MrMacSon

"historical evidence that the myths and legends grew up around a historical figure" - besides the tautology, wonder what McGrath thinks this "evidence" is?

neilgodfrey

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.

outhouse

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"

Toto

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.

outhouse

Doesnt this put it into context

"ideologically loaded"

andrewcriddle

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

Toto

I have no idea what you mean by this, or what you think Neil Godfrey meant by it.

Tenorikuma

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.?)

MrMacSon

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

andrewcriddle

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