Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
It seems obvious to most scholars that our estimate of the age of a certain book . . . must be founded on information contained in the book itself and not on other information, and the estimate should certainly not be based on the existence of a historical background that may never have existed. The … Continue reading “Scientific and Unscientific Dating of the Gospels”
Here I look at the argument that the inscription (bytdwd) apparently referring to David (dwd) or the “house of David” in the Tel Dan Inscription is best explained as a reference to an epithet (meaning “beloved”) for the god Yahweh. This post is related to another about a week ago, The Tel Dan inscription: the … Continue reading “Does the Tel Dan Inscription ‘Prove’ David to Be a Historical Person?”
There is a passage in the Gospel of Thomas that would seem to encapsulate the historical methodology some scholars use to reconstruct the historical Jesus: 77 Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; … Continue reading “Finding Jesus Under the Stone: The Gospel of Thomas Guide to the Scholarly Search for the Historical Jesus”
char·la·tan (shärl-tn) n. A person fraudulently claiming knowledge and skills not possessed. Source: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Charlantry Theologian James McGrath is once again exposing his ignorance — and peddling public ignorance in the process — of both Jesus-mythicism and of the gulf between biblical studies and nonbiblical mainstream historical methods. His latest foray as far as I am … Continue reading “More charlantry from a biblical professor on mythicism”
This post is based on a discussion by Niels Peter Lemche in The Israelites in History and Tradition. It begins with a quotation from Assyriologist Mario Liverani: Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with … Continue reading “Scholarly Trench Warfare to Defend the Bible by Means of Rationalistic Paraphrase”
Rick has posted another constructive response, “Charity,” “Suspicion” and the Dangers of Categorization. Or, What I Learned from John Hughes, to my posts on historical method in the context of NT historical studies. Another is expected to follow discussing the nature of facts. (Previous post addressing Rick is here.) I suspect we are drawing closer … Continue reading “Charity, suspicion and categorization — exchange with Rick Sumner contd”
Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with the events , they readily adopt it. They limit their work to paraphrasing the source, or, if needed, to rationalisation. — Liverani, Myth and politics in ancient Near … Continue reading “Naivety and laziness in biblical historiography (Nehemiah case study 5)”
In my previous post I listed the grab bag of arguments for the historical existence of Jesus. One point worth noting, however, is that the existence of Jesus was presumed long before there were scholars who thought to investigate his real historical nature. When scholars and other point to a passage that they say proves … Continue reading “Historical Jesus arguments as ad hoc rationalizations”
It is slightly amusing, also disheartening, to see the way theologically biased biblical scholars make a complete mockery of their attempts to explain Christianity historically. James G. Dunn did not like implications that could conceivably be drawn from the recent discussions of Bauckham and Hurtado over attempts to explain historically how Jesus came to be … Continue reading “How theology mocks biblical history”
Well, they don’t believe all of it, of course, but they do believe enough of it (they would deny faith is involved) to use as a skeletal framework in their various reconstructions of Christian origins. Mainstream biblical scholarship (both Christian and secular) for most part bases its reconstructions of Christian origins on methods that would … Continue reading “The Bible says it, biblical historians believe it”
I have argued (repeatedly) — and demonstrated — that mainstream historians of “the historical Jesus” do not follow the basic procedures in evaluating evidence practiced by regular “nonbiblical” historians. Here is another specific case that illustrates this fact, and demonstrates once again the validity of Thomas L. Thompson’s claim that “historical Jesus” scholars have “always … Continue reading “Contrasting methods: “nonbiblical” historians vs “Jesus” historians”
Perhaps the more mystery or inexplicable circumstances there are surrounding Christian origins the healthier it is for the faith business. Not that those of the faith are the only “beneficiaries”. Jesus is, after all, a central icon in the constellations of our broader cultural identities. The inexplicable is his defining asset. The most improbable “stubborn … Continue reading “The most improbable history of Christian origins”
Following Professor James McGrath’s advice to pay particular attention to E. P. Sanders’ discussion of methodology (pp.3-22 in Jesus and Judaism) I am here have a look at one of the main tests for the sayings material. Sanders does not discuss any methodology for testing authenticity of biographical events in Jesus’ life. The closest he … Continue reading “E.P. Sanders’ Test for Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus”
James McGrath has expressed his concerns about apparent misunderstandings of the historical process on the part of those who argue that Jesus was probably not an historical figure in his blog post: Mythicist Misunderstanding I wish to address his post in some detail, because he brings together the sorts of objections one regularly sees raised … Continue reading “Historicist Misunderstanding : a reply to James McGrath and others”