Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories

[Peter Kirby]

Lataster, Raphael "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief PseudoBayesian
Metacritique of the Sources." Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/imwjournal/vol6/iss1/5

http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles ... ources.pdf

Not perfect, but not bad either, considering the space constraints.

[outhouse]

I thought we already debated this guys work here.


I think his position is weak and has little merit.

[outhouse]

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

When we look at HOW real historians are searching for the historical man, and the quest involved in the search.


There is little comparison.

[Peter Kirby]

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

When we look at HOW real historians are searching for the historical man, and the quest involved in the search.


There is little comparison.

"This volume does not offer yet another portrait of the historical Jesus—indeed, we editors each have our own view of Jesus’ agenda, of what can be considered authentic material, of how he perceived himself and how others perceived him (whether our diverse views stem from our training, our ages, our experiences, even our different religious backgrounds, cannot be determined). Rather, this volume provides information on cultural contexts within which Jesus was understood and perhaps even understood himself."

Did you have a reason for linking to this book?

[Peter Kirby]

I thought we already debated this guys work here.


I think his position is weak and has little merit.

That may be, but the article that was published in 2015 is its own piece, to be judged on its own merits.

I personally could find some flaws in it, but I don't think it's right just to dismiss it as of "little merit." The biggest flaw is naturally that each issue raised is deserving of a fuller discussion.

[outhouse]

Did you have a reason for linking to this book?

Shows how in depth "real" research is on the topic of recreating history. Not just picking at evidence like a scab.

[Peter Kirby]

Did you have a reason for linking to this book?

Shows how in depth "real" research is on the topic of recreating history. Not just picking at evidence like a scab.

This "real" research, in this book, concerns the cultural context of first century Palestine. There's nothing for Lataster to differ over here. I'm pretty sure Lataster believes that there were people in Palestine in the first century and that they had a particular culture.

[outhouse]

That may be, but the article that was published in 2015 is its own piece, to be judged on its own merits.

I personally could find some flaws in it, but I don't think it's right just to dismiss it as of "little merit." The biggest flaw is naturally that each issue raised is deserving of a fuller discussion.

I see it as garbage in and garbage out. As I start to read it every other sentence is a fallacy he accuses the status quo of.

His statements against Ehrman seem to be fallacious as well.


Sorry Peter, it was hard to finish his work.

[outhouse]

Did you have a reason for linking to this book?

Shows how in depth "real" research is on the topic of recreating history. Not just picking at evidence like a scab.

This "real" research, in this book, concerns the cultural context of first century Palestine. There's nothing for Lataster to differ over here. I'm pretty sure Lataster believes that there were people in Palestine in the first century and that they had a particular culture.

That's my point.

This book is just setting up for the historical conclusions.

Your hard pressed to find a fallacy or attack of any kind mentioned in the context of how the books were created.

And since he is dealing with evidence. This sets up that evidence in context

[Peter Kirby]

So is there anyone who wants to comment on the essay instead of just pontificating in a general way?