14 Comments


  1. historical criticism is ok with me. the effort i think is wasted is the effort expended in the quest for the jesus which simply cannot be reconstructed from any sources we have.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      I can see that point, and have seen it expressed in much the same manner in several recent books. I find the study of the historical Jesus interesting, however.

      Reply

  2. the quest for your Jesus perhaps Jim? 😉 Historical criticism cannot of course prove or disprove the reality of the resurrection or divinity of Jesus. But it can be helpful in other ways. I think La Donne’s work suffers from a lack of realism and his idea that historians aren’t actually interested in the past is silly. However you’re right Joel, social memory is interesting. I like April DeConick for this.

    Reply
    1. Polycarp

      Steph, if you could prove the resurrection by historical criticism what is the point of faith and hope?

      Reply

      1. ah true. And what good historical criticism doesn’t do, is try to pretend it does. Compare NT Wright…

        Reply
        1. Polycarp

          Comparing HC to NT is like comparing Jim West to Todd Bentley. Sure, it’s funny and all, and really makes you think, but….

          Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!