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”
I post the following in good faith after having attempted multiple times to elicit advice from a New Testament scholar on its accuracy. Historical Jesus scholarship is unlike other historical studies in the following way: Historical Jesus scholars (or “historians”) set about applying a set of criteria (embarrassment, double dissimilarity, coherence, etc) to the Gospels … Continue reading “The fallacy at the heart of historical Jesus scholarship”
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”
In online discussions and posts about “historical method” in connection with the study of Jesus and early Christian history I often encounter confusion about what history really is. New Testament scholar Scot McKnight notes that this confusion begins with many biblical scholars themselves: In fact, the historiography of historical Jesus scholars is eclectic and often … Continue reading “What is history? What is a historical fact?”
If you follow the “it is ignorant to say there is no evidence for the HJ” discussion on Debunking Christianity you have already read most of what I post here. John Loftus kicks things off with his OP in which he says: I want to put to rest the ignorant claim that “There is no … Continue reading “Who says, “There is no evidence for the historical Jesus” ?”
From time to time since I started blogging about various scholarly books on the Old and New Testaments, I receive an email from one of the authors thanking me for the post, and offering a few additional pointers, queries or discussion sometimes. The most striking thing about these emails is the total contrast in their … Continue reading “Curious inconsistencies: If it works for Adam and Caesar, why not for Jesus?”
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”
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, but doesn’t quite quack like a duck, then maybe it is not a duck. Just because we see one or even a few features in the gospels that we recognize from historical or biographical writings, we cannot assume that the gospels are therefore history or … Continue reading “Historical Imitations and Reversals in Ancient Novels — and the Gospels?”
I have been catching up with two conservative historical Jesus scholars and once again I find their honest perspectives about their historical methods refreshing. Luke Timothy Johnson in The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels is quite upfront with stating the obvious: the historical Jesus … Continue reading “Respecting the Honesty of Conservative Historical Jesus Scholarship”
If the Gospels were written as “biographies” of Jesus, or were meant to be read as “history”, does this mean that we can expect to find only factual details in them? Or if not entirely factual, must we give the benefit of the doubt that beneath a certain amount of exaggeration there must have been … Continue reading “Fiction in ancient biographies, histories and gospels”
I take it absolutely for granted Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Security about the fact of the crucifixion derives not only from the unlikelihood that Christians would have invented it but also from the existence of two early and independent non-Christian witnesses to it, a Jewish one from 93-94 C.E. and a Roman one … Continue reading “Crossan’s absolute certainty in the historicity of Christ Crucified”
James McGrath has given Dale C. Allison’s latest book, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History, a bit of a bad press in his recent review of it. He famously wrote that Allison explains how a historian can learn the true sense of what a historical person was about through studying fictional material about that person. … Continue reading “Clarity about Circularity from Historical Jesus Scholar Dale Allison”
The following post is an adaption of what I recently wrote to someone who had emailed me for an opinion on a study he had written on the origins of Christianity. His thesis rested entirely on acceptance of the conventional scholarly view of the authenticity of certain letters of Paul. I was reluctant to burst … Continue reading “Precautions to take when dating and getting to know Paul”
Deane Galbraith has listed on the Religion Bulletin blog a the early Sheffield Biblical Studies blog posts discussing Casey’s Jesus of Nazareth, and he adds a note about mine, too. But the presentation goes to the heart of why mainstream biblical studies on the historical Jesus are very often not comparable with genuine historical studies. … Continue reading “Two misunderstandings in biblical studies: the nature of “scepticism” and “evidence””