Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Both just sounds too nutty on the face of it You mean trying to address both the multiple sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby as being the result of some eccentric bandwagon theory and the veracity of Jesus Christ as an historical person in the same book ? Jay will have to address each wo...

1. Please cite these books or articles (or whatever) - by Osborne and Farmer - in full. 2. There are a number of permutations around Mark & Matthew beyond 'priority' or 'primacy' - a/ each gospel may have been written concurrently .. i. in different communities . ii. in the same community (eg. i...

Metacrock wrote: ... you have made up your own standard of history that real historians do not use.

What 'standard of history' do "real historians" use

Secret Alias wrote: ... 'mythicists' ... seem to want to establish one certainty in place of another.

Your generalizations and misrepresentations are tedious.

I saw a post somewhere by Earl saying he was bowing out of the Jesus debates, to paraphrase, to do other things. He has posted recently in the comments section at vridar.org.

The rest of that OP is somewhat negative eg. - History is probability. Although a strange kind of probability to which we cannot put numbers. 1 or the question before us is "when does it become reasonable to doubt?" Good history (ie. good historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, an...

Nice find there LC. Remember also earlier that the Christogram XR was a pre-Christian siglum in the margin of miss or excerpts of Homer marking certain passages as 'useful' or 'excellent' for quotation. We already know that scholars routinely posit Christian compilations of extracts from the Septua...

God Θεός ΘΣ ΘΥ Why do people forget the accusative form? Never mind that. When I first heard about Nomina sacra (9 months ago), I came to the same question. I read some posts and webpages about the topic, but they all have only a list with nominative and genitive. Dative, accusative and vocative ar...

Peter Kirby wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:Good history (ie. historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and nuanced.

"You said 'nuanced' twice."

"I like nuance."

I dunno how I did that, as I had a good third word, and have forgotten it, so 'realistic' was a ring-in

History is a science, but it's a social science ... That is essentially a category error: History may involve scientific methods, especially those of hard science, such as investigation of archaeological findings, but it is hardly a social science in the modern, present-tense sense of that opening ...