Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Dr McGrath’s review of Chapter 9 of Doherty’s book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man conveys no idea to the uninformed reader what the chapter is about. So to make up that lack (surely scholarly reviews should give readers some clear idea of what exactly is being reviewed!) I outline the content of the Doherty’s chapter … Continue reading “Response to McGrath’s review of Doherty’s chapter 9”
11 am 18th July 2011, Revised the section “What the Chapter is about” James McGrath begins his review of chapter 8 protesting that Doherty is placing a different interpretation on some known and agreed facts in order to argue a mythicist case. The chapter gets several things right and mentions important information about the context … Continue reading “Doherty’s Chapter 8 in outline & Review of McGrath’s review”
James McGrath has ridiculed any reference to an argument for interpolation if there is no manuscript evidence for it. But this simply avoids addressing the actual arguments that are sometimes advanced for an interpolation. By avoiding the arguments he sophistically reasons that if there is a claim for interpolation then he is equally free to … Continue reading “A Case for Interpolation Does NOT Rely On Manuscript Evidence”
Earl Doherty has responded in detail to criticisms by James McGrath and others over chapter 6 of Jesus Neither God Nor Man. I have collated them in this post, and may add any future ones here, too. (Compare comments on my outline of chapter 6) Updated 31st May 2011 Brother of the Lord By now … Continue reading “Doherty answers McGrath and others (continuation of ch. 6 criticisms)”
Once more into the fray with A. D. Howell Smith in his arguments against the Christ mythicists of his day. . . . This time it is with a historicist’s concession that Romans 1:3 — the statement that Jesus was born of the seed of David — could well be part of a passage that … Continue reading “Another Possible Interpolation Conceded by Historicists of Old (and a question of heavenly trees)”
Added two concluding paragraphs 2 hours after original posting, along with typo corrections. In the first section of the Jesus Neither God Nor Man Earl Doherty had in part argued that the early Christian correspondence is silent on ethical teachings from Jesus, Jesus’ apocalyptic predictions and Jesus’ calling of apostles during an earthly ministry. In … Continue reading “Jesus’ life in eclipse: Reviewing chapter 6 of Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man”
Some people might be disturbed at the suggestion that Jesus did not exist, but surely all good people would be happily hopeful were they to hear an argument that very symbol of anti-Semitism has been nothing more substantial than an unhappy fiction. After reading Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with … Continue reading “Judas Did Not Exist”
This post will be a companion piece to my earlier The Twelve Disciples: their names, name-meanings, associations, etc. That post was based on the thoughts of Dale and Patricia Miller, Robert M. Price and Albert Ehrman. This post draws on both the scholarship and imagination of Paul Nadim Tarazi in his book on Paul and … Continue reading “More Puns in the Gospel of Mark: People and Places”
Scholars are very busy people so we can surely forgive them when they write reviews that indicate they haven’t taken the time to read attentively what they are reviewing. One instance of this is James D. G. Dunn’s review of Robert Price’s chapter questioning the historicity of Jesus in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Dunn … Continue reading “Dunn on Price (2)”
No. (But historicists do argue for interpolations and interpret contrary evidence metaphorically.) This is another misinformed assertion advanced by some who appear never to have read mythicist publications. I most recently noticed it in a response to another post by James McGrath complaining that mythicists do or don’t do or argue this and that, and … Continue reading “Do mythicists read Paul’s references to Jesus’ humanity as interpolations or metaphors?”
But it’s not that Earl advocates lunacy in a manner devoid of learning. He advocates a position that is well argued based on the evidence and even shows substantial knowledge of Greek. But it cannot be true, you say. Why not? Because it simply can’t be and we shouldn’t listen to what can’t be true. … Continue reading ““According to the flesh” — Doherty’s mythicist argument”
What was the origin of the idea that God sacrificed his beloved or only son to cover for the sins of his favoured people? Was it novel to the Christians? Was it the outcome of years of theological reflection searching for meaning in some historical event? Or was the idea already central to certain Jewish … Continue reading “Jesus supplants Isaac — the contribution of Paul”
The Gospel of Mark is a parable or largely allegorical according to scholars such as Kelber, Tolbert, Weeden, and others Thus Galilee and Jerusalem have theological meanings, the former representing the Kingdom of God and the latter, opposition to that kingdom. The twelve disciples led by Peter are the seed found in rocky soil that … Continue reading “Gospel of Mark — modern meets gnostic interpretation?”