Posted: Nov 05, 2015 2:56 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:If you think history is mainly about what-happened-when, then you badly misunderstand the charges of 'denialism'.
You may be correct. I don't know much about McGrath, so I'm not sure how much I should read into the fact that he carefully parses his statements so as to make clear that he is making the specific and narrow point that historians are not able to determine whether Jesus' miracles actually took place, which leaves open the broader question of whether he believes they did take place.
And even if he doesn't, I guess it's worth noting that I've never heard the term "denialist" used against someone who believes King Arthur was entirely a mythical figure. Because the evidence in favour of a real King Arthur is so much less than that for a real Jesus? Or because people just don't get so worked up when it is suggested there never was an Arthur? McGrath's distinction between "conservative" Christians, and the other kind of Christian (of which I suppose he is one) may be germane to that.