Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Now that's not relying upon plausibility, Bernard. That is called "shifting the goal posts". I was not moving the goal posts. I say if a reconstruction meets a large number of criteria, and is plausible (also coherent), there is a good chance it is correct. Woops, nope, Bernard. Memories ...

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:25 pm (more so when ignited by a very minimal Jesus).

God, Bernard. Do get over your obsession with historicism vs mythicism. Anyone would think that for you the bottom line is selecting any method that gives you the result you want and need in that stupid debate.

Neil So-called postulated "embarrassment" alone can never establish historicity -- which is the claim of many biblical scholars. There is little or no "establish" in anything discussed here. There is to accept a contingent proposition, or else to decline to accept it. That's not...

Neil What other field of inquiry uses "embarrassment" as at least one criterion to determine and what is and what is not a "fact" in anonymous and unprovenanced documents? The field you mentioned in a recent post with approval, judges and jurors. Statements against interest are ...

to Neil, Are you saying that plausibility of a narrative is a reason we should believe it to be true? If a narrative is plausible, free of obvious unhistorical parts, with every parts documented, does not involve the extraordinary, does not require great gifts to the characters, yes I would say the...

. Only "biblical scholars" use plausibility as the criterion of historicity as far as I am aware. It is all that can be used with such limited evidence, and it goes far past biblical scholars. It applies to most anyone before said time period. Oh baloney, outhouse. You have no idea what y...

Easy said. Sounds good. Bravo! And where did you go from that? On the fence and leaning towards mythicism, because you are not served with tons of clear-cut undisputed evidence for historicity. Oh my god, Bernard. Can you get your bloody obsession with the mythicism-historicism divide off your brai...

to Neil, You evidently cannot see the circularity and question-begging nature of your response. You are beginning with the assumption that they are historical narratives (entwined with theological embellishments) by an author with very specific interests and then making arguments based upon those t...

If "Mark" invented the wording of the sign on the cross, he would have "the Christ" instead. Are you saying that plausibility of a narrative is a reason we should believe it to be true? Are you saying that we can tell fiction from history by reading implausible details in fictio...

to Neil, How many works do you know that presume anything other than that the Gospel of Mark is a theological interpretation of real historical events? I did not know that. What would be these many works? Can you indicate a few? Certainly I would not go for "theological interpretation". g...