Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The biggie. Much work needs to be done on the children of this category. These need to be greatly reduced in number.
Should this category include the ancient history of Palestine-Judea, including second temple era and Bar Kochba rebellion and rise of rabbinic culture? If so, should Biblical Studies itself be renamed in some way?
Why does the Christian author of Acts bother to tell readers (in 28.11) that Paul’s ship had the figurehead of two pagan gods?
Why does the author of Acts use words that are only elsewhere found in fictional shipwreck stories in Homer?
Is there anything truly distinctive about Paul’s shipwreck to set it apart from fiction? Is Paul’s adventure at sea anything other than stereotypical? Continue reading “Acts 27-28 an eyewitness account? (Part 2)”
Some years ago (around the time I seized the opportunity to personally thank Bishop Spong for helping me on my way to atheism 😉 ) I asked a well respected anglican cleric what his response would be if it could be reasonably established that Christianity did not begin with a real historical Jesus. My query was via email so he had a little time to think before responding. His words in effect were: Continue reading “Would it really be a problem if there were no historical Jesus?”
Passing on here notice of an article currently being discussed on the iidb site. Continue reading “faith based “scholarship””
This post is in response to a lengthy citation from a work by Loveday Alexander arguing reasons for believing that the sea travel story of Acts 27 was an eyewitness account. Against that one point the following demonstrates that Alexander’s reason is relatively weak when balanced against the weight of other literary factors worthy of consideration in this chapter. Continue reading “The sea adventure of Acts 27 an eyewitness account?”
Births can be messy things and it appears to have been no different with the gospels.
One speculation to suggest why the authors of the canonical gospels did not attach their names to them is that the gospel story was so commonly well known at the time that there was no need for such authentication.
To take just one facet of this argument here: Continue reading “messy gospel births”
We have 5 literary sources for the life of Alexander the Great (late 4th century bce):
Is it fair to accept these as evidence for an historical Alexander while not accepting the canonical gospels as sources for an historical Jesus? I think so for three reasons: Continue reading “Comparing the sources for Alexander and Jesus”
What if a second century attempt to allegorize the Christian holy books had succeeded in the way early Christians allegorized the Jewish scriptures? Continue reading “The two-edged sword of Christian allegorizing”
One of the historical giants of biblical scholarship, Adolf von Harnack, from 1908 argued for the Book of Acts being composed possibly as early as the 60s ce, in the lifetime of the apostle Paul. His reasons: Continue reading “On an early date for Acts — and its problems”
Never suspected I’d be putting up a link to this but here we are (only because I have some respect for interviewer Rachel Kohn’s judgment on what’s intellectual and fair despite/beneath marketing requirements) . . . .
Check out ABC Radio National’s The Ark, a 15 minute podcast — but it’s only in podcast and online for 4 weeks. More parts to follow — check the website to see the more critical interviewees in store. . . . Continue reading “The Jesus Tomb Part 1 — interview with Simcha Jacobovici”
This question keeps popping up all over the place. I’d like to kill it. Continue reading “What if Jesus intentionally acted out the OT “prophecies”?”
In response to those who dismiss a priori the likelihood of interpolations in the letters of Paul, Walker lists the following: Continue reading “A Literary Culture of Interpolations”
Elaine Pagel’s The Gnostic Paul cites the many gnostic interpretations of Paul’s letters. The point is well made that our interpretation of Paul is inherited from the founders of the orthodox church today. Yet this interpretation was not so universal in the second century. Irenaeus took issue with the gnostics for claiming to have secret traditions that they claimed had been handed down from Paul in order to explain the spiritual (“pneumatic”) understanding of his letters. Continue reading “A gnostic mind game with Paul and Mark”
The Gospel of Mark is a parable or largely allegorical according to scholars such as Kelber, Tolbert, Weeden, and others Thus Galilee and Jerusalem have theological meanings, the former representing the Kingdom of God and the latter, opposition to that kingdom. The twelve disciples led by Peter are the seed found in rocky soil that sprouts quickly with promise but just as quickly whithers into failure. And so forth.
Such modern interpretations of Mark sit in remarkably close conjunction with the (second century) Valentinian allegorical interpretations of Paul’s letters as explained by Elaine Pagels in her The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. And is it significant that the Gospel of Mark is sometimes argued to be embedded in Pauline theology? Continue reading “Gospel of Mark — modern meets gnostic interpretation?”
More notes (earlier notes from same book here and here) from Dennis MacDonald’s The Legend and the Apostle (though with my own twist in presentation) Continue reading “Another round in the Battle for Paul”