Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Earl Doherty has visited James McGrath’s Matrix Restaurant and sampled for himself all 23 items offered on his Menu of Answers for Mythicists. Here is the first part of Earl’s complete culinary report on his experience along with tips for other prospective diners. Herewith a response to Jim McGrath’s blog feature A Menu of Answers … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s Antidotes for a James McGrath Menu.”
A week ago Evan posted a comment that piqued my curiosity. He raised a case study of a seventeenth-century “historical figure” whom historians have come to deem was completely fabricated. Those with a strong interest in arguing for his historicity pointed to oral traditions, the earliest written testimony, even a personal physical artefact, in support … Continue reading “How quickly a “historical” person can emerge from a myth: a case study”
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”
One of the reasons I am interested in this topic of visionary experiences is that they help flesh out a tangible environment, on the basis of concrete evidence, from which Christianity emerged. This is in contrast to the model of “oral traditions” being the roots of the canonical gospel narratives. The gospel narratives stand at … Continue reading “Ascents to the Celestial Temple and Heavenly Descents, and what any of this has to do with early Christianity”
Not long ago I skimmed through an online discussion over whether or not Paul learned about the gospel of Jesus from other apostles like Peter and James, or whether he relied entirely on direct revelation from the spiritual Lord. One side pointed to the letter to the Galatians where Paul said that he was not … Continue reading “Did Paul receive the gospel the same way the other apostles did?”
In a “response” to a recent post of mine about historical method, James McGrath illustrates well the very problem and question-begging that my post was intended to highlight. McGrath’s opening statement affirms that he simply fails to grasp the argument I am presenting. [Neil Godfrey’s] post begins by stating and commenting on the principle which … Continue reading “Response to McGrath’s circularity and avoidance of the methodological argument”
Jesus no more healed people than he was born of a virgin or walked on water or rose from the dead. The Gospels do not portray Jesus as a physician or literal healer of some sort. They portray him as the Christ, or Messiah, and they introduce stories of healings only in order to portray … Continue reading “Jesus was not a healer (1)”
I was struck by a sentence by Dale C. Allison in his Constructing Jesus that began as follows: Indeed, Jesus seems to have submitted to John’s baptism. . . . (p. 53) Only “seems”? I did not know that any theologian and biblical scholar who accepted the historical reality of Jesus doubted it. So catch … Continue reading “Scholars who question the historicity of Jesus’ baptism and why they “do not persuade””
Earlier I outlined Spong’s discussions of the way the Gospel of Matthew mined the Hebrew scriptures to portray Jesus as a new Moses, and the way Luke’s Gospel found in the same Jewish scriptures ways to present him as a greater Elijah. This post repackages Spong’s discussion of how the author(s) of the Gospel of … Continue reading “How the Gospel of John Created a Jesus from Wisdom Literature”
Today while catching up with what materials qualify as research for funding purposes in Australian universities (my new job requires me to refresh my memory on all this stuff) I came across an exclusion clause that should mean that no Historical Jesus book like Crossan’s or Casey’s should qualify as a research output of a … Continue reading “Grounds for excluding historical Jesus studies from university research”
In a 2005 review article of Jens Bruun Kofoed’s Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text Thomas L. Thompson observes (my emphasis): The conclusions themselves of an historian’s research and their accord with belief, rather than argument or method, are perceived as indicative of legitimacy. Adjectives, on the other hand, judging … Continue reading “The Role of Faith in Historical Research”
In my previous post I cited Leopold von Ranke’s famous explanation for history being an art. (I turned to von Ranke because a biblical scholar quoted von Ranke to me without knowing the source of his quotation, nor its meaning.) Now von Ranke’s philosophy of history and views on the nature of historical facts have … Continue reading “History as Science, Not Only Art. (History for Dummies, 2)”
There are some interesting articles discussing the place of the Gospel of Luke in relation to John and the other gospels: Acts 4:19-20—An Overlooked First-Century Clue to Johannine Authorship and Luke’s Dependence upon the Johannine Tradition and The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis I would prefer to take … Continue reading “More on Luke Being the Last”
In response to my post in which I cited the Game of Avoidance as one played by some HJ scholars in relation to mythicist arguments, one such scholar has posted a series of comments with each one ironically avoiding my argument. Irony seems to be lost on some people. So when challenged to address my … Continue reading “Response to James McGrath’s Argument from Wikipedia”