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?
Here it is folks, — with the scribal aid of St Archer, the modern church can finally sell the Jesus it has tried to explain is really behind the gospels all along: Continue reading “Gospel of Judas (Archer/Moloney) fantasy verses”
[Link is dead. If anyone has a copy of the original discussion please let me know. Thanks. — Neil Godfrey, 20th July, 2019]
Formal Debate “The Historical Resurrection of Jesus?”
“This thread is for the formal debate between Bible Defender and stevencarrwork. No other forum users are allowed to post in this thread, other than moderators or admins, until the formal debate is concluded.”
Loved this digest parody of the Archer – Moloney ‘Gospel of Judas’:
Check out John Crace’s “digested read” at the Guardian website.
The Guardian also has a more serious review here.
[Link is dead. If anyone has a copy of the original discussion please let me know. Thanks. — Neil Godfrey, 20th July, 2019]
At the Richard Dawkins website — started by Steven Carr. Continue reading “Formal Debate: The Historical Resurrection of Jesus? – Link fixed”
Previous post refers to post-war conflicts between Christians and Pharisees, and cites Morton Smith’s views that this rift lies behind the negative gospel depiction of the Pharisees. I’ve collected here some online articles, based on historical research, that indicate that the gospel’s negative view of the Pharisees is more polemical than historical fact. Historical evidence testifies to the Pharisees being quite popular among the wider public at the time of Jesus. This page is intended to be a companion to the previous post that cites historical evidence locating the Pharisees in Judea with only scant presence in Galilee. Continue reading “Character of the Pharisees – online sources”
In my “dating the gospels late” post I made a few statements that would appear outrageous to some. Rather than attempt to answer some of the objections raised in the tiny comments box I am opting to make separate posts justifying the points I made.
Here I cite reasons for claiming one anachronism in the gospels: Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees in Galilee. Though there may have been the odd Pharisee in Galilee prior to 70 ce the impression given by the gospels that they were a significant presence there is unlikely historically — for the following reasons: Continue reading “Pharisees in Galilee?”
The Age has published an extract from The Existential Jesus by John Carroll. See Judging Pilate.
I have said a few things I like and don’t like about this book, but what I do like the most is that the ideas expressed in it are the result of years of collaborative discussion and study of the Gospel of Mark. I can’t resist exploring the insights of anyone else who has made that type of study and comparing notes. Only wish his Jesus wasn’t so much what I suspect John Carroll himself is, an existentialist. But what else should I have expected from the title! :-/
There’s a footnote in Brodie’s The Crucial Bridge I paid little attention to until I heard a radio discussion about Japanese warrior Samurai becoming Buddhist monks.
Then I thought again about Brodie’s footnote (p.12-13) Continue reading “Killer Saints?”
I have to confess I could not resist reading Archer and Moloney’s Gospel According to Judas — damn temptation! Continue reading “Archer and Moloney’s Judas Gospel still not quite right”
There are two passages in Josephus that refer to Jesus Christ. The first one in Book 18 of his “Antiquities of the Jews” is widely known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) (=the testimony of Flavius Josephus). Another, in Book 20, is a briefer reference but it is cited in major works as authentic to Josephus, and not the work of a Christian scribe. It’s this latter reference under discussion here. Continue reading “That other suspect entry in Josephus”
So the truth is out. Professor Francis Moloney and Jeffrey Archer tell us how the gospels were written.
Note: No eyewitnesses! No oral traditions! No historiography! Continue reading “How a gospel works: Judas reveals all”
Professor Francis Moloney is incensed that Dan Brown can get away with his Da Vinci Code nonsense without an equally popular rejoinder from orthodox scholarship, so has teamed up with convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer to popularize the way gospels “really were written”. (See earlier posts in the Judas category.)
Nothing like the services of a convicted perjurer to get The Truth out there! Continue reading “Judas and the Devil take on Dan Brown”