Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Updated with additional conclusion 17th July Thomas Brodie argues that the Gospel accounts of Jesus, both his deeds and teachings, are like other literature of the era insofar as they are creative re-writings of earlier literary sources. The best-known example of such creative imitation in the classical world is Virgil’s use of Homer’s epics to … Continue reading “Brodie’s Mythicist Case: The Facts”
The theme of Act 2 is how Brodie learned that the biblical writers found much of their material in literary sources. In 1980 Brodie met Joseph Fitzmyer in Washington, DC, and asked him to comment on an article he (Brodie) had had published in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament the previous … Continue reading “Making of a Mythicist, Act 2, Scene 3 (“That is an important thesis”)”
Some theologians like to study what they call the intersects between science fiction (which is a sub-genre of fantasy) and religion. That might be a cute way to spark interest in the gospel message, but in reality there is no intersection between the two at all, at least not cognitively. Scot Atran explains: One clear … Continue reading “Fantasy and Religion: One Fundamental Difference (Or, Why God’s Word Will Never Fail)”
Recently I disappointed the pastor of the Diamond Valley Community Church when I declined to respond to his point by point counter-claims to my comparison of the miraculous feeding of the 5000 as told in Mark 6:30-44 with Elisha’s feeding 100 followers with 20 loaves of bread in 2 Kings 4:38-44. This was a pity … Continue reading “How Literary Imitation Works: Are Differences More Important than Similarities?”
The eight chapter of ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ is “Born under the Law: Intertextuality and the Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus in Paul’s Epistles” by Thomas S. Verenna. He takes those passages commonly used to support the claim that Paul’s Jesus was indeed an historical person — his crucifixion, being … Continue reading “Was Paul’s Jesus an Historical Figure? — ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ ch. 8”
Bart Ehrman claims that the Gospel of John is testimony to the existence of traditions or sources about the life of Jesus that were independent of anything that was known to the other Gospels. Therefore, so it is implied, the Gospel of John is a witness to Jesus that stands independently of the other Gospels. … Continue reading “Ehrman: “It is simplest to assume”? How the Gospel of John IS Dependent Upon Gospel of Mark”
Why is it that all the modern commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and to some extent John) include discussions of those works’ literary sources but scarcely any raise that question for the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel that supposedly started it all? Adam Winn (Mark and the Elijah-Elisha narrative : considering the … Continue reading “Discovering the Sources for the First Gospel, 1”
“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)”
This continues the previous post that introduced Edmund Cueva’s study in the way our earliest surviving Greek novel was composed by combining historical persons, events and settings with fictional narrative details and characters that were inspired by popular myths. Cueva is not comparing these novels with the gospels, but I do think it is important … Continue reading “Ancient Novels Composed Like Gospels continued (2)”
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”
Understanding the nature of a text is a significant factor in knowing how to interpret it and how to use it as historical evidence. Many scholars today, following Burridge, accept that the Gospel of Mark is a biography of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark is widely considered to be the first written … Continue reading “Second thoughts on the Gospel of Mark as Biography”
It is not easy to think of Mark as a literary genius when 410 of his Gospel’s 678 Greek verses or 376 of the 583 sentences begin with “and” (kai). While much has been written about the history-changing impact of Mark being the first to compose a written gospel, there is much in this written … Continue reading “The Oral/Written Gospel (Finding Meaning in Mark’s “Bad Greek” . . . Pt.2)”
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”
Thomas L. Brodie has a chapter (“Towards Tracing the Gospels’ Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles” in Mimesis and Intertextuality) discussing the possibility of the Gospel authors using the NT epistles among their sources, but what I found of most interest was his discussion on methodology and criteria. The difference between Brodie’s discussion of historical methodology … Continue reading “Brodie (almost) versus McGrath on historical methodology in NT studies”