NT Criticism a closed book

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

You could get some better examples of the phenomenon you are trying to sketch. Perhaps the authenticity of Ignatius? It's been credibly assailed in every generation since the beginning of serious NT criticism (and even before then), yet still is used (for example) in a matter-of-fact way to set a terminus ante quem for the Gospel of Matthew in NT introductions. Essentially because of the defense of a few guys (especially Harnack and Lightfoot) in the early 20th century, who are now long dead.

I got a webpage on the the topic (http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html) and concluded, among other things, the epistles were written much later that 110 CE, and certainly not by Ignatius of Antioch. BTW, I never used the Ignatian epistles as a terminus ante quem for the Gospel of Matthew, more so because datable other texts, combined with strong internal evidence, provide external evidence for a a terminus ante quem around 90/95 CE. See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially. Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias,

So you are basically right about everything even before hearing what anyone else has to say. That's crazy because no one's exhausted the possibilities out there. No one's dreamed up every possibility.

I heard about what many scholars had to say by reading their books before I typed the first word of my website.
Before completing my website, I have been constantly hearing and reading about anyone who proposed anything about HJ or No-HJ and the beginning of Christianity. And I still do.
As far as I know, it may take centuries before all possibilities on that matter will be exhausted. Do you suggest I should have waited that long before writing a website about the beginning of Christianity?
About the possibilities (many of them barely sketched), I find that they are getting worse from one year to the next, more so on the mythicist side. They are more and more ill-evidenced and with more and more evidence against each one of them.

The problem with creating a grand obelisk devoted to 'truth' like this is that it - all your dealings here - becomes all about you, about 'you being right,' defending your views etc.

What's wrong with that? First I do not think I am always right because I welcome criticism on what I wrote and sometimes had to admit I was wrong and that forced me to make corrections.
Then look at you: you always come up with theories with ultra positive statements on how much right you are.
Certainly, I am defending my views like everyone else on that forum, including yourself.

Why not chuck all that in the garbage and just play with the evidence like a kid again. Have fun with it.

I do not play with the evidence to have fun with it like a kid. Maybe you do. But, if so, don't you have other ways in order to have fun and play? It seems to me the matter of researching the beginning of Christianity is not an opportunity to play like a kid and have fun.

Cordially, Bernard