Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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”
[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”
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)”
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)”
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””
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)”
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”
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”
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”
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”
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”
An old (1973) article in the Journal of Biblical Literature by Robin Scroggs and Kent I. Groff make a case that the young man who fled naked from the scene of Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane and the young man (reappearing?) in the tomb to announce Jesus’ resurrection were originally created as symbols of the baptism … Continue reading “That Mysterious Young Man in the Gospel of Mark: Fleeing Naked and Sitting in the Tomb”
10th and final post in the series by Roger Parvus. The complete series is archived here. In posts one through five I showed why Peregrinus should be regarded as the author of the so-called Ignatian letters. In posts six through nine I argued that he was an Apellean Christian. In this post I will tie … Continue reading “[10] THE LETTERS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: 10th and final post in the series”
Géza Vermes is not a mythicist. He believes in the historical reality of Jesus to be found beneath the Gospels. But in the context of any mythicist debate what he writes in The Changing Faces of Jesus about the “myth” of Christ Jesus in Paul’s writings is noteworthy. It shouldn’t be. What he writes is … Continue reading “Paul’s “Mystical-Mythical” Christ the real — or rival? — foundation of Christianity”