Toto

This is all outdated.

An older generation of scholars used these tools to try to extract history from the gospels. The attempt was not very successful. I refer you to Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (or via: amazon.co.uk) and all of the discussion around that. It is why scholars like Le Donne have retreated from looking for the ipsissima verba of Jesus to "refracted memories" (which might as well be false memory syndrome for all he knows.)

In short, there is no robust, well tested consensus as to these tools. If scholars continue to believe in a historical Jesus, it is because of their own predilections, not because of anything remotely approaching proof or probability or even a best explanation of the evidence.

outhouse

No it is not.

It is still the core to biblical criticism, and it needs to be updated. Not thrown out.

Thank you I may buy it.


Here is a good review of the book

http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...-authenticity/

There is much of value in these essays, particularly those (the majority) that do not call for a wholesale end of the criteria’s use.

outhouse

To me it sounds like blah, blah, blah, I wont answer those questions because my results are way too similar to yours.

Spin, it wouldn't be to hard to go through the archives and pull your positions out that prove your views are similar.

I have made very vague statements, and I'm one of the few people here following a HJ that takes a very minimal stance to the historicity of the man and what can be attributed.

Toto

Is too.

Updated with epicycles and qualifications until it crashes under its own irrelevance and absurdity.

You claim to be an atheist and not to rely on Christian apologists, but somehow you keep quoting Christian apologists. :constern01:

spin

Not only are you a grammatical whiz, you're really expressive as well.

If that were true, why the fuck did you misunderstand and blunder into the fray in the first place?

If you honestly believe that, when you spew unsupported claptrap, defending the views of your christian authorities, go ahead and demonstrate it, rather than do what you usually do, ie make bald assertions.

You think?

So should I not call you on your nonsense because you're feeling lonely?

We want supporting evidence and clear citations from you, not your usual baloney.

outhouse

Unsubstantiated personal opinion.



And He could teach you a lot.

I have no problem with scholars that do not show bias. I use Ben Witherington as what I call to far off into the apologetic field to recognize.


If you could show some of Craigs bias, you might have a point.

outhouse

Even if I went out and bought Evens book and cited from it, you would not accept the evidence.

Just because you can dig up arguments against evidence, does not give those arguments any credibility or validity. They are a matter of opinion, and that is why opinion, is all you get from me. I am saving you time.




You have great knowledge and can debate very well, credibility I have not seen with your wayward view of Gmark.


Thing is, I don't have a personal problem with you, your not as bad to deal with as jayhawker soule whom is on your level. But not too damn far from it.

outhouse

You have written so much saying absolutely nothing of value. What is the harm in giving us a paragraph answering those same questions?

Unreasonable doesn't begin to address your stance here.

MrMacSon

Dunno if these cut it on their own.

Best to also consider

• appropriate terminology and methodology
• current discussions about all methodologies
• • (such as proper attribution of primary sources and secondary sources, and their inter-relationship); &
• critical thinking

spin

I don't know what you are referring to, but I have specifically talked of primary evidence, the sources that demonstrate your claims. I really don't care about you rehearsing someone else's opinions. You put out assertions about what's what and you have a responsibility to know the basis of your own assertions, so other people's books are worthless to you, unless you don't know on what basis you make your assertions.

You are pretending as if you had evidence, while talking about buying some book to provide you with evidence. You can't even make up your own mind what your story is.

What exactly is the wayward view of GMark you are referring to?

I don't have a personal problem with you. I want to know why you are shitting on this forum, whinging about others not following experts as you do, when you don't know why you support the views, because you don't know the evidence. All you know is a potted version of their hermeneutics. You go around foisting your secondhand views on anyone and everyone. That's why I have you on ignore. But not everyone wants to use ignore, so they suffer your blather, citing it in their responses and I see it.

And the following is what you first responded to, addressed to steve_bnk, and it was clearly interested in how one knows what they claim to know. This all went over your head because you had to spout your assertions


If you could only be good and clearly cite evidence to support your views rather than appealing to authority, we could all get back to biblical criticism and history.