Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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”
In 2006 James Crossley‘s Why Christianity Happened was published. (James G. Crossley belongs to the University of Sheffield, the same whose Biblical Studies program was the subject of international controversy late last year, and with which a recent commenter on this blog was heatedly involved.) As “a sociohistorical account of Christian origins (26-50 CE)” (the … Continue reading ““Partisanship” in New Testament Scholarship”
In my previous post I presented Luke Timothy Johnson‘s case against to the opening arguments of Robert M. Price in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Price gives reasons for suspecting there never was a historical Jesus. In this post I am giving both my own views and some of Price’s own “responses” to Johnson’s criticisms. … Continue reading “How Luke Timothy Johnson Stumbles Over the Mythical Jesus”
In The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Luke Timothy Johnson responds to the 5 principles for historical enquiry as laid out by Robert M. Price in his opening chapter of that book. I discussed these in overview in my recent 5 more commandments post. The five are: 1. The Principle of Analogy 2. The Criterion of … Continue reading “Luke Timothy Johnson’s Response to Robert Price”
This is partly in response to “mythicist quote of the day” Allow me to explain why I think so many arguments for the historical Jesus are based on an assumption of historicity. Firstly, when I quote Sanders in this respect, it is not because I am faulting Sanders’ arguments for starting with this assumption. I … Continue reading “Assumptions of historicity (in part a response to James McGrath)”
Following Professor James McGrath’s advice to pay particular attention to E. P. Sanders’ discussion of methodology (pp.3-22 in Jesus and Judaism) I am here have a look at one of the main tests for the sayings material. Sanders does not discuss any methodology for testing authenticity of biographical events in Jesus’ life. The closest he … Continue reading “E.P. Sanders’ Test for Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus”
Albert Schweitzer argued against those who denied the historicity of Jesus, but he also had a few things to say about the way in which the debate between mythicists and historicists was conducted in his day. This post lists some of those thoughts that I believe are still relevant. His advice about what mythicists need … Continue reading “Schweitzer’s comments on the historical-mythical Jesus debate”
Whenever someone says Josephus is evidence for Jesus, a misperception of the facts is at work. The fact is that people express opinions about the evidence we read in Josephus. It is someone’s opinion that what is found in Josephus can or should be interpreted as a reference to the historical Jesus. There is no clear evidence … Continue reading “What they used to say about Josephus as evidence for Jesus”
When discussing the evidence for the historical Jesus in Honest to Jesus Robert Funk writes What do we know about this shadowy figure who is depicted in snapshots in more than twenty gospels and gospel fragments that have survived from antiquity? The short answer is that we don’t know a great deal. But there are … Continue reading ““Most critical scholars” confusing plot setting and character constructs with historical fact”
I love to read fresh insights that potentially open new understandings on how a biblical author worked to produce what became a part of the foundational canon of western civilization. I’ve recently been catching up with New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism by classics professor George A. Kennedy (1984). Acts 1:1-15:35 seems to be a … Continue reading “A classicist’s insights into how Acts was composed and stitched together”
Gilad Atzmon’s analysis of the Zionism strikes harmonious chords with other analyses of the psychology of fundamentalist Christianity, in particular with the latter’s self identity being grounded in a sense of natural worthlessness (consequence of sin) and in their belief that they can only become “whole” through fantasies that view others as inferior or worthless … Continue reading “The Zionist Dream, from delusion to vindictiveness”
Anyone who suspects graphic details in a narrative are a sign of authenticity of a text or eye-witness source needs to read Anthony Grafton’s Forgers and Critics : Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (1990). In this blog post I’m sharing my notes from his first chapter. According to Anthony Grafton, there are two claims … Continue reading “Forgery in the ancient world”
Archaeologist Dr Ken Dark, in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society [BAIAS] (Vol. 26, 2008), wrote a 5 page review of René Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth: the Invented Town of Jesus (2008). I was led to this review after catching up with a discussion of Salm’s book on the Freethought & Rationalism Discussion … Continue reading “Reviewing a Scholarly Review of Rene Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth”
First, a lesson in lexicology for some who wish to advertise their contempt for the mythicist position. (Presumably a display of contempt serves as an excuse for neither understanding nor taking up the mythicist challenges.) Myther is an alternative spelling of mither. Its meaning has nothing to do with one who thinks Jesus originated as … Continue reading “A spectrum of Jesus mythicists and mythers”