Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Couchoud thought that John the Baptist epitomized and popularized the Jewish hopes for a coming Judge from Heaven — as shown in my previous post in this series (the entire series is archived here). Christianity was born of the travail of the days of John. The Baptist gave it two talismans with which to bind … Continue reading “The First Signs of Christianity: Couchoud continued”
Continuing the series archived at Couchoud: The Creation of Christ – – – (Couchoud argues that our “editor” – Clement? – compiled 28 books, one more than our current 27 that make up our New Testament and this post concludes the section where Couchoud discusses the origin of our New Testament books.) The perfect balance … Continue reading “2 Peters, 1 Jude and 2 Revelations: the first New Testament (Couchoud)”
David Fitzgerald‘s essay, Ten Beautiful Lies About Jesus, that received an Honorable Mention in the 2010 Mythicist Prize contest has been expanded into a book, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Showed Jesus Never Existed At All. The book is clearly a hit: Nailed continues to garner more fans and accolades, and generate cranky hate mail. … Continue reading “David Fitzgerald responds to Tim O’Neill’s review of Nailed”
I don’t really do comedy so I start out with a very serious link to an even more substantively serious article: The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science by Chris Mooney. It’s a four page article so don’t forget to continue after reading page one. It explains what most people reading this blog understand … Continue reading “Anti-mythicist scholars shooting their own side”
Continuing from my last post — and in particular responding to the earlier commenters — here are some more shorthand notes from Walter Schmithals. Schmithals argues that Paul has a very Gnostic view of his apostleship in that for him an apostle is one who has a direct revelatory/visionary calling by God or Christ. In … Continue reading “Paul’s Gnostic heritage & Gnostic opposition”
Géza Vermes is not a mythicist. He believes in the historical reality of Jesus to be found beneath the Gospels. But in the context of any mythicist debate what he writes in The Changing Faces of Jesus about the “myth” of Christ Jesus in Paul’s writings is noteworthy. It shouldn’t be. What he writes is … Continue reading “Paul’s “Mystical-Mythical” Christ the real — or rival? — foundation of Christianity”
Dr McGrath’s review of the first part of Doherty’s chapter 10 is here. My response is here and between that post and this I have posted a number of McGrath’s defences against my criticisms. Earl Doherty has today posted his response(s) on McGrath’s blog and I copy them here. There are two. The first is … Continue reading “Doherty’s responses to McGrath’s ch.10 (pt.1) review”
In response to Dr James McGrath’s post on Mythicism and Peer Review Earl Doherty wrote the following: Jim, you are a piece of work. I only wish that your mindless animosity toward the idea that, just possibly, the Christian record could represent something which two thousand years of hidebound and confessionally-driven tradition could never have … Continue reading “Mythicism and Peer Review”
Dr McGrath’s review of Chapter 9 of Doherty’s book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man conveys no idea to the uninformed reader what the chapter is about. So to make up that lack (surely scholarly reviews should give readers some clear idea of what exactly is being reviewed!) I outline the content of the Doherty’s chapter … Continue reading “Response to McGrath’s review of Doherty’s chapter 9”
“You aren’t allowed to make up your own facts.” That’s a brilliant piece of wisdom that is lost on many of us from time to time because a certain familiarity with habitual ways of thinking prevents us from seeing that we sometimes really do just make up our own facts — or at least just … Continue reading “The fallacy that invalidates historical Jesus studies, conspiracy theories and creationism”
James McGrath has ridiculed any reference to an argument for interpolation if there is no manuscript evidence for it. But this simply avoids addressing the actual arguments that are sometimes advanced for an interpolation. By avoiding the arguments he sophistically reasons that if there is a claim for interpolation then he is equally free to … Continue reading “A Case for Interpolation Does NOT Rely On Manuscript Evidence”
Earl Doherty has responded in detail to criticisms by James McGrath and others over chapter 6 of Jesus Neither God Nor Man. I have collated them in this post, and may add any future ones here, too. (Compare comments on my outline of chapter 6) Updated 31st May 2011 Brother of the Lord By now … Continue reading “Doherty answers McGrath and others (continuation of ch. 6 criticisms)”
What else am I to conclude? The evidence McGrath provides for his claim to have read chapter 6 of Doherty’s book is that he can cite names and topics that Doherty uses in that chapter. But at the same time McGrath strongly indicates that he merely glanced at those references and never bothered to read … Continue reading “McGrath does not read what he claims to be reviewing”
Added two concluding paragraphs 2 hours after original posting, along with typo corrections. In the first section of the Jesus Neither God Nor Man Earl Doherty had in part argued that the early Christian correspondence is silent on ethical teachings from Jesus, Jesus’ apocalyptic predictions and Jesus’ calling of apostles during an earthly ministry. In … Continue reading “Jesus’ life in eclipse: Reviewing chapter 6 of Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man”