Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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