Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

^Why is that?

I think Goodacre would be the most interesting to hear a review from. Mainly because we know Carrier respects him a great deal. Plus Goodacre's already had a taste of Carrier in that radio debate last year but neither really got the chance to flesh out their ideas behind the broad generalisations.

^I asked Ehrman on his blog a few months ago whether he planned on reviewing Carrier's book and he replied saying he had no intention to. He said he'd be happy to debate Robert Price on the issue, but feels Carrier is out for blood. I avoid Holding altogether. But I would love to see reviews from th...

to Neil, This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy...

The more I think about this question, the more I think 70s is actually a pretty good dating for Mark. Mark 13 has clear references to the temple's destruction. Like a lot of apocalyptic material, it's good at telling you recent history, but kind of fails from there on. There are implications in Mark...

Carrier just wrote a 7,000 word rebuttal to a Christian fundamentalist amazon.com review. He's really hitting the big time now

^You're right, Hawthorne - I'm not attempting to deal with the argument. I agree there are reasons to doubt Jesus' historicity. I too question the confidence that some in this list of names have over this issue (despite finding myself ultimately leaning more towards a position of historicity). But t...

^So people like Ehrman, Zeba Cook, Maurice Casey, Eisenman, Elaine Pagels, Amy-Jill Levine, Diarmaid MacCulloch, James Tabor, Geza Vermes, Gabriele Bocaccini etc. (i.e. atheist/agnostic or very weak non-Christian theist scholars of Christian Origins), all experts in their own right (whether your or ...

What Carrier doesn't fully grasp is that the people making these judgements are theologians, not historians or critics. Their job is to rationalize Christianity and make it acceptable to modern society. They need New Testaments texts to be "authentic" in some way, regardless of the litera...

^I wasn't aware I was making an argument for their validity. An "appeal to authority, argumentum ad numerum/the democratic fallacy" would be if I said you should believe it because of the fact that the majority hold it. Which is not what I said. Sheesh. If you only read a little further, y...