Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Matthew was embarrassed by Mark’s Gospel that had Jesus effectively saying that he was not good. Only God is good And . . . . a person ran up to [him], and kneeling to him asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? But Jesus said to him, … Continue reading “Jesus Not Being Good Is No Embarrassment”
Continuing from the previous post . . . . Two of three ways Greek gods visited earthlings Jean-Pierre Vernant in Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays (1991) notes three forms in which gods appeared when they visited earth. But dammit, Dixon cites only two of these: They simply come “to” the mortal to give that mortal … Continue reading “The baptism, the dove and the transfiguration . . . continued”
Descending Spirit and Descending Gods: A “Greek” Interpretation of the Spirit’s “Descent as a Dove” in Mark 1:10 by Edward P. Dixon was published last year (2009) in the Journal of Biblical Literature (128, no. 4). It is a welcome breeze of fresh sanity into the so many contorted attempts to explain Gospel themes and … Continue reading “Comparing the baptism of Jesus with Greek gods descending like birds and appearing as humans”
The baptism of Jesus by John in the Gospel of Mark is stitched together with images from Old Testament passages, and serves the particular theological agenda of Mark that was challenged by later evangelists So, if a passage in the Gospels can be shown to serve a theological agenda of an evangelist, then according to … Continue reading “Baptism of Jesus is not bedrock fact. It is entirely creative literature.”
Orthodoxy itself is best defined as the victory of the belief that Jesus had actually lived a full human existence over the belief that he was a mystical being or a man from heaven, greater than the angels (see Hebrews 2.1-18). And the foundation of this victory was the canonization of the Gospels. Paul’s letters, … Continue reading “6 sound basic premises of early Jesus Mythicism — & the end of scholarly mythicism”
The historicity of Jesus’ baptism is asserted on grounds that the event would not have been told unless it were true, because it implies views of Jesus that no Christian would invent: that John was up till that point superior to Jesus, and/or that Jesus had sins to be buried in the Jordan River. This … Continue reading “Why early Christians would create the story of Jesus’ baptism – and more evidence the gospels were very late”
I addressed Scot McKnight’s chapter on historiography in Jesus and His Death in order to respond to the central fallacy in his article in Christianity Today, The Jesus We’ll Never Know. McKnight is only half-correct when he claims that scholars have used normative historical methods to discover the historical Jesus (HJ). It is the missing … Continue reading “Scot McKnight’s lament and the fallacy of the HJ historical method”
Historical Jesus (HJ) scholars have boasted that they use the same sorts of methods as scholarly historians of other (nonbiblical) subjects, but this is a misleading claim. When it comes to the basics of the nature of “facts” and “evidence” this claim is simply not true. Historical Jesus scholars use a completely different standard to … Continue reading “Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies”
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?”
edited and added TLT quote Jan 26, 2010 @ 20:05 I think of myself as neither a “Jesus mythicist” nor a “Jesus historicist”, but as someone interested in exploring the origins of Christianity. Whether the evidence establishes a historical Jesus at its core, or an entity less tangible, then so be it. Nonetheless, I cannot … Continue reading “Responding to standard arguments for Jesus’ historicity (1)”
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”
Updated 8th June with postscript Dr James McGrath has an interesting take on Joseph of Arimathea in that he interprets his first appearance in the gospel record as one of the many Jews who were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus — and his burial. Only in subsequent gospel narratives is his character evolved into … Continue reading “Joseph of Arimathea – recasting a faithless collaborator as a disciple of Jesus”
I had been assured by a number of fundamentalists and book reviews that the Eddy and Boyd book (The Jesus Legend) was a cut above the rest of apologetics in its scholarly critique of sceptical arguments and buttressing of the veracity of the gospel text as it is. So far I have been disappointed in … Continue reading “Embarrassing or stereotypical narrative details? (Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend)”
Still continuing the Margaret Barker series, but interrupting to toss in a couple of posts on another aspect of the Gospel of Mark in the meantime. This continues from the previous post on Mark 13. Everyone knows how indebted the Passion Narrative is to allusions to the “Old Testament” scriptures (e.g. Psalm 22), and few … Continue reading “Gospel of Mark’s use of Jewish scriptures for Jesus’ Jerusalem entry narrative”