The Quest for the Historical Paul, James Tabor

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Quest for the Historical Paul, James Tabor

Post by Irish1975 »

Tabor IMO is a puzzling scholar. I happen to find his book on Paul full of insight and probing questions. He wrote his dissertation at U Chicago about Paul's trip to the 3rd heaven, comparing it to historical parallels. He's fascinated with all the bizarre aspects of Paul that Christians want to ignore.

But his book on the Jesus Dynasty is wacko.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Quest for the Historical Paul, James Tabor

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Irish1975 & mlinssen,

I think the rule for mythicists is to denigrate the (historicist) messager and not to bother to check his arguments and evidence.

to Irish1975,
One thing I love about this website is the security of knowing that no one here is a biased individual.
You are right, I am not a biased individual. You are secure on that. :D :D :D

to mlinssen,
I for one am also very well known to keep pace with some trends - unlike everyone else in here, who errr, ... errr... well. You know. Right?
Yes, you are right. :D :D :D
Bernard agrees that fresh information in Acts (found nowhere else) is completely unreliable, yet still doth protest
What fresh information (found nowhere else)?
If you are talking about the one coming from the Acts seminar, I debunked them: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7448#p115279
In particular, see these two web pages:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'

Cordially, Bernard
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Quest for the Historical Paul, James Tabor

Post by mlinssen »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:48 pm to Irish1975 & mlinssen,

I think the rule for mythicists is to denigrate the (historicist) messager and not to bother to check his arguments and evidence.

to Irish1975,
One thing I love about this website is the security of knowing that no one here is a biased individual.
You are right, I am not a biased individual. You are secure on that. :D :D :D

to mlinssen,
I for one am also very well known to keep pace with some trends - unlike everyone else in here, who errr, ... errr... well. You know. Right?
Yes, you are right. :D :D :D
Bernard agrees that fresh information in Acts (found nowhere else) is completely unreliable, yet still doth protest
What fresh information (found nowhere else)?

Cordially, Bernard
It's a while ago, Bernard, but I think I was referring to
3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."
It doesn't matter really, Acts likely took a weekend to write, it's completely bonkers

The issue with "historicists" in the biblical context is that people get labelled such when they provide support to the idea of a historical Jesus - It's not their arguments that qualify them.
Tabor is a really kind man by the way, and thoughtful; yet that is irrelevant to what he writes
Post Reply