Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Today while catching up with what materials qualify as research for funding purposes in Australian universities (my new job requires me to refresh my memory on all this stuff) I came across an exclusion clause that should mean that no Historical Jesus book like Crossan’s or Casey’s should qualify as a research output of a … Continue reading “Grounds for excluding historical Jesus studies from university research”
In a 2005 review article of Jens Bruun Kofoed’s Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text Thomas L. Thompson observes (my emphasis): The conclusions themselves of an historian’s research and their accord with belief, rather than argument or method, are perceived as indicative of legitimacy. Adjectives, on the other hand, judging … Continue reading “The Role of Faith in Historical Research”
In my previous post I cited Leopold von Ranke’s famous explanation for history being an art. (I turned to von Ranke because a biblical scholar quoted von Ranke to me without knowing the source of his quotation, nor its meaning.) Now von Ranke’s philosophy of history and views on the nature of historical facts have … Continue reading “History as Science, Not Only Art. (History for Dummies, 2)”
There are some interesting articles discussing the place of the Gospel of Luke in relation to John and the other gospels: Acts 4:19-20—An Overlooked First-Century Clue to Johannine Authorship and Luke’s Dependence upon the Johannine Tradition and The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis I would prefer to take … Continue reading “More on Luke Being the Last”
In response to my post in which I cited the Game of Avoidance as one played by some HJ scholars in relation to mythicist arguments, one such scholar has posted a series of comments with each one ironically avoiding my argument. Irony seems to be lost on some people. So when challenged to address my … Continue reading “Response to James McGrath’s Argument from Wikipedia”
Reading James Linville’s Israel in the Book of Kings (introduced in my previous post) I can’t help but notice resonances with the methodologies and assumptions largely taken for granted by New Testament scholars. The same issues of assumptions of historicity and lack of evidence bedevil (or at least did much more so in 1998 when … Continue reading “Gospels and Kings”
Thomas L. Brodie presents an argument that the Gospel of Mark was in its basic outline, plot and structure based on the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the Old Testament. I am not quite sure what to make of his case at times, but cannot deny its interest. I have no problem accepting that Mark used some … Continue reading “The Elijah-Elisha narrative as a model for the Gospel of Mark”
Thomas L. Brodie has a chapter (“Towards Tracing the Gospels’ Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles” in Mimesis and Intertextuality) discussing the possibility of the Gospel authors using the NT epistles among their sources, but what I found of most interest was his discussion on methodology and criteria. The difference between Brodie’s discussion of historical methodology … Continue reading “Brodie (almost) versus McGrath on historical methodology in NT studies”
Historical Jesus scholars are quite capable of discerning when a saying of Jesus has been made up by a Gospel author for narrative effect. But when they explain why other sayings are not likewise fabricated, but are traceable to a real Jesus, I think they are jumping the rails of straight consistent logic. If a … Continue reading “What if Jesus said not a single word we are told he said?”
Rick has posted an interesting discussion titled What is History? The Nature of “Facts” in response to my Historicist Hocus Pocus post. This follows a short exchange between us in the comments beneath my own post, and is an extension of earlier blog posts of his own on the same theme. I appreciate Rick’s response … Continue reading “Historical facts and the nature of history — exchange with Rick Sumner”
No. This is another common charge against arguments that Jesus was mythical, and it likewise seems to be circulated among those who show little evidence of having read much in the way of mythicist publications. (I am responding here to remarks made in a comment to McGrath’s post, Why I find mythicism disturbing, since the … Continue reading “Do mythicists rely on arguments from silence and too many assumptions?”
Jesus’ miracles of healing in the Gospels are often taken as evidence that the historical Jesus himself was a healer. Studies have accordingly been undertaken into ancient healing practices. The associations between ‘medicine’ and ‘charms’, the physical and the supernatural, is well-documented. We have books about Jesus titled “Jesus the Healer” and “Jesus the Magician”. … Continue reading “Jesus was no physician”
Was it possible for Second Temple Jews to have imagined a Messiah who is unjustly killed solely by reading their Scriptures? The Apostles in Acts are said to have preached Christ out of the Scriptures. Paul, and even other epistle writers, claim that their gospel was revealed to them through the scriptures and/or through the … Continue reading “Jewish scriptures as inspiration for a Slain Messiah”
An early or late date for the gospels does not, of itself, make any difference to the arguments for or against the historicity of Jesus; Whether one accepts or rejects Q, or whether one accepts Aramaic or other sources for the Gospels, makes no difference to the arguments for or against the historicity of Jesus; … Continue reading “IN BRIEF: dates, Q, Aramaic, heavenly or earthly — they make no difference to the mythical Jesus view”