Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I’ll try to complete Paul-Louis Couchoud’s explanations for the second-century productions of the canonical New Testament literature starting here with his discussion of Acts. For those who enjoy the stimulation of new (even if old) ideas to spark fresh thoughts, read on. I left off my earlier series on Couchoud’s thoughts on Gospel origins with … Continue reading “Couchoud on Acts of the Apostles”
Contrary to the understanding of a few theologians oral historian Jan Vansina does NOT use the “criterion of embarrassment” in the same way as a number of historical Jesus scholars do. His discussion of embarrassment in fact supports the arguments of those scholars who argue the criterion is invalid! I asked Dr McGrath for a … Continue reading “Oral History does NOT support “criterion of embarrassment””
John Van Seters in The Biblical Saga of King David offers arguments that much of the biblical narrative about King David was composed in the period of the Persian empire. Snippets from this work cannot possibly do justice to those arguments. So I am not presenting this as evidence of the Persian provenance of the … Continue reading “David’s mythical capture of Jerusalem”
The following points about the biblical narrative of David are taken from The Biblical Saga of King David (2009) by the eminent scholar John Van Seters. Not that this post reflects the purpose or theme of Van Seters’ study. I am focusing on a small segment in a much larger study that analyses both the … Continue reading “All King David’s men — official records or literary fictions?”
Continuing the series archived here: (I have also marked the name Josephus in bold for easy reference for any interested in the study of Luke’s use of Josephus.) Irenaeus is the first to speak of Luke as the author of our Gospel and Acts dedicated to Theophilus (Haer. iii.1,2). Before Irenaeus we read in Colossians … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 6(c) – Luke’s Gospel (Couchoud)”
The Gospel of Marcion, continues Paul Louis Couchoud, was fascinating reading but received outside Marcionite churches only after appropriate corrections. The first of these was in Alexandria by the gnostic philosopher Basilides. The works of Basilides have been lost. We know they consisted of 24 books making up his Gospel and Commentaries. From Hegemonius we … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 2 — the Gospel of Basilides (according to P.L. Couchoud)”
This post follows on from the previous one outlining Couchoud’s thoughts on Gospel origins. It starts with highlights from what he believes (generally following Harnack) Marcion‘s Gospel contained; looks at the next Gospel written apparently by Basilides; then at the way our canonical Gospel of Mark took shape and why, followed by the Gospels of … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 1 — Marcion’s gospel (according to P.L. Couchoud)”
Edited last paragraph re Mark and Basilides ca 6 hours after original. As to why a gospel was written about a “mythical” Jesus, here is a take by Paul Louis Couchoud from the 1920s and published in English in 1939 as The Creation of Christ. (For other thoughts on this theme see discussion comments here.) … Continue reading “Another explanation of Gospel origins from a Christ Myth perspective”
Another “guest post”, one might say: It is no more imaginable that the British vice-regent of India should sentence a Hindu to death for expressing heterodox opinions about the teachings of Buddha, than it is that a Roman procurator should interfere on account of an accusation like the one made against Jesus, according to Mark … Continue reading “How not to get oneself crucified by Pilate”
A recent comment offered a serious response to my argument about the need for independent corroboration in order to have some degree of probability given in favour of the Gospel narratives reflecting some genuine historical events. The point of mine being addressed was this: Whether the central character itself originated as a fabrication can only … Continue reading “Maybe I’m wrong but maybe I’m right”
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”
The Gospels often portray Jesus in stories that remind readers of Moses or Elijah or other Old Testament heroes. Some scholars of the historical Jesus attribute these narratives to creative fiction. The authors have taken a story about Elijah and adapted it to convey a similar one about Jesus. The point of this pious fiction … Continue reading “Is Jesus portrayed as “a type” like Alexander or Obama?”
This post continues from the previous two that argue for an unconventional understanding of Paul’s — and his contemporaries’ — understanding of what it meant to be an apostle and how this related to the truth of a gospel message being preached. This post examines an argument that Paul’s opponents in Galatia were Gnostic Jewish … Continue reading “The Circumcising Gnostic Opponents of Paul in Galatia”
Bill Arnal and Leif E. Vaage are not the only scholars who have published doubts about the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. I mentioned them back in January this year. Another was Burton Mack in Myth of Innocence. (The evidence against historicity is in my view overwhelming. I have shown … Continue reading “More reasons for an early Christian to invent the story of Jesus’ baptism”