Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
This post continues from my post some weeks ago in which I covered primarily Philippe Wajdenbaum’s account of the rise of the Documentary Hypothesis. At that time in one of the comments I explained I had paused to take stock of how best to address the challenge that has arisen against the Documentary Hypothesis. This … Continue reading “Who wrote the Bible? (2) Challenging the Documentary Hypothesis”
It seems obvious to most scholars that our estimate of the age of a certain book . . . must be founded on information contained in the book itself and not on other information, and the estimate should certainly not be based on the existence of a historical background that may never have existed. The … Continue reading “Scientific and Unscientific Dating of the Gospels”
In recent posts on Dr Philippe Wajdenbaum’s thesis I shared a few passages from the opening pages of his introductory chapter. One reader responded with a series of points with which I suspect many other readers concur. To sum up the tone and reduce it to its most concentrated essence the criticism appears to be … Continue reading “Argonauts of the Desert: a defence of an anthropologist’s interpretation of the Bible”
This is a continuation from my previous “little bio” post. An earlier version was accidentally published about half an hour before I had completed it. This is the completed version. It never occurred to me that the historical existence of Jesus could be questioned until I came across Earl Doherty’s website. Till then I had … Continue reading “Why and how I came to question the historicity of Jesus”
I am expressing the impressions of an outsider, a layman, who has read more than an average layperson has read of biblical scholarly literature. One paradox that struck me very early on in my reading was something I would never dream of finding in any other reputable scholarly discipline. There are biblical scholars who write … Continue reading “Anti-supernaturalism versus anti-rationalism in biblical studies”
Why do some people stoop to insult when attacking mythicists? Educational psychology guides us to win over those we wish to persuade by showing them respect and using the tools of hard facts, research, and to trust the judgment of an audience to make sensible decisions once offered all the available information. That’s what makes … Continue reading “The aim of name-calling”
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)”
After posting my last discussion of a book review I found myself reading a completely different topic on Aljazeera’s English site: an article about the hostile reception of a book myth-busting the Bangladesh war of 1971. The author, Sarmila Bose, asks and answers the question why some reviewers published outright lies about what was written … Continue reading “Why Book Reviewers Sometimes Lie”
Or more specifically, what was the state of play around five years ago when Research Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, Gary R. Habermas, had a chapter published in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue? Habermas outlines four broad positions … Continue reading “What do biblical scholars make of the resurrection?”
In 2003 Niels-Peter Lemche posted a blunt article addressing the unscholarly tactics of conservative scholars. He noted how even historical-critical scholars had come to resort to the same polemics as conservatives in their efforts to “crush so-called ‘radical’ critical scholarship.” There may be a number of explanations for this strange fact. One may be that … Continue reading “The Tactics of Conservative Scholarship (according to J. Barr & N-P. Lemche)”
This post is based on a discussion by Niels Peter Lemche in The Israelites in History and Tradition. It begins with a quotation from Assyriologist Mario Liverani: Laziness is common among historians. When they find a continuous account of events for a certain period in an ‘ancient’ source, one that is not necessarily contemporaneous with … Continue reading “Scholarly Trench Warfare to Defend the Bible by Means of Rationalistic Paraphrase”
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”
I place “review” in quotation marks because Associate Professor of Religion of Butler University James McGrath simply avoids addressing Dr Robert Price’s arguments. I used to think McGrath was not very bright, but I have recently come to understand that he is as subtle and smart as a serpent when it comes to those twisting … Continue reading “Observations on McGrath’s “Review” of Robert Price on Mythicism”
Niels Peter Lemche has a chapter in Lester Grabbe’s Did Moses Speak Attic titled, “The Old Testament – A Hellenistic Book?” Here are a few highlights from it. The first point here should stand out as equally relevant for New Testament studies. NT studies digression Historical Jesus/Christian origin scholars should have this framed and displayed … Continue reading “The Old Testament – A Hellenistic Book? (and other digressions)”