumed that the unexamined postulate of the HJ is "true" in the sense of "historical truth". This appears to many people very much to be an actual distinction - and not any form of arbitrary distinction - with respect to the field of classical (ancient) history.

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method


p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Point 2) may set the red lights flashing in Jeffrey Gibson's lair. (thanks Fenton)

Toto

Welcome to FRDB, Professor McGrath.

I've been following the debate on your blog and Neil Godfrey's (he is also an occasional poster here.) Actually, I've been following and participating in the debate on the historicity of Jesus for most of the past decade, in spite of knowing that there are more productive things to do.

The word apologist is rather touchy here. We try to get people to avoid using it.

spamandham

Historians are confident Jesus existed {argument from authority}, first and foremost, because we have sayings attributed to him and stories about him that are more likely authentic than inauthentic {cart before the horse}. We have enough such material to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of most experts in the field {argument from authority}. And in order to deny that Jesus existed, one has to posit conspiracies and misunderstandings {straw man} which, if one is willing to entertain such scenarios, could effectively be used to deny the existence of just about anyone in history {argument from consequences}. And even in the case of the most plausible mythicist scenario (not that they ever take the time to make a positive case for how the myth was invented and how it came to be misunderstood so quickly as being about a historical figure) we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure Jesus {cart before the horse again}, however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas {poisoning the well}.

...speaks for itself.

maryhelena

...what more is there to say.....

maryhelena

Welcome, James, to FRDB. Just one word of advise. If your intention is to engage in a discussion with any mythicists here - you really do need to do something about that slur that is still up on your blog - the slur about equating the mythicist position with a creationist position. That slur really does indicate that your intentions might not be conducive to a rational exchange of ideas. So - in order to clear the field, so to speak - perhaps you might consider a re-write of that blog post...:constern01: