Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I am posting this (posts found on Dr McGrath’s ExploringOurMatrix blog) here solely for the sake of having what I consider to be significant blog exchanges involving Earl Doherty in the one place. (If I miss anything that others think should be collated in the one site then do let me know.) Dr McGrath responded … Continue reading “The Earl Doherty — James McGrath discussion continued”
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”
This is my take on one part of Earl Doherty’s argument that when Paul spoke of “rulers of this age” ignorantly crucifying Christ he was not suggesting that the spirit powers were working through earthly potentates to do their will. Dr McGrath believes that Doherty is contradicting himself here because Doherty also notes that it … Continue reading “My take on the “heavenly paradigm” apparent contradiction in Doherty’s argument”
7th post in the series by Roger Parvus. The complete series is archived here. In my previous post I called attention to the assortment of unusual beliefs held by the author of the so-called Ignatian letters. That assortment and the description of his Judaizing and docetic opponents have convinced me that he was a follower … Continue reading “[7] THE LETTERS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: 7th post in the series”
Dr James McGrath has written another defence of his review in response to my discussion of it and I think it would be useful to post it here so it can sit beside my criticisms. I am still trying to understand the hostility towards mythicism as well as the apparent inability of even some of … Continue reading “McGrath’s further defence of his review and responses to my criticisms”
I don’t mean “scholar” generically, but one scholar and his reviews in particular. The reason is, not to put too fine a point on it, that he blatantly misrepresents and suppresses what Doherty actually says. I even wonder if he bothers to read Doherty and merely skims, sees a few words that feed his prejudice, … Continue reading “Why I don’t trust a scholar’s review of Doherty’s book”
Updated with links and headings. Dr James McGrath continues with his chapter by chapter review of Earl Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man by posting a part one review of Doherty’s chapter 10. It will be clear from what follows that McGrath expresses much more about his own intolerant attitude towards mythicism than he does … Continue reading “McGrath’s review of Doherty’s chapter 10, part 1 — a response”
The earliest Christian records make no mention of Pilate. It is only with the composition of the Gospel of Mark that he first appears. And when he does appear, he is certainly not the bloodily efficient “historical Pilate” but almost a hapless figure who has no argument with Jesus at all. Thinking through the narrative … Continue reading “Why Mark Created a Gospel Role for Pilate”
Updated with NT passages for reference This follows my previous post that set me thinking along a related line. The verse for the day is Horsley’s sentence that I quoted there: It would thus appear that the supposedly standard Jewish ideas or expectations of the messiah are a flimsy foundation indeed from which to explain … Continue reading ““Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?”
(Edited with additional headings and discussion of the different kinds of Jesus portrayed – an hour after original posting.) (Again edited 8 Dec 2011) As someone rightfully said in relation to my earlier post on this theme, Matthew’s “Misunderstanding” of Mark’s Miracle Stories, It’s interesting what you can discover when you closely compare the two. … Continue reading “Why Matthew changed the way Mark wrote about Jairus’ daughter and the hemorrhaging woman”
Is this story a unique historical event that was related by eyewitnesses or do we have evidence that the author was basing this narrative on a similar story or stories well known to him? What is the more rational belief: that the dead rise or that authors imitate and adapt stories well known to them? … Continue reading “Reasons to entertain a smidgen of doubt about Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus”
I thought I had nailed the reason for Luke’s choice of Emmaus (Luke 24:23-35) as the destination of the two disciples after the crucifixion when I posted on The Origin and Meaning of the Emmaus Road Narrative in Luke. That explanation hinged on Codex Bezae containing the original word, Oulammaus, and that led to the … Continue reading “Another reason for the walk to Emmaus: looking for the wrong kind of deliverance”
There can be little doubt that when we read the Gospels and the books of Revelation and Acts we encounter many stories that sound remarkably like myths. Prison doors opening by themselves to release heroes, dragons descending from heavens to pursue comely women upon earth, finding coins in caught fish, raising the dead and walking … Continue reading “Explaining (the Gospel) Myths”
This is a continuation of my earlier post on the Nazarenes. As with that earlier post, this is primarily preparation to for adding articles to my vridar.info site. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it was not easy for me to find an online translation of the relevant passage by Epiphanius, Panarion 29. So hopefully … Continue reading “Earliest Nazarenes: Evidence of Epiphanius”