Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Marcion’s “heresy” was justifiably seen as the main threat to Christian “proto-orthodoxy” in the second century, but I suspect the reason had less to do with his doctrine of two gods and some form of docetism and more to do with what might have been branded his “Jewish error”. That will sound like nonsense to … Continue reading “Literal and allegorical Scriptures in Orthodoxy and Heresy”
Imagine for a moment that the author of the Luke knew the gospel of John. Some scholars have argued on the basis of close textual comparisons that the Gospel of Luke was written after, and used, the Gospel of John. (e.g. Matson, Shellard, et al) A few others also believe our canonical Luke was written … Continue reading “Luke’s dialogue with John on the first resurrection appearance?”
Richard Pervo offers much to think about in his work Dating Acts: between the evangelists and the apologists. Justice is not done to Pervo’s arguments by summarizing any small section of them in dot-point form. The dot-point notes that I’ve already presented from this book — a discussion of the author of Acts reliance on … Continue reading “4 things Luke knew — but did not say (or hardly said)”
A late date and anti-Marcionite context for Luke-Acts not only has the power to explain why Luke may have rejected Matthew’s story of the birth of Jesus, but even more directly why Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is so different from Matthew’s. (The common belief that Luke records Mary’s family line and Matthew Joseph’s is a … Continue reading “The Jesus Genealogies: their different theological significances”
There are arguments for and against Luke having known and used the gospel of Matthew, but one of the stronger arguments against him having done so is that his nativity story appears to owe nothing to Matthew’s – indeed appears to have been composed in complete ignorance of it. Matthew tells the story of the … Continue reading “A reason Luke might have rejected Matthew’s nativity story”
Following is an attempt to explain the mixed messages given the role of Peter in the post-resurrection narratives of the canonical gospels. It argues that Peter first met the resurrected Jesus, as per 1 Corinthians 15:5, some time after the writing of the gospels of Mark and Matthew but just prior to Luke’s gospel — … Continue reading “When did Peter first see the resurrected Jesus?”
Michelle Goldberg’s description of Christian nationalism in her book Kingdom Coming has been an eye-opener for this non-American on a number of levels. Till having read this book I had heard or read the odd strange comment from a US citizen that implied they believed the framers of the US constitution were divinely inspired, or … Continue reading “the creation of past golden ages, or beware what you dream . . .”
In response to those who dismiss a priori the likelihood of interpolations in the letters of Paul, Walker lists the following:
17. Polycrates and Irenaeus on John Polycrates on John Bauckham proceeds to show that Polycrates knew that John the author of the Gospel was not the Son of Zebedee, member of the Twelve, John. He begins with his letter to the bishop of Rome over the ‘correct’ date on which to observe ‘Easter’ (or the … Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 17”
11. Transmitting the Jesus Traditions In this and the next chapter Bauckham presents his case for the manner in which the Jesus traditions were transmitted by the eyewitnesses of Jesus, in particular by the Twelve as represented by Peter. He claims that:
I have revised the following 18th January to include a comparison with Doherty’s treatment of Suetonius. Oh dear, this is embarrassing from the historian’s point of view. I am sure F.F.Bruce represented the brightest lights of his time but, well, 1974 was another generation ago, even if I was part of it, and the series … Continue reading “R.I.P. F.F.Bruce on Suetonius and Chrestus — revised”
I’ve written this “review” essentially as a commentary on what we can know about the genuineness of the New Testament epistles. The commentary bits are in eyesore bold italics. I read Rosenmeyer’s Ancient Epistolary Fictions (Cambridge University Press, 2001) to inform myself of the literary culture behind the New Testament epistles as part of my … Continue reading “Ancient Epistolary Fictions / Patricia A. Rosenmeyer (2001). Review”
I originally posted this elsewhere in 2000: A New paradigm: On page 125 of his book Doherty writes: “When any set of assumptions is firmly in place, the evidence is usually interpreted in accord with those assumptions. Yet it is clear that the New Testament epistles present the Christian reader and scholar with difficulties and … Continue reading “The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? / Early Doherty. (Canadian Humanists, 1999). Review”