Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Continuing from Historical Method versus Jesus Research: Chapter 2 of Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity. . . . Jens Schröter reminds us of flaws with the criteria approach to find the historical Jesus. They encapsulate what I have covered in my posts on Chris Keith’s chapter one: Criteria were designed as a tool … Continue reading “Take Two: Chapter 2 of Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity”
Continued from the previous post . . . . We have a problem Chris Keith explains that the serious problem for the criteria approach to historical Jesus studies is that the assumptions about the “nature of the gospel tradition” upon which those criteria (and form-criticism itself) were built upon “have now been shown to be … Continue reading “Criteria’s Demise and the Black Hole of Historical Jesus Studies: Concluding Chapter 1 of Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity”
. The above exchange is the message of Chris Keith’s opening chapter of Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity. My “idiot’s guide” is a tad unfair to Käsemann, however, since he did have willing accomplices and Keith mentions Norman Perrin and Reginald H. Fuller as guilty of formalizing more criteria of authenticity. The above … Continue reading “The Rise and Fall of Criteria in Jesus Studies: Chapter 1 of Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity”
Morna D. Hooker cried out in the academic wilderness forty years ago against the validity of “authenticity criteria” — criteria of coherence, criteria of dissimilarity, in particular, but also of embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc — then being used to supposedly uncover the historical Jesus. Her reflections on the state of play since that time are … Continue reading “‘I told you so!’ Why Criteria for Historical Jesus Studies Don’t Work”
When starting this post I had hoped it would complete my discussion of Robert M. Price’s chapter, “Does the Christ Myth Theory Require an Early Date for the Pauline Epistles?” in ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’. This was meant to address Price’s reasons for thinking that the gospel narratives of Jesus — or any stories … Continue reading “Early Christ Myth Theorists on Paul’s and the Gospels’ Jesus: ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ ch. 6 continued.”
Robert Price includes a packed selection of arguments commonly raised to affirm Paul’s awareness of the teachings of Jesus along with the counterarguments. Little of this is new to many readers, but it seems appropriate to list the details as a sequel to my previous post that covered the main thrust of his argument in … Continue reading “The historical Jesus in Paul? For and (mostly) Against”
Emeritus Professor Philip Davies has not been able to “resist making a contribution to the recent spate of exchanges between scholars about the existence of Jesus” in an opinion piece titled Did Jesus Exist? on The Bible and Interpretation website. It is a question that he says “has always been lurking within New Testament scholarship … Continue reading “Did Jesus exist for minimalist and Jesus Process member Philip Davies?”
Niels Peter Lemche is the author of the fourth chapter of ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’, “The Grand Inquisitor and Christ: Why the Church Does Not Want Jesus”. He frames his case around the parable in Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, that tells of Christ being arrested on his return to earth in the time … Continue reading “Why the Church Does Not Want Jesus — ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ chapter 4”
* Ehrman’s Picture of the Apocalyptic Jesus . COVERED IN THIS POST: Preaching the kingdom Differing teachings of Jesus and Paul Jesus and the Jewish Law Salvation: by following the Law or believing in Jesus? Last Judgment and End of the world Jesus’ miracle-working Jesus’ associates and disciples Believing in Judas Iscariot Did Jesus aspire … Continue reading “33. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Part 33 (Ehrman’s Picture of the Apocalyptic Jesus)”
Here’s a little more on Bruno Bauer’s arguments on Gospel origins. (My recent post on Roland Boer’s discussion has put me on a little roll.) It’s a shame that more of Bauer’s works are not available at a reasonable cost in English. I take this as an indicator that scholarship in the English speaking world … Continue reading “Bruno Bauer (through Albert Schweitzer)”
* Ehrman’s Case for Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet . COVERED IN THIS POST: Ehrman’s criteria for Jesus as apocalyptic prophet Jesus as the Son of Man Did Q identify its Jesus with the Son of Man? “L” and “M” not apocalyptic No apocalypticism in Q1 and the Gospel of Thomas No apocalypticist in the … Continue reading “32. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Part 32 (Jesus an Apocalyptic Prophet?)”
What is the significance of the title of this book edited by Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna. The subtitle is “The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus” — “of the Figure of”, not “of Jesus”. Perhaps that helps guard the book from being seen as too bluntly opening up the … Continue reading “‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ — Introduction”
* Did Mark Invent Jesus of Nazareth? . COVERED IN THIS POST: How much did Mark invent in his Gospel? John’s dependency on the Synoptics John’s changes and innovations Lazarus and the Signs Source How independent of Mark are Matthew and Luke? Robert Price on no “M” and “L” sources Trusting Luke’s Prologue again Ehrman’s … Continue reading “30. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism — Part 30 (Did Mark Invent Jesus of Nazareth?)”
* Bart Ehrman vs. Earl Doherty . COVERED IN THIS POST: Using previous scholarship with a different end result Ehrman’s numerous misreadings and misrepresentations of my text Platonic (and other) ancient views of the universe What was the interpretation of the cultic myths: allegorical or literal, heavenly or earthly? among the philosophers? among the devotees … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman vs. Earl Doherty. Part 29 of Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism”