Search Results for: baptism jesus historic

12. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 12. Three Voices . . . Ignatius

* Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 12 Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 2: Ignatius of Antioch . COVERED IN THIS POST: Are the Ignatian letters forgeries? What does “truly” mean for Ignatius: anti-docetism? historical fact? Ignatius knows no Gospels, even in 110 CE or later implications … Continue reading “12. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 12. Three Voices . . . Ignatius”

Who Wrote That? Verbal Affinities Between the Lukan Prologue and Acts

Recently, Robert Bumbalough asked, “. . . What of the style and grammar of the Lukan prologue vs. that of the Lukan infancy narrative vs. subsequent sections? Is there evidence [that] portions stem from the same pen?” This question reminded me of a personal, informal study I undertook a short while back, comparing the word selection … Continue reading “Who Wrote That? Verbal Affinities Between the Lukan Prologue and Acts”

The Facts of the Matter: Carrier 9, Ehrman 1 (my review, part 2)

Let’s sit down and look at the score sheet. Richard Carrier kicked 11 “errors of fact” at the net of Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? Carrier says he could have kicked many more but that it was getting dark and the referee told him he had limited time. Since beginning to write this post … Continue reading “The Facts of the Matter: Carrier 9, Ehrman 1 (my review, part 2)”

Ehrman says Doherty’s argument is “intriguing and worthy of reflection”

The pity is that Bart Ehrman did not know (or perhaps he did!) the argument he was thus evaluating — his own, in fact — just happened also to be the same one Earl Doherty covered in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. For some reason psychologists no doubt can explain, when Ehrman read the same points … Continue reading “Ehrman says Doherty’s argument is “intriguing and worthy of reflection””

Ehrman’s and Doherty’s Arguments: Spot the Difference

This post is an appendix to Ehrman’s Most Bizarre Criticism Of All Against Doherty. In a recent post I pointed out that Ehrman fully agreed with Doherty’s portrayal of the ancient mystery cults as most likely having a quite different understanding of traditional myths from the way the philosophers interpreted them. (The only pity is … Continue reading “Ehrman’s and Doherty’s Arguments: Spot the Difference”

Table of Contents for Couchoud’s The Creation of Christ

[Update 20 Nov 2016: The full text of Couchoud’s Creation of Christ is now available online.] . Here is a complete list of posts in this series listed in the order in which they appear in Couchoud’s book. Volume I Part 1   THE APOCALYPSES  (168 B.C. to A.D. 40) 1. Pre-Christian Foundations of Christianity I … Continue reading “Table of Contents for Couchoud’s The Creation of Christ”

Crucified God: origin and original meaning of the concept (Couchoud continued)

Continuing the series of Couchoud’s The Crucified Christ — archived here. In this chapter Couchoud attempts first of all to account for the origin of the concept of Christ crucified and then to address what this meant for Paul and his churches, in particular its mystical and timeless character. The greatest gift of Paul to … Continue reading “Crucified God: origin and original meaning of the concept (Couchoud continued)”

Earliest divisions in the Christian movement (Couchoud continued)

Unfortunately this is not my favourite chapter in Couchoud’s book The Creation Of Christ. But I’ve set myself a target and I have to get through this one to finish the book, so here goes. (The series is archived here.) (I personally suspect the stories in Acts are inspired more by Old Testament and Classical … Continue reading “Earliest divisions in the Christian movement (Couchoud continued)”

Oral History does NOT support “criterion of embarrassment”

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””

The earliest gospels 3 — Gospel of Mark (according to P.L. Couchoud)

Couchoud’s take on the Gospel of Mark follows. This post should be seen as a continuation of the previous three. (That is, its take on the Gospel of Mark is entirely my understanding of Paul Louis Couchoud’s analysis of this gospel as a reaction to what he believes to have been the original Gospel produced … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 3 — Gospel of Mark (according to P.L. Couchoud)”

Why Christ rose from the dead in four different ways

Five different ways if you count the Gospel of Peter but few of us know much about that Gospel so I’ll restrict myself to what we find in those burning candles of spiritual wisdom drawn out from the dark Orient by the iron tongs of Rome — the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark. Luke … Continue reading “Why Christ rose from the dead in four different ways”

Why Gospel Contradictions Really Do Matter

Once more from “my author of the week” secular rationalist historical Jesus scholar Charles Guignebert (1933), this time addressing the logic of those who tolerate the contradictions among the Gospels in their empty tomb and resurrection accounts by claiming they are irrelevant to the question of historicity – – – First, a recap of some … Continue reading “Why Gospel Contradictions Really Do Matter”

Sifting fact from fiction in Josephus: John the Baptist as a case study

The Jewish historian Josephus writes about both genuine historical persons and events and mythical characters and events as if they are all equally historical. Adam and Vespasian, the siege of Jerusalem and the last stand at Masada, are all documented in a single work of ancient historiography. Is there some method or rule that can … Continue reading “Sifting fact from fiction in Josephus: John the Baptist as a case study”

Anti-mythicist scholars shooting their own side

I don’t really do comedy so I start out with a very serious link to an even more substantively serious article: The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science by Chris Mooney. It’s a four page article so don’t forget to continue after reading page one. It explains what most people reading this blog understand … Continue reading “Anti-mythicist scholars shooting their own side”