Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The cakemix explodes Reacting to Dr. Richard Carrier’s recent article over at The Bible and Interpretation website, the beloved Doctor of Whoville, James McGrath has offered up yet another dog’s breakfast of red herrings and dead horses. (How’s that for a mixed-metaphor gumbo?) Carrier will likely respond fully to McGrath’s post, especially the headache-inducing section in … Continue reading “Comparing Paul’s Epistles to Augustine’s Letters”
I compare here two explanations for the origin of the Lord’s Prayer as we read it today in the Gospels of Matthew (6:9-13) and Luke (11:2-4). There are in fact more than two explanations to be found in the scholarly literature but they can be conveniently divided into two: those that trace the prayer back … Continue reading “Two Accounts of the Origin of the Lord’s Prayer”
I had supposed that scholars were dedicated to the pursuit of truth, wherever that might lead, and that new ideas would always be welcome. — Michael Goulder In his memoirs Michael Goulder describes the eureka moments that led him to challenge major planks of the conventional wisdom New Testament scholarship. The first of these challenges was his thesis … Continue reading “Luke’s Unwelcome Creativity”
6th August: corrected the first quote: the first line should have read I had supposed that scholars were dedicated to the pursuit of truth, wherever that might lead, and that new ideas would always be welcome. ————————————– Even some of the more conservative of New Testament scholars boast how they belong to a guild that … Continue reading “How Open To Radically Fresh Ideas Are New Testament Scholars Really?”
Until recently I have had little interest in arguments that our apparently earliest written gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was composed as an attempt to teach the ideas of Paul as found in his letters. After reading Mark, Canonizer of Paul by Tom Dykstra I am now more sympathetic to the possibility that the author of this gospel … Continue reading “Mark, Canonizer of Paul”
It’s been a long break from blogging for me. I can scarcely recall even writing some of the posts I have returned to see here under my name. But here I am living in a new unit and with a clean bill of health from a doctor so time to resume. Here’s something I found … Continue reading “A Lesson from Scholars of Judaism, Linguistics and Physics”
This post is an overview of chapter 4 of Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism by James Crossley and is part of the series reviewing this book. Crossley’s stated purpose of this chapter is to show that a dominant feature of the quest for the historical Jesus — Jesus as Great Man — works in … Continue reading “Jesus and the “Great Men” View of History”
Part 2: A Markan Sandwich in John’s Gospel Scholars have long noted that both the gospel of John and Mark interrupt the story of Peter’s denial with Jesus’ hearing before the Sanhedrin (Mark) or Annas (John). Both authors begin with Peter in the courtyard in the predawn hours, pause the story to describe Jesus’ initial … Continue reading “How John Used Mark: Investigating the Methods of the Fourth Evangelist (Part 2)”
Social-Scientific Criticism In an earlier post — Casey: Taking Context out of Context — we discussed the disturbing habit in NT scholarship of explaining away textual difficulties by playing the high-context card. For example, in What Is Social-Scientific Criticism? John H. Elliott of the Context Group writes: Further, the New Testament, like the Old Testament and … Continue reading “What the Context Group (and Casey) Missed”
We have deep depth.* In a recent interview focused on Jesus mythicism, Dale Allison said: Re memory: My wife and I disagree about our memories all the time. About things that happened years ago, months ago, weeks ago, days ago, or hours ago. It happens so often that it’s a standing joke, and we’ve reconciled ourselves … Continue reading “Jesus Forgotten: Faulty Memory or No Memory?”
Some New Testament scholars have difficulty with the term “midrash”. Goulder stopped using it because of this, though his student Spong has not followed his lead here. I continue to use the term as generally as Spong does because Jewish scholars themselves, especially a number who are specialists in midrashic and Jewish literary studies, use … Continue reading “Why Gospel Fiction was Written as Gospel Truth — a plausible explanation”
–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– If Tim O’Neill (TO) is true to form he won’t let the fact that he insisted there is only one historian from antiquity who mentions anyone who might be considered a messianic claimant in the Jewish war of 66-73 CE dismay him. … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate, #6: Comparing Sources for Jesus and Hannibal”
Professor of History, David Hackett Fischer, has long been known for his book, Historians’ Fallacies, in which he amasses copious examples of fallacious historical analysis and argument committed (at least on occasion) even by otherwise highly reputable historians. Unfortunately, critical fallacies that he identifies as periodic blights on the work of his peers are standard … Continue reading “Theologians’ Miracle: Turning Fallacy into Proof”
There is a very good argument that the word for “eyewitnesses” in the preface to the Gospel of Luke (and by extension to Acts) does not refer to persons who literally saw the people and events that are found in the narratives. The argument by John N. Collins has been published in The Expository Times … Continue reading ““Eyewitnesses” in Luke-Acts: Not What We Think”