Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
In a recent post, Neil discussed Helen Bond’s paper, “The Reception of Jesus in the Gospel of John.” I can’t find a print version of the paper, but the video released by Biblical Studies Online on my birthday, brings me both pain and pleasure. Pleasure, because I also believe the author of the Fourth Gospel … Continue reading “Form Criticism: Modern Scholarship’s Blind Spot”
In my previous post, I discussed the basic element of Bart Ehrman’s understanding of Maurice Halbwachs, the founder of the study of collective memory. This time, I’d like to focus on his remarks concerning Formgeschichte (form criticism) as it applies to the New Testament in general and memory theory in particular. Basic Element 2: Form Criticism [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI] … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman: Jesus Before the Gospels, Basic Element 2: Form Criticism”
* Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt.9 Form Criticism and the Sources of the Gospels . COVERED IN THIS POST: Form Criticism and Oral Traditions About Jesus The Fallacy of Form Criticism The Written Evidence of Common Patterns Versus the Oral Hypothesis Literary Construction out of Scripture, not Oral Traditions … Continue reading “9. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Form Criticism and the Sources of the Gospels”
Continuing from Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 1 Rainer Albertz is disputing the arguments of Philip R. Davies that the book of Deuteronomy could not have been written as early as the time of King Josiah. Argument 1: According to Davies, since Deuteronomy uses the name “Israel” to refer to all of … Continue reading “Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 2”
Some critics have portrayed me as being like a moth fluttering to the nearest flame, as one who is always attracted to the latest most radical viewpoint, and therefore my views cannot be taken seriously. What those critics generally fail to recognize, however, is the consistency of my readings of the sources and the fact … Continue reading “Gospel and Historical Jesus Criticism — Method and Consistency”
Criticism of the Pauline Epistles by B. Bauer Third and Last Section The Second Letter to the Corinthians. 1852 3 The Opening. 1: 3-11. What drives the author, the supposed apostle, to speak at length about his distress and suffering in the opening? Is he trying to show that a man who suffers so much … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Criticism of the Pauline Letters – III. Third and Last Section – a. 2 Corinthians”
Criticism of the Pauline Epistles by B. Bauer Second Section The Origin of the First Corinthians Letter 1851 3 The Introduction. 1: 1-9. If it were really Paul who wrote to his Corinthians, he would not have addressed the church, which he could consider as his own work, with a phrase that points to a … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Criticism of the Pauline Letters – II. Origin of the First Corinthians Letter”
Criticism of the Pauline Epistles by B. Bauer First Section The Origin of the Galatians Epistle 1850 3 Preface We will put an end once and for all to the mistakes and unsuccessful attempts of the apologists, who started from the assumption that it is both possible and necessary to integrate the Pauline letters with … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Criticism of the Pauline Letters – I. Origin of the Galatians Epistle”
I promised myself long ago that if I ever found software capable of reading and translating Old German fonts then my first priority would be to translate Bruno Bauer’s Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs = Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin. I have now completed that task. All six … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin – in English”
In mid-March this year James McGrath alerted readers to a new post by Tim O’Neill of History for Atheists, Jesus Mythicism 4: Jesus as an Amalgam of Many Figures, commending it for its take down of “amalgam Jesus” theorists for supposedly uncritically and emotionally concocting excuses to disbelieve in a historical Jesus. O’Neill inferred in … Continue reading “Much More Fully Informed History for Atheists — A Scholarly Introduction to the Two Jesus Parallels”
Along with his contradictory rationalizations to (1) declare the parallels between Jesus son of Ananias and the gospels’ Jesus to be “hopelessly flimsy”, yet at the same time are real and strong enough to (2) point to real-world parallel historical, socio-political, religious and onomastic events and situations anyway, Tim O’Neill further adds a common sophistical … Continue reading “Even Better Informed History for Atheists: The Lincoln – Kennedy Parallels Fallacy”
A week ago James McGrath alerted readers to a new post by Tim O’Neill of History for Atheists commending it for its take down of “amalgam Jesus” theorists for supposedly uncritically and emotionally concocting excuses to disbelieve in a historical Jesus. It has taken me a week since that alert but I have finally caught … Continue reading “Better Informed History for Atheists — Scholars assess the Two Jesus Parallels”
For an annotated list of previous posts in this series see the archived page: Daniel Gullotta’s Review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus Criticized for being Euro-centric and male-centric, these holistic-comparative theories have been almost universally rejected by scholars of folklore and mythology, who instead opt for theories of myth that center on … Continue reading “Continuing Gullotta’s Criticism of Carrier’s Use of the Rank-Raglan Archetypes”
The focus of my response will center on Carrier’s claim that a pre-Christian angel named Jesus existed, his understanding of Jesus as a non-human and celestial figure within the Pauline corpus, his argument that Paul understood Jesus to be crucified by demons and not by earthly forces, his claim that James, the brother of the … Continue reading “Rank-Raglan hero types and Gullotta’s criticism of Carrier’s use of them”