Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I suspect [ETA: strongly suspect] Jesus originated as a theological and allegorical creation, that he was “a myth” if you like. I do not know it. I cannot prove it. But I can see some very good arguments in favour of this proposition. I can also see some very good reasons to question the standard … Continue reading “Why I am Not a “Mythicist”, and why I challenge mainstream methodology”
Testimony about what someone claims to have heard from an eyewitness would not stand up in a court of law today — it is what is known as “hearsay”. Nevertheless, sometimes hearsay is all a historian has, and the rules of historical investigation are not as strict as those of the American legal system. We … Continue reading “Biblical historian McGrath admits to relying on hearsay and uncorroborated reports”
One who identifies himself as an Irish Anglican here has asked me if I would like to address the arguments of John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament. While I have had such an exercise on my list of “to-do” items for some time, it is unlikely that I will get around to … Continue reading “How to date the gospels”
The arguments of the “minimalists” questioning the historical core of many of the narratives of the “Old Testament” — and ultimately the historical existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, and the biblical Kingdom of Israel — apply with as much logical force to questions of the existence of Jesus. The minimalists showed … Continue reading “The relevance of “minimalists’” arguments to historical Jesus studies”
The evidence historians use to assert that Jesus’ crucifixion is a historical fact does not match the evidence for the death of Socrates. Normal guidelines for secular historians that are used in their approach to sources are very rarely followed by biblical (in particular historical Jesus and early Christianity) historians. Paula Fredriksen, in her Jesus … Continue reading “Evidence for the UNhistorical “fact” of Jesus’ death”
(This theme is surely past its ‘use by’ date, but it’s one I’m working through from a number of angles at the moment, so here goes once more.) While it is often said that there is as much, even more, evidence for Jesus than for other ancient historical figures, this is simply not true. Historical … Continue reading “Comparing the evidence for Jesus with other ancient historical persons”
There is nothing unfeasible about the idea of a rich body of literature that reads as if it were real history, filled with details of names and places, yet being entirely fictitious, appearing suddenly and “out of whole cloth” from the mind of a single author. This is how the Arthurian literature was created in … Continue reading “What King Arthur might teach us about Jesus and Christian Origins”
Historical Jesus (HJ) scholars have boasted that they use the same sorts of methods as scholarly historians of other (nonbiblical) subjects, but this is a misleading claim. When it comes to the basics of the nature of “facts” and “evidence” this claim is simply not true. Historical Jesus scholars use a completely different standard to … Continue reading “Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies”
Well, they don’t believe all of it, of course, but they do believe enough of it (they would deny faith is involved) to use as a skeletal framework in their various reconstructions of Christian origins. Mainstream biblical scholarship (both Christian and secular) for most part bases its reconstructions of Christian origins on methods that would … Continue reading “The Bible says it, biblical historians believe it”
The model makes sense of the Gospels and the Gospels are the evidence for the model. What century am I living in? My work ID card says I am in Singapore but my iphone map sometimes tells me I’m in Brazil. This is confusing enough, but I sometimes read books and websites by mainstream scholars … Continue reading “The circular model of Christian origins”
I was recently reading a historian’s discussion of the events of Masada that attempted to unravel the myth from the historical fact. The similarities and differences with the way biblical historians attempt to unravel the myth and history of the Passion of Jesus were unavoidable. Masada Josephus created the myth of Masada — 960 Jewish … Continue reading “The Myth and History of Masada and Jesus’ Passion”
The comments originally sent to my previous post, and my replies to them, were lost. I have retrieved the comments of others but my own are lost (unless someone reading this did catch them in an email — if you can forward them to me that would be great, thanks — my address is in … Continue reading “Biblical history, literary criticism and logical method”
James Crossley’s argument for the historicity of the Temple Act of Jesus (in The Date of Mark’s Gospel) demonstrates the hollowness of biblical historical assumptions generally. It’s not that James Crossley is any different from other biblical “historians” (e.g. E.P. Sanders, James McGrath, Craig Evans, James Dunn, Maurice Casey, Richard Bauckham, etc) in what he … Continue reading “How (most) biblical “historians” work: a case study”
There’s a lot I like about James Crossley’s publications. I found myself relating in many ways to his views expressed in “Jesus in an Age of Terror”. We have a lot in common politically, and I share some of his views on the peculiar scholarship that Christian dominance of biblical studies has generated. I have … Continue reading ““Why Christianity Happened”. Reviewing chapter 2 of James Crossley’s book”