Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
In Jesus Interrupted Bart Ehrman describes his first encounter with people who believed Jesus never existed. Some people from Sweden had emailed him to ask if it were true that he thought Jesus was a myth. Ehrman describes his reaction: I thought this was an odd question. (p. 140) Bart Ehrman then comes very close … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s failed attempt to address mythicism”
“This book is an essential guide to the life and thought of Jesus . . . “ That’s James H. Charlesworth’s opening line in the preface to The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, one title in Abingdon Press’s Essential Guide series. James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature … Continue reading “Essential Guide to the Historical Jesus: Introduction (James H. Charlesworth)”
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”
9th post in the series by Roger Parvus. The complete series is archived here. In the letters of Peregrinus there are some passages that concern his gospel. If, as I have proposed, he was an Apellean Christian, we can expect to find here too some rough-edged and clumsy corrections by his proto-Catholic editor/interpolator. TO THE … Continue reading “[9] THE LETTERS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: 9th post in the series”
Can criteria used by New Testament scholars to uncover the historical Jesus (i.e., it is probably true if it is embarrassing, multiply attested, etc etc.) also be used on early ballads to see if we can know anything “probable” about the historical Robin Hood? Some people have “entertained reasonable doubts” about Robin Hood’s historicity, but at … Continue reading “How modern historians use myths as historical sources – or, Can Hobsbawm recover the historical Robin Hood?”
Updated 5 hours after posting to expand Schweitzer quote. The approach I like to take is one I learned from the way historians (certainly many of them at any rate) investigate other topics, whether in modern, medieval or ancient times. I have used the example of Alexander the Great before, so for convenience I use … Continue reading “Another way to study Christian origins”
Obviously the fact that people can speak about Jesus as if he had really existed does not mean that he really did exist. But what if historians (whose careers are in history faculties that have nothing to do with biblical studies) who write about the Roman empire mention Jesus as the founder of the Christian … Continue reading “Historians on Jesus”
James McGrath appears to have conceded the possibility that Earl Doherty may (perhaps only theoretically) be right when he wrote: Even if one granted that by “according to the Scriptures” Paul might have meant “according to what I have read in and derived from the Scriptures,” that would still not be incompatible with his understanding … Continue reading “Even IF “according to the Scriptures” meant “according to what we read in the Scriptures” . . . .”
Updated 4th August to clarify reference to Lewis John Eron’s definition of midrash. New Testament and Jewish studies scholars have often used the terms “midrash” or “midrashic” in connection with the Gospels, but some scholars object to applying the term to the Gospels. The difference is essentially between “purists” who want to restrict the term … Continue reading “Midrash and the Gospels 1: Some definitions and explanations”
Continuing from the previous post, addressing McGrath’s comments on Doherty’s chapter 7. I have so often heard scholars repeat, as if it were a truism, that in pre-modern cultures that relied more on oral traditions and story-telling than on stick-it notes people had trained themselves to have remarkable memories. But I was obviously mistaken. McGrath … Continue reading “Doherty’s chapter 7 (2): reviewing McGrath’s review”
Thanks to Richard Carrier for his review of Sources of the Jesus Tradition, and for his earlier coverage of the conference that preceded this book. Having read most of the book I can concur with many of Carrier’s assessments of its (very mixed) quality. R. Joseph Hoffmann, the editor of the book, has written a … Continue reading “Scholars addressing Jesus Myth studies: Richard Carrier’s reviews”
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)”
Doherty laid out the evidence that all knowledge of a Jesus in the historical past was said to have come to the NT epistle authors by revelation. (So much for the “oral tradition” hypothesis!) McGrath responds in his review of chapter 3 of Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man that Doherty’s argument falls flat because … Continue reading “Is McGrath facing front or back in his review of Doherty’s chapter 3?”
This is the final installment of Earl Doherty’s responses to James McGrath’s Menu of Answers for Mythicists. The previous two posts in this series are at Earl Doherty’s Antidotes for a James McGrath Menu Continuing Earl Doherty’s Antidotes . . . 7 to 12 This post completes Earl’s responses up to McGrath’s menu item #23. … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s concluding responses to James McGrath’s Menu of Answers for Mythicists”