Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I used to say I did not see myself as a Jesus mythicist. That was because I thought the idea of Jesus’ existence or nonexistence was less important than being able to explain the evidence we have for the origins of Christianity — wherever that explanation might lead. The interest, surely, is in understanding how … Continue reading “Muhammad mythicism and the fallacy of Jesus agnosticism”
Anyone who is familiar with Earl Doherty’s site will probably find this post superfluous. The mysterious origin of R. Joseph Hoffmann’s views of Doherty Dr Jeffrey Gibson is on record as saying he has no intention of reading any of Doherty’s books but that did not prevent him from pulling out a critical line from … Continue reading “How and Why Scholars Fail to Rebut Earl Doherty”
There was an interesting article in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament in 2007 by Lukas Niesiolowski-Spano (LN-S) of Warsaw University titled “Primeval History in the Persian Period?” (SJOT, Vol.21, no. 12, 106-126, 2007). The paper was first presented at the Seminar of Historical Methodology in Groningen, The Netherlands, 2004. The Genesis creation stories … Continue reading “Genesis myths inspired by Plato?”
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”
It is commonly said that the miraculous events in the Gospels concerning Jesus do not diminish the historicity of Jesus or his story because ancient historians and biographers also regularly narrated tales of the miraculous in connection with famous people we know for a fact to have been historical. This is a misleading claim. The … Continue reading “Another instance of dishonest handling of evidence in 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”
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”
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”
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”
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”
James McGrath has asked me to explain what it is that mythicists do believe. Here is the answer from the best I have been able to ascertain: They believe William Tell was not a real historical person, but a legendary or fictional creation of some sort. What do historicists believe about William Tell? Now, let … Continue reading “What do (Jesus) Mythicists believe?”
I intend to demonstrate in a series of posts that there is legitimate room for informed, rational, scholarly debate over the historicity of certain events in the so-called life of Jesus. To disagree with E. P. Sanders and “mainstream scholarly opinion” is by no means to be equated with failing to engage the views and … Continue reading “Why the Temple Act of Jesus is almost certainly not historical”