Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The evidence historians use to assert that Jesus’ crucifixion is a historical fact does not match the evidence for the death of Socrates. Normal guidelines for secular historians that are used in their approach to sources are very rarely followed by biblical (in particular historical Jesus and early Christianity) historians. Paula Fredriksen, in her Jesus … Continue reading “Evidence for the UNhistorical “fact” of Jesus’ death”
This is partly in response to “mythicist quote of the day” Allow me to explain why I think so many arguments for the historical Jesus are based on an assumption of historicity. Firstly, when I quote Sanders in this respect, it is not because I am faulting Sanders’ arguments for starting with this assumption. I … Continue reading “Assumptions of historicity (in part a response to James McGrath)”
In The Burial of Jesus James McGrath gives an introduction to the methods of scholars who study the Gospels as sources of historical evidence about Jesus. Note how, throughout, this method assumes: That there is a historical Jesus to talk about; That there was an oral tradition that relayed information about this historical Jesus to … Continue reading “3 Unquestioned Assumptions of Historical Jesus Studies”
I suggested in Did Jesus exist on youtube? that the original message of the crucified messiah, contrary to a common claim that it must have been a “hard sell”, had so much going for it that it was probably not hard to sell at all. If we follow the usual historical model of Christian origins … Continue reading “Selling the comfort of a crucified-messiah”
21:20 Feb 16, Edited to add a quote from Mack in a book, edited by Neusner and others . . . The following is presented by Dr James McGrath on his Did Jesus Exist Youtube video as fundamental evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. It is a standard line, almost a “historicists’ creed”, and … Continue reading “Did Jesus exist on youtube? Dismantling the “evidence” presented by James McGrath”
In a recent post, I mentioned a new publication, The First Paul, by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. I said it contained some interesting bits, but also some bits that one might suspect are arguably on the dubious side of method and logic. I discussed a positive for my first post, now for a … Continue reading ““Christ crucified” — Was Paul’s message really anti-imperialist as Borg and Crossan assert?”
Imagine the author of the Gospel of Mark wrote about the coming of the Son of Man in clouds from the same perspective as frequently found amongst the Jewish Wisdom, Prophetic and History writings. (Leave aside for this discussion the perspective of the Deuteronomist, who on other grounds appears to have spawned a separate tradition … Continue reading “When they saw the Son of Man coming in the clouds”
What was the origin of the idea that God sacrificed his beloved or only son to cover for the sins of his favoured people? Was it novel to the Christians? Was it the outcome of years of theological reflection searching for meaning in some historical event? Or was the idea already central to certain Jewish … Continue reading “Jesus supplants Isaac — the contribution of Paul”
In Fabricating Jesus Craig Evans writes: Some of the criteria used for supporting the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings apply in the case of his mighty deeds. (p.140) The criteria for authenticity that he cites in this context are: Multiple Attestation, Dissimilarity and Embarrassment. Elsewhere he lists additional criteria that he says are also useful for … Continue reading “3 ‘criteria for authenticity’ (“Fabricating Jesus” / Craig Evans contd)”
If Craig Evans had been in my class when I was a high school history teacher and if he handed in his essay on “Criteria for evaluating the Gospels” (as published in his Fabricating Jesus) I would have liked to have given him fair marks for his description of some of the criteria, but would … Continue reading “‘Fabricating Jesus’, Craig Evans Fabricating Scholarship — Marked F pending . . .”
When prophecies of the end fail those who placed their hopes in them commonly attempt to explain and understand differently what they once expected to happen. When Christ failed to return to earth between March 1843 and March 1844, the schedule was re-written as April 1844. When that passed, it was revised again to October … Continue reading “Why did no-one edit gospel gaffes about the Second Coming?”
Manifest Destiny? 12/04/08 By Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom Copied with permission from the Israeli peace activist site Gush Shalom (my links no longer default to new windows!) NEXT MONTH, Israel will celebrate its 60th anniversary. The government is working feverishly to make this day into an occasion of joy and jubilation. While serious problems … Continue reading “Israel’s birthday and God’s gift from the Nile to the Euphrates”
(revised 1.15 pm) Continuing notes from Pervo re the genre of Acts. Pervo compares the genre of Acts with the genre of the works of other ancient historians. Below I’ve summarized Pervo’s comments but have added much more by way of illustration from Price and Feldman. I have also just received a copy of Revealed … Continue reading “The literary genre of Acts. 4: Historian’s Models – comparing Josephus”
Below I have summarized the conclusions of the far more detailed discussion of the Emmaus road narrative. It offers an explanation for some of the problems with this narrative by seeing it in the context of the art of popular story telling. Having lost appreciation for this context of the original gospel, subsequent literal and … Continue reading “The Emmaus narrative and the techniques of popular story-telling”