Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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”
The Gospel narratives provide strong positive evidence for why their authors chose to write about Jesus’ siblings. They explicitly meet a clear and specific requirement for the portrayal of a man of God who is to both follow and emulate the prophets who came before him. They also serve to illustrate a moral instruction of … Continue reading “The imaginary siblings of Jesus”
I find amusing some of these old passages read again in the light of recent debates about the historicity or otherwise of Jesus. How the world has turned. Here we have a sophisticated intellectual, Plutarch, writing about the same time the Gospels are often said to be being written, castigating the ignorance of the less … Continue reading “Ancient mythicist-historicist role reversal”
When reading the New Testament I like being able to relate its thoughts and images with thoughts and images in the contemporary literature of the non-biblical world. It gives the text I’m reading a bit of “body”, helping me see it as part of a culture now lost to us. Establishing relationships like that has … Continue reading “Ancient beliefs about heavenly realms, demons and the end of the world”
James McGrath has expressed his concerns about apparent misunderstandings of the historical process on the part of those who argue that Jesus was probably not an historical figure in his blog post: Mythicist Misunderstanding I wish to address his post in some detail, because he brings together the sorts of objections one regularly sees raised … Continue reading “Historicist Misunderstanding : a reply to James McGrath and others”
This is a continuation from Paul and the Stoics – 1, a look at Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s thesis. The previous post introduced a model which enables us to see the stark similarities of the very structures and foundations of Paul’s theological thought with the Stoic philosophical teachings of his contemporaries. The source of these Stoic (and … Continue reading “Christian conversion – an idea crafted by Paul from ancient philosophy”
In Paul and the Stoics (2000) Troels Engberg-Pedersen, building on major scholarly perspectives of Paul, argues for three new ways of understanding Paul’s thought and “theology”. 1. Historical reading Following Malherbe (Paul and the Popular Philosophers, et al), E-P insists that Paul should not be seen as “against” some Greco-Roman background, but as “being ‘ … Continue reading “Paul and the Stoics – 1”
Comparing Modern and Biblical “Histories” The idea of history as a scholarly attempt to explain “what really happened in the past” is a relatively young European invention. The “first modern historian” is said to be Edward Gibbon (his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published 1770’s-1780’s); the acknowledged founder of … Continue reading “The Bible’s “Historical” Writings: Histories or Historical Novels or . . .?”
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”
In a recent post I discussed Borg’s and Crossan’s attempt in The First Paul to demonstrate (through a bit of good old fundamentalist style “proof-texting”) that Paul’s gospel was essentially an anti-imperialist polemic. An obvious question to ask — and thanks to Keith for raising it — is how this sits with Romans 13 where … Continue reading “Borg’s and Crossan’s charlatan interpretation of Paul’s command in Romans 13:1-7 (but hey, it’s only for a public audience)”
Back into Josephus and the TF. I think my original draft really began at the heading Continuing the context of TF in Book 18 below — that is probably the best place to start for continuity with my previous post. I can scarcely recall where I left off now, and the first part of this … Continue reading “Cuckoo in the nest, 3 — why ALL proposed TFs are unJosephan”
Continued from my earlier post Jesus in Josephus – point 4 Eusebius quotes a reference in Josephus to Jesus that survives today in all manuscripts: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of … Continue reading “Jesus in Josephus — pts 5-12”
Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd are widely reputed among fundamentalist circles for having authored a “most important book . . . for critical assessment of the Gospels”, “a powerfully argued defence of the historical reliability of the Synoptic Gospels”, “a thoroughly compelling cumulative argument – one of the very best available – for … Continue reading “Miracles: fundamentalist misrepresentation of David Hume’s sceptical argument”
One thing bugs me when I read an article by a scholar or student who is attempting to demonstrate that an author like Dennis MacDonald (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark) has lost his marbles and supposedly proclaims even the “absence of parallels” is evidence of parallels. And that one thing is ignorance … Continue reading “Re a common error made when critiquing “parallelomania””