Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Ken Humphreys posted what I think is a brilliant review of Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? on the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board, or FRDB, on 5 April. (Or was it first posted on Ken’s own website, JesusNeverExisted?) Steven Carr’s comments alerted me to it on FRDB, and when I read it I was envious. … Continue reading “Review: Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” – Apologetics Lite (by Ken Humphreys)”
* Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Part 3 . In this post Doherty covers Ehrman’s arguments dealing with: the argument from silence and the positive case for mythicism why is Paul so silent on the historical Jesus? Paul’s “words of the Lord” Problematic Gospels and their basis in scripture Dependence … Continue reading “3. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Chapters 1-2”
This is a first on Vridar. I am repeating a post. The following I originally published 4th November 2011 under the title, Bart Ehrman’s Failed Attempt to Address Mythicism. But given that the hot topic of the moment is Bart Ehrman’s more dedicated attempt to discredit mythicism I beg for understanding and forgiveness. . In … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s First Attempt to Grapple with Mythicism”
First let it be clear where I am coming from. This is not an attack on any scholar or the scholarship of theologians in general. It is an attempt to address what strikes me as very muddled thinking in many works about the historical Jesus. That is not a denigration of the scholars in question … Continue reading “Historical Jesus Studies As Pseudo-History — Bart Ehrman’s Jesus As a Case-Study”
Dr Bart Ehrman has written for the Huffington Post a quite a curious article attacking mythicism and advertising his new book which promises more of the same. It is a curious article because it leaves a reader who knows anything about mythicist arguments and historical Jesus scholarship with the impression that Ehrman knows very little … Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Huffing and Posting Against Mythicism”
First let it be clear where I am coming from. This is not an attack on any scholar or the scholarship of theologians in general. It is an attempt to address what strikes me as very muddled thinking in many works about the historical Jesus. That is not a denigration of the scholars in question … Continue reading “Historical Jesus Studies As Pseudo-History — Bart Ehrman As a Case-Study”
William Wrede’s The Messianic Secret Part 2: Front Matter A turning point in the quest In the first installment, we introduced Wrede’s watershed book on the Gospel of Mark. And watershed is a fairly apt description of The Messianic Secret, since for many scholars it marks a turning point in The Quest of the Historical … Continue reading “Reading Wrede Again for the First Time (2)”
A conservative evangelical student, asked to read Wellhausen and discuss the reasons for his ordering of sources in the Pentateuch, will not want to read Wellhausen and will try, if possible, to escape from the imposition: what he will do is to read a work which will tell him why Wellhausen was wrong. His pastoral … Continue reading “So It’s True: Today’s Biblical Scholars Really Never Have Read Wellhausen”
Well this is really quite embarrassing. I have never read more than snippets by a notorious right-wing Australian historian, Keith Windschuttle, and those I have read have been mostly quotations found in the works of his critics, but I know I have been strongly opposed to whatever Windschuttle has written about the history of the … Continue reading “Ouch! My own beliefs undermined by my own historical principles!”
On 14th January I posted How Historians Work – Lessons for Historical Jesus Scholars in which I demonstrated that at least some biblical scholars are unaware of normal historical practices by quoting key sections from works recommended to me by Dr McGrath. On 16th January Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament … Continue reading “Historical Jesus Scholarly Ignorance of Historical Methods”
Sorry about the sensationalist headline but, being a mortal, I couldn’t resist it this time. (I know one swallow doth not a summer make, but humour me till the rest turn up.) I wish to thank Dr James McGrath, Clarence Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, for drawing my attention … Continue reading “Historian Demolishes Historical Jesus – Gospel Paradigm”
Edited conclusion and added the last paragraph since first posting this. This is not about mythicism versus the historicity of Jesus. It makes no difference to me if Jesus was a revolutionary or a rabbi, lived 100 b.c.e., 30 c.e. or was philosophical-theological construct. All of that is completely irrelevant for assessing the validity of … Continue reading “Theologians Reject Basics of History: A Way Forward”
Recently a theologian helpfully advised me to do a bit of background reading on how historians work generally in order to come to see that historical Jesus scholars do work by the same principles as applied by historians generally. So I did. I shared what I read there about the basics of how historians ought … Continue reading “Confessions of a Theologian — Bible scholars really do do history differently”
Recently a theologian kindly advised me to do a bit of background reading on how historians work (specifically to read chapter one of From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods by Martha Howell & Walter Prevenier) in order to come to see that historical Jesus scholars do work by the same principles that all … Continue reading “How Historians Work — Lessons for historical Jesus scholars”