re: #66 freetoken

Yep, that book. The point you make about the murkiness of the origins is the one I’ve been mulling over myself. Basically, as things stand now, historicity is a secondary point, a mere detail, which is why I came to dislike McGrath’s constant comparisons of mythicists with creationists or climate deniers (even if the former quite often reason like the latter), where what is being denied basically forms an overarching framework in each field; “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is true. The same would not be true for historicity - were it disproven, nothing much would change in the field, the scholars would proceed with their studies of early Christian communities or of compositional layers in the NT books.