It’s an interesting exercise to look at Jesus the man (sans any theology or christology) on trial and see how he behaves. And equally if not more interesting to see how the apparent psychology resonates with his more dedicated followers throughout history since. Continue reading “Jesus (the man only) on trial”
JakeJonesIV on the iidb discussion group has offered the most coherent and contextualized explanation of the identity of Alexander and Rufus I’ve heard yet. Check out his posts 4292918 and 4291566. The explanation relates to Robert Price’s comment in his Pre-Nicene New Testament suggesting the possibility that Simon Magus is the figure behind Simon of Cyrene.
Note added 21 April 2023: those forum posts links no longer work so here are screenshots of them:
Wow, I love it when I read of an idea I have often wondered about being picked up by someone else who has obviously wondered the same things, but then gone on to develop that idea in a way that forces me to start reading the basic text again from scratch.
John Carroll does not allow for the young man who appears in the tomb at the end of Mark’s gospel to be an angel.
He is not an angel, as some have speculated; if we were, Mark would have said so. (p.127 of The Existential Jesus)
This is going to be a multi-part reply to a most extraordinary chapter. In a bizarre way that Bauckham would not appreciate, B will find himself in league with his post-modernist devil against the intellectual values of the Enlightenment. The main differences between the two are firstly that B will often be arguing against a straw-man Enlightenment, and secondly that he will subtly shift definitions and contextual meanings of his terms as he proceeds. Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 18a”
Oh boy oh boy, and when I first heard of this my first thought was another one of those “oh boy oh boy, only in america” thoughts and waited for it to disappear as fast as a toilet flush. How can anyone take this so seriously! Is no one raising an eyebrow at the rush of archaeological “proofs” of biblical and political claims in recent decades or batting any eyelid over their coincidence with contemporary prominent religious and political “issues”? Continue reading “Lost Tomb of Jesus (groan!)”
My last post on Bauckham and Justin found myself repeating conclusions I had come to some years ago but with a niggling back of my mind awareness that there is new information that I have read since and that I need to rethink the whole Justin and the gospels thing. And something I wrote in my chapter 17 review hit me as an implicit contradiction of my general view till now. Who knows, I may even find myself accepting that Justin knew not only the gospels but also either Papias or the tradition that Papias recorded! I will have to watch this space to see where I go!
Bauckham proceeds to show that Polycrates knew that John the author of the Gospel was not the Son of Zebedee, member of the Twelve, John. He begins with his letter to the bishop of Rome over the ‘correct’ date on which to observe ‘Easter’ (or the ‘Passover/Last Supper’). The extract is from the ccel site (Eusebius, H.E. 5.24.2-7): Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 17”