Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
How is it that there are so many different interpretations of the Bible? Surely the original authors could have written more precisely and consistently to avoid this state of affairs. But what if the earliest authors and editors of the biblical texts were working to bring divergent groups with varying traditions and practices into a … Continue reading “So the Bible is “Intentionally” Ambiguous!”
I am continuing here with my responses to criticisms raised on the earlywritings forum against the proposal that the first biblical texts were composed as late as around 270 years before Christ. (I had looked forward to continuing the discussion on that forum until I lost confidence in the sub-forum’s promise to be an “academic … Continue reading “Questioning the Hellenistic Date for the Hebrew Bible: Elephantine ‘Jews’”
Continuing from Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 2 The Deuteronomistic History (DH) is a modern theoretical construct holding that behind the present forms of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (the Former Prophets in the Hebrew canon) there was a single literary work. In the late 19th century, … Continue reading “Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 3 (conclusion)”
Continuing from Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 1 Rainer Albertz is disputing the arguments of Philip R. Davies that the book of Deuteronomy could not have been written as early as the time of King Josiah. Argument 1: According to Davies, since Deuteronomy uses the name “Israel” to refer to all of … Continue reading “Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 2”
In presenting evidence for a late authorship (300 BCE) of the earliest biblical books, I’ve had to address the prevailing view that King Josiah (7th century BCE) undertook reforms based on the laws we read in the Book of Deuteronomy. I’ve already explained why some scholars (e.g. Philip R. Davies, see also Did These 2 … Continue reading “Why Josiah’s Reforms “Must Have Happened” – part 1″
Some readers will be aware that I am sympathetic to the view that the books of the Old Testament were products of the Hellenistic era. I believe that sound historical methods involving critical analysis of assertions against evidence make such a late dating highly plausible. But it is also vital to be as fully informed … Continue reading “The Age of Inventions of Mythical Histories — Greek and Biblical”
Continuing and concluding….. Peter Kirby cites an argument for interpolation not from a source agreeing with the argument but rather from a source disposing of it. He quotes Robert Webb: A second argument is that the nouns used for ‘baptism’ in this text (βαπτισμός and βάπτισις, Ant. 18.117) are not found elsewhere in the Josephan … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 7”
Continuing, with an interlude …. Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. . . . It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St Jude’s, goes round to a friend at St Jude’s to ask what sort … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 6”
Continuing…. (3) The Passage’s Reference to God’s Punishment of Herod Peter Kirby asserts that contradictory viewpoints in Josephus are no reason to suspect the involvement of an alien hand somewhere in the transmission of our manuscripts. He quotes my (somewhat facile) paraphrase of Zindler’s point: Neil Godfrey notes another one of the reasons that Zindler … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 4”
Continuing…. Above all else, it is the early Jewish-Christian volume of the Pseudo-Clementine writings that provides the most striking parallel to Johannine baptism [in Antiquities of the Jews] In this post I begin by addressing Peter Kirby’s final argument against Rivka Nir’s case for the John the Baptist passage in Josephus’s Antiquities being an interpolation. … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 3”
Continuing from Where does John the Baptist fit in History? . . . . Peter Kirby’s first argument for the authenticity of the John the Baptist passage in Antiquities of Josephus is (1) The Textual Witness Itself All manuscripts contain the passage and Kirby goes one step further and states as a fact: It is … Continue reading “Where does John the Baptist fit in History? — The Evidence of Josephus, Pt 1”
Here is one more passage from Couchoud’s Théophile. What I like about Couchoud’s expressed sentiments is his sympathy, his compassion for humanity, his tolerance (in a positive sense of that word) and understanding. The New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris were angry, bitter, intolerant — and, I had to conclude, fundamentally ignorant … Continue reading “REASONS NOT TO BELIEVE — P-L Couchoud”
Derek Lambert of the MythVision program dedicated a program to something he found on “yours truly” blog outlining aspects of Philippe Wajdenbaum’s case for linking Abraham’s (near) sacrifice of Isaac with the Greek myth of Phrixus: The Bible’s roots in Greek mythology and classical authors: Isaac and Phrixus Greek Myths Related to Tales of Abraham, … Continue reading “How a Biblical Tale Could have Emerged from a Greek Myth”
Continuing from https://vridar.org/2023/10/01/a-dialog-with-chatgpt-on-christian-origins/ Me: What, if anything, changes, if we introduce the need for independent corroboration? ChatGPT: The requirement for independent corroboration significantly tightens the standards for historical verification. If historians strictly demand independent sources to corroborate each event or claim, it can add more confidence to their conclusions but also presents challenges: Higher Confidence … Continue reading “Continuing Dialog with ChatGPT — historical methods”