Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Let me state at the outset here that I fully understand the actual merits of Simon Gathercole’s recent article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus do not matter. Its mere existence suffices for the task at hand. In other words, it is not necessary for mainstream scholarship to demonstrate that Paul’s … Continue reading “Gathercole Dabbles with Counterfactual History”
The abstract to Simon Gathercole’s article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus begins The present article seeks to show that the case for the mythical Jesus is seriously undermined by the evidence of the undisputed Pauline epistles. By way of a thought experiment, these letters are taken in isolation from other … Continue reading “Simon Gathercole’s Failure to Address Mythicism: (#5)”
A frequent line of argument by scholars and others attempting to “prove” the historicity of a Jesus behind the gospel narratives is to focus on biblical passages pointing to the “humanity” of Jesus, and sometimes his geographical and temporal location. It often appears that such people assume that a figure who is human and said … Continue reading “Addressing S. Gathercole’s Case for Jesus’ “Humanity” continued: Misrepresentations (#4)”
In the previous post we concluded with Earl Doherty stressing what he sees as the importance of keeping in mind the distinction between Christ’s sacrifice (the time and place of this are never specified – a point that is argued elsewhere) that enabled freedom from the law (Galatians 3:13) and the application of that freedom … Continue reading “Addressing S. Gathercole’s Case: “Born from a Woman” (#3)”
We introduced this series in the previous post. Simon Gathercole begins his case with Galatians 4:4 where we read that God sent his Son, “born of a woman, born under the law”. To Gathercole, the meaning of the verse is obvious: In Galatians 4, Paul says that God sent his son, ‘born from a woman’ … Continue reading “Addressing S. Gathercole’s Case for Jesus’ Humanity: “Born from a Woman” (#2)”
To state the argument against one hypothesis using the presuppositions and terminology of the competing hypothesis involves a circularity that undermines any hope for a fair assessment of the evidence. — Mark Goodacre, 2002 (82) Simon Gathercole has had an article published behind the paywall of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus opposing … Continue reading “Addressing Simon Gathercole’s “Historical and Human Existence of Jesus” (#1)”
The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know. –Harry S. Truman You have to start somewhere. That’s a distinct problem. How do we go about learning a subject as vast as biblical studies or biblical history? We could dive right in with some of the classics of text and form … Continue reading “Rereading Literature and History — Some Thoughts on Philip R. Davies”
As I read each chapter or section of Raphael Lataster’s book, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, I wrote about it here, but now that I have read the concluding pages I discover that Lataster anticipated some of the points I made along the way. Especially this one, the final footnote on the final page: The … Continue reading “Review part 10: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Conclusion)”
Questioning the historical existence of Jesus attracts something other than mere curiosity or intellectual debate among many biblical scholars and some of the public who don’t even have any personal interest in religion. I can understand people with a personal faith in Jesus either simply ignoring the question with disdain or amusement or responding with … Continue reading “Understanding the Hostility to the Christ Myth Theory”
New on René Salm’s site: The Hermann Detering Legacy—Introduction I have decided to devote part of this website to a repository of Dr. Detering’s work, particularly his articles that have been translated into English. Not all of that material is to be found on his German website, and the success and extent of this undertaking … Continue reading “Three New(ish) Things”
I recently wrote in a blog post: Roger Pearse, for instance, goes even further and without any suggestion that he is aware of Doherty’s arguments says they are “all nonsense, of course.” A theme I come back to from time to time is the gulf between many biblical scholars and scholars of early Christianity. We … Continue reading “Scholarship and “Mythicism”: When the Guilty Verdict is more important than the Evidence or Argument”
A spirit of obsession these past few days has possessed me with an intent to find something good and positive among mainstream biblical scholars of the historical Jesus and Christian origins. I fear I have proven to be a leaky and soon sunk vessel. All I discovered this past week was a post titled Revision … Continue reading “The Poverty of Jesus Historicism (sorry, Popper)”
See the Ascension of Isaiah archive for other posts on this source. I am sure over time more will be added and views will change. Roger Parvus posted comments relating to the relationship between Paul’s letters and some things we read in the Ascension of Isaiah. (Recall that the Ascension of Isaiah is a two … Continue reading “Paul’s and Isaiah’s Visions — A Possible Connection”
I have been asked once again to explain concisely why I believe Jesus is a myth. My initial response to that question is “Who doesn’t believe Jesus was a myth?” There is no dispute among biblical scholars, or at least among critical biblical scholars (let’s leave aside the apologists) that the Jesus of our canonical … Continue reading “Once more: My Position on the Jesus Mythicism Question”