(Although they might reserve some seating for the disabled; and they might have a sign-in sheet; but I’m just guessing.)

If it’s anything like San Francisco, you might be expected to order a meal or a drink (as compensation to the establishment).

What McGrath is quoted here saying is simply untrue. But McGrath has shown himself repeatedly to be too incompetent to independently evaluate scholarly arguments (I catalog several examples under his name here). If he were competent, he would know why Crossley’s arguments for a Caligula association make no sense on any final analysis (and were purely speculative to begin with). I address it in my forthcoming book. It’s simply not a viable hypothesis. Meanwhile, Casey’s arguments are based on delusional tea leaf reading, and a complete failure of even rudimentary logic, as I point out in my critical review (and on the logic, also, importantly, here). If this is what historicity hangs on, it’s dead as a respectable hypothesis. (As to McGrath’s claim of “a far greater number of scholars,” once we subtract fundamentalists from whom he means, that statement is a plain falsehood.)

But the more general question is whether mythicism requires a post-war date for Mark. It does not. Mark is so demonstrably allegorical it could even have been written by Paul and still be complete (and deliberate) fiction. Since unlike the later Gospels it never represents itself as history. It is consciously constructed in a mythic mode from beginning to end. Matthew, meanwhile, is even more grandiosely mythical. Luke is the only Gospel that might seem hard to explain as from the early first century, since Luke was actually trying to trick people into believing a historical Jesus existed (as is John, who wrote after Luke), and one might think it harder to explain why someone would try to do that so soon in the cult’s development–of course, even then, harder does not mean impossible; but more importantly, contrary to appearances, I find an early date would actually have no effect on the probability, due to the demonstrably deceitful character of the text, and its manifestly being based on earlier texts that are themselves patently mythical–Mark and Matthew–and the circular, fact-contradicting, and self-refuting nature of arguments against rapid legendary development (I address all this in chapters six and ten of my forthcoming book).

Myths have often been fabricated almost immediately. For example, the Life of Saint Genevieve is full of complete and grandiose bullshit, and it was written just ten years after her death. With the result that, if we had no independent corroborating evidence she existed, we should conclude she probably didn’t. This is a valid application of Law’s Rule.

“The case for Mark itself being early, as argued by Crossley and Casey (interestingly, both prominent atheist New Testament scholars) focuses on the evidence that convinces a far greater number of scholars that there are earlier sources or materials embedded in Mark. Mark 13 seems to have been shaped by the Caligula crisis, for instance.”

This may be a problem for the Christ Myth Theory. Thoughts about early source material in Mark?

It’s described in the new afterword to the chapter on Hitler in Hitler Homer Bible Christ (p. 188) with more in the updated notes 3-4 (p. 169).

I’ve echoed this request on my Facebook Page.

You are aware that Godfrey was never a mythicist, yes? See my past discussion of that point (even quoting him) here (under “Not Noticing His Opponents Aren’t Mythicists”). Godfrey has no definite opinions for or against historicity and is interested in both kinds of explanations of the evidence.

…future research now going on in Sweden due to Carrier’s journal publication of his results on those bogus Hitler quotes.

Can those of us that are not near San Fransisco get more information on what this future research is exactly?

P.S, – I have enjoyed reading and now listening to Dr. Carrier’s work ever since his pre-PhD days on the Secular Web. 🙂