Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
JD Walters in his Cadre website has begun a lengthy series of responses to my responses to Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. JD’s words are in black and indented. Mine are in blue. (I hope there are not too many people who feel they have nothing better to do than to read this exchange, by … Continue reading “Bauckham: reply to JD Walters”
Previous posts reviewing NV’s Writing With Scripture: How and Why the Gospel of Mark Used Scripture — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 1 Creating New Stories from Scripture — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 2 To What Shall We Compare the Gospels? — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 3 … Continue reading “Creating the Gospel of Mark — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 5”
Have recent posts here about two “son of man” sayings of Jesus missed their mark (claiming to be references to Daniel 7) if the term “son of man” was simply a common way for a speaker to refer to himself? Vermes argued that, in addition to being a normal term for “man”, the Aramaic bar … Continue reading “Is “Son of Man” in the Gospels a mere idiom for “I”, the speaker?”
One of the purposes of Vridar is to share what its authors have found of interest in biblical scholarship that unfortunately tends not to be easily accessible to the wider lay public. (Of course, our interests extend into political, science and other topics, too. For further background see the authors’ profiles and the explanations linked … Continue reading “Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars””
In hindsight, I think we were unnecessarily cruel to Mr. Griffin, our misfit freshman science teacher. Behind his back, we referred to him by his initials, R.A.G., and sang that old “Rag Mop” song. He was a bit of a goof, but to RAG’s credit, he chose an innovative science text intended to take the … Continue reading “Just How Dangerous Is Mythicism?”
* Bart Ehrman vs. Earl Doherty . COVERED IN THIS POST: Using previous scholarship with a different end result Ehrman’s numerous misreadings and misrepresentations of my text Platonic (and other) ancient views of the universe What was the interpretation of the cultic myths: allegorical or literal, heavenly or earthly? among the philosophers? among the devotees … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman vs. Earl Doherty. Part 29 of Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism”
Slightly edited 3 hours after original posting. * Did the earliest Christians regard Jesus as God? . COVERED IN THIS POST: Did the earliest Christians see Jesus as God? God vs. an emanation of God Concepts of the Son and Logos; Paul and Philo Epistolary descriptions of the Son The Synoptic Jesus: Man or God? … Continue reading “27. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Part 27”
* Epistle to the Hebrews (Part Two) . COVERED IN THIS POST: Telling us that Jesus was never on earth First smoking gun: Hebrews 8:4 – a denial that Jesus had been on earth Platonic parallels between heaven and earth Christ could not be a priest in the same sphere as the earthly priests no … Continue reading “16. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 16”
Let’s sit down and look at the score sheet. Richard Carrier kicked 11 “errors of fact” at the net of Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? Carrier says he could have kicked many more but that it was getting dark and the referee told him he had limited time. Since beginning to write this post … Continue reading “The Facts of the Matter: Carrier 9, Ehrman 1 (my review, part 2)”
I am posting here Earl Doherty’s comment — originally made on FRDB — about my recent posts on Bart Ehrman’s treatment of his book, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. ————————- I hope that all of you are following the postings on Vridar by Neil Godfrey relating to Bart Ehrman’s presentation of statements and arguments in … Continue reading “Earl Doherty’s comments on my posts about Ehrman’s treatment of his book”
Not long after addressing that “curious criterion” of biblical studies that holds that the less likely something seems to be in the Gospels, the more likely it is to have been historically true, I unpacked a carton of my books that included The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, … Continue reading “That Curious Criterion Classically Illustrated”
Let’s close 2010 with a wonderful New Yorker article from May this year. It is a cleverly written discussion of the state of Historical Jesus studies by Adam Gopnik, What Did Jesus Do? Reading and Unreading the Gospels. One might even suggest that Gopnik demonstrates the ability of complete outsiders to see how starkly naked … Continue reading “That Curious Criterion Guiding Historical Jesus Scholarship”