Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben never called it a reconstruction (let alone a "reproduction"). He called it a "study aid for myself and for anyone else interested." He mentioned the limitations and "caveats" intended of it. I don't believe he called it an "improvement" over existing effo...

Thanks, Ben! Very handy.

I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine Pauline epistles" don't satisfy the "large corpora that we can tie to individual authors" criteria that you referred to in your initial response. As a corpus, it is much shorter. That's the reason (for me anyway). This makes the a...

While I agree, Carrier's minimal mythicism position is that a celestial Jesus incarnated and was killed above the earth. While Carrier does state that such a Jesus could have been killed elsewhere (for example, under the earth), it's not what he argues in his book. The lack of such examples in anci...

Thanks Peter Why are you "grouping" any of them? What does this grouping have to do with the epistemic foundation of investigation into ancient Christianity? Because the current information about the works attributed to those people suggests strong relationships within those groups, and i...

The names you could use for this approach include: Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clement of Alexandria Tertullian Origen Cyprian Eusebius These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity. I have been wondering why the so-called "genuine P...

In the quoted case... since Carrier is arguing for non-historicity (of Jesus) and because non-historicity (of Moses etc.) would help or at least not hurt him... Pr( X | Y ) >= Pr( X ) >= Pr( X | ~Y ) X = The non -historicity of Jesus. Y = The non -historicity of Joseph, Moses, etc. ~Y = The historic...

About these seven (no, the number is not important...): I have listed seven because they have seven different authors for seven different bodies of work . That statement doesn't involve any assumption regarding the name of that author or the date of authorship. There are reasonable conclusions for b...

Thanks for explanation Peter. I've looked over it a number of times. I'm always wary about arguing a point through analogies, since the argument tends to become about the analogy than rather about the real thing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that by adding additional figures (Moses...

And while we do find plenty of evidence for both parts in mythology (no I'm not bothering to hunt it down--exercise for the reader right there), what we don't find plenty of evidence for is the part excluded at the start--the location ("above the earth"). It's the location posited by Carr...