Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The abstract to Simon Gathercole’s article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus begins The present article seeks to show that the case for the mythical Jesus is seriously undermined by the evidence of the undisputed Pauline epistles. By way of a thought experiment, these letters are taken in isolation from other … Continue reading “Simon Gathercole’s Failure to Address Mythicism: (#5)”
A frequent line of argument by scholars and others attempting to “prove” the historicity of a Jesus behind the gospel narratives is to focus on biblical passages pointing to the “humanity” of Jesus, and sometimes his geographical and temporal location. It often appears that such people assume that a figure who is human and said … Continue reading “Addressing S. Gathercole’s Case for Jesus’ “Humanity” continued: Misrepresentations (#4)”
We introduced this series in the previous post. Simon Gathercole begins his case with Galatians 4:4 where we read that God sent his Son, “born of a woman, born under the law”. To Gathercole, the meaning of the verse is obvious: In Galatians 4, Paul says that God sent his son, ‘born from a woman’ … Continue reading “Addressing S. Gathercole’s Case for Jesus’ Humanity: “Born from a Woman” (#2)”
To state the argument against one hypothesis using the presuppositions and terminology of the competing hypothesis involves a circularity that undermines any hope for a fair assessment of the evidence. — Mark Goodacre, 2002 (82) Simon Gathercole has had an article published behind the paywall of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus opposing … Continue reading “Addressing Simon Gathercole’s “Historical and Human Existence of Jesus” (#1)”
Not long ago PZ Myers responded positively to certain arguments in the post by Tim O’Neill, Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus”. PZ was not to know of the presumably inadvertent misrepresentations Tim O’Neill made of David Fitgerald’s arguments in that post. In a followup post by PZ, Tim reminded readers that he had, … Continue reading “Fake History for Atheists”
Finally I have been able to catch up with the answer to one particular small question that arose for me when I first read Daniel Gullotta’s review of Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus. In the first pages of his review Gullotta directs readers to numerous works that are said to offer a detailed … Continue reading “Just a small point”
Fellow-former members of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God will recognize that cult’s influence in the title. (It is tongue-in-cheek, an in-house joke.) It came to me after reading the following by PZMyers: Now I have to recalibrate. What does “Jesus mythicist” mean? Apparently, rejecting the idea of the Son of God wandering about … Continue reading “Just what do you mean… HISTORICAL JESUS?”
Have we, after all, been making too much of Galatians 4:4? That’s the question I keep asking myself. After much reflection, I believe yes, we have, but perhaps not for the reason you would expect. In Daniel Gullotta’s “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts,” he writes: Furthermore, while Paul does use the word γενόμενον [genómenon] (to be … Continue reading “The Function of the Term: “Born of a Woman””
Who killed Jesus and why? With the Roman occupation of Palestine and its tense atmosphere of messianic hopefuls within the first century CE, the horrors of crucifixion were a real and ever present reality for messianic claimants like Jesus. A reality of which Paul and the first Christians would have been all too aware. Simply put, … Continue reading “Who Depoliticized Early Christianity?”
The horses are on the track In Daniel Gullotta’s “On Richard Carrier’s Doubts,” we see a phenomenon common in nearly every apologetic debate, but comparatively rare in print: namely, the Gish Gallop. It works better in a live, oral/aural environment, of course, because the wave of information washes over and stuns the opposition, while on … Continue reading “What’s the Matter with Biblical Scholarship? Part 3”
….. In surveying references to angels during this time, one of the most common features in the names of angels is the appearance of the element of ‘el’.53 This survey reveals that the most common angelic characters of this period were named Michael, Gabriel, Sariel/Uriel, and Raphael.54 In other words, a prosopographical analysis of the … Continue reading “Was the name “Jesus” too common to belong to a divinity or archangel?”
I’ll try to update this page regularly . . . . — and do let me know of others I miss. For the Mythicist Milwaukee sponsored debate video go to MythCon III and Price-Ehrman Debate Round-Up Since the debate MM has posted the following: 3 November 2016 Mythicist Milwaukee Post Debate Special: Did Jesus Exist? … Continue reading “List of Posts on the Bart Ehrman-Robert Price Debate”
This post concludes my notes on the Milwaukee Mythicist sponsored debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert M Price. It is based on notes I took as I listened, and since I have not listened to this part of the debate since, I cannot check my notes for accuracy or to add any completeness. Perhaps some … Continue reading “Conclusion: Ehrman-Price Debate #3”
Most readers with an interest in the mythicism debate are well aware that Paul never uses the term for “disciples” in any of his letters but only ever speaks of “apostles” — e.g. 1 Cor 9:1-5; 12:27, 29; 15:7, 9; 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11f; Gal 1.17, 19. So what are we to make of the … Continue reading “Woops …. with gaffes like these. . . . (will anyone dare to discreetly tell the professor that David was right all along?)”