Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Thomas L. Thompson’s The Messiah Myth can be a somewhat mystifying read for anyone looking for an engagement with conventional historical Jesus studies. It can leave a reader who is looking for a repeat of this scholar’s demolition of the historicity of the biblical Patriarchs and Kingdom of Israel even more flummoxed. In his first … Continue reading ““Minimalist” Thomas Thompson’s take on The Messiah Myth”
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”
So much in the Gospel of Mark is opaque that I tend to suspect that the author deliberately spoke in riddles, and that his gospel was intended from the beginning to be a symbolic or allegorical mystery of some sort. Who can claim to understand what this author meant when he wrote that the disciples of … Continue reading “The taming of Mark’s unruly faithful”
Of John the Baptist Professor E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism) writes: That John himself was an eschatological prophet of repentance is clearly implied in Josephus’s account. Further, the depiction of John and his message in the Gospels agrees with Josephus’s view: the preaching in the desert; the dress, which recalled Elijah; the message of repentance … Continue reading “Engaging E. P. Sanders point by point: John the Baptist”
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”
Albert Schweitzer argued against those who denied the historicity of Jesus, but he also had a few things to say about the way in which the debate between mythicists and historicists was conducted in his day. This post lists some of those thoughts that I believe are still relevant. His advice about what mythicists need … Continue reading “Schweitzer’s comments on the historical-mythical Jesus debate”
I intend to demonstrate in a series of posts that there is legitimate room for informed, rational, scholarly debate over the historicity of certain events in the so-called life of Jesus. To disagree with E. P. Sanders and “mainstream scholarly opinion” is by no means to be equated with failing to engage the views and … Continue reading “Why the Temple Act of Jesus is almost certainly not historical”
The following comparative overview of the extents of the “orthodox” and “nonorthodox” forms of Christianity from the time of the fall of Jerusalem through the second century is taken from chapter 8 of Walter Bauer‘s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. His information is inferred from the surviving literature from this period, and later references … Continue reading “Map of second century Christianities”
From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145 (number formatting is mine): Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons . . . . I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts … Continue reading “How the Gospels are most commonly dated (and why?)”
Let’s imagine Mark was the first gospel to be written, and let’s imagine a reader had only the Jewish scriptures in mind with which to compare it. Just suppose there was no prior oral tradition by which the narrative had come to the readers in any form at all. Here (indented in black) are the … Continue reading “How the Gospel of Matthew Converted the Gospel of Mark’s Disciples”
The Jewish historian Josephus had a bit to say about the nature of historiography, and why he believed his historical writings were more truthful than those of Greek historians. His criticisms of Greek histories have some interest when compared with modern questions about the historical reliability of the Gospels. . . .
Okay, bad juvenile pun, I’m sure. But I’m having trouble outlining Margaret Barker’s Israel’s Second God here. Firstly because work commitments have made it difficult for me to take the time to synthesize and then restructure the contents adequately, and secondly because Barker refers to many studies and theses that really require much unpacking for … Continue reading “Who the ‘EL was God? (Margaret Barker’s The Great Angel, 2)”
Continuing notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts — the previous post (on Luke 24) is here, the lot archived here — Previously I discussed Ancient Prologues in detail, but that was with particular reference to the Book of Acts. Nonbiblical examples of split prefaces, such as we find in Luke-Acts, were part of that discussion, … Continue reading “Marcion and Luke-Acts: The Preface of Luke”
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)”