1. “(Photo credit: Wikipedia)” Really? New Wikipedia technology allows the company to take photos of people dead nearly 800 years? In fact you don’t need to credit anyone for this image, which is in the public domain. But if you do give credit it should be for a work of art, not a photo, and it should be to José de Ribera (1591-1652).

  2. Sili

    Just to throw a fly in the ointment. Even a real person can consciously adopt a new name to suit his purpose. A historical Jesus need not have been known by that name from birth. I seem to recall other messianic pretenders presented themselves as Joshua redivivus – or have I mindlessly bought mythicist propaganda on this one?


    1. No – if you believe in a historical Jesus (name not withstanding) then you aren’t a mythicist!

      That is interesting. I mean, we see names changing even in the New Testament. Peter, Paul…

      1. Sili

        Technically, we only have Luke’s word for Paul’s change of name.

        I consider myself increasingly agnostic on the question of historicity. I tend to agree with Carrier, that there simply aren’t data enough to make a definite decision one way or another (your dismissal of the use of probabilty theory in history not withstanding).

        Started reading your book last night. I guess I musta misread MacDonald, because I didn’t recognise your criticism of him. Good to see you agreeing with Goodacre on Q – I hope to get to your mimetic analysis tonight.

        I have to say, though, that the amount of typos is frustrating.


        1. Some of those are intentionally, and some should have been corrected by the publisher!


        2. I’m not sure we can be agnostic, and without trying to cause offense, I think that side of the argument is only a means to an end. Carrier is a mythicist, just politely covering himself with other titles.

  3. Sili

    Having read the conclusion, I was starting to subject that.

    Sadly, I’m not clever enough to tell them apart. Much like MacDonald claims Matthew missed Homer as a hypotext, so I miss your choice.

    I still haven’t read the middle bit, so I don’t yet know how much I might disagree with you about MacDonald. But I must temper my ego and accept that I do not have the tools to judge, myself.

    I’m sorry if you’ve already answered this, but when do you date Matthew and Luke? I thought I saw you quote 75 and 90 approvingly, but then a little later put Mt. post Vespasian.


    1. Sorry for the brief reply but I’m on the road.

      I date Matthew post Temple of Peace, 75.


Leave a Reply, Please!