Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Dr McGrath in a recycled youtube presentation Did Jesus Exist? argues that Jesus was a historical figure in these words: The reason that the crucifixion persuades most historians that Jesus was a historical figure is that a crucified messiah was in essence a contradiction in terms. . . . It needs to be emphasized that … Continue reading “A fallacious argument for Jesus’ historicity”
The Gospel of Marcion, continues Paul Louis Couchoud, was fascinating reading but received outside Marcionite churches only after appropriate corrections. The first of these was in Alexandria by the gnostic philosopher Basilides. The works of Basilides have been lost. We know they consisted of 24 books making up his Gospel and Commentaries. From Hegemonius we … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 2 — the Gospel of Basilides (according to P.L. Couchoud)”
This post follows on from the previous one outlining Couchoud’s thoughts on Gospel origins. It starts with highlights from what he believes (generally following Harnack) Marcion‘s Gospel contained; looks at the next Gospel written apparently by Basilides; then at the way our canonical Gospel of Mark took shape and why, followed by the Gospels of … Continue reading “The earliest gospels 1 — Marcion’s gospel (according to P.L. Couchoud)”
This post follows on from my earlier post on The Secret Book of John, possibly a Jewish pre-Christian work, as translated and annotated by Stevan Davies. Stevan Davies’ translation of the Secret Book/Apocryphon of John is available online at The Gnostic Society Library. The Prologue is said to be a Christian addition to an earlier … Continue reading “The Gnostic Gospel (Apocryphon) of John – 2”
Last week my copy of Gnosticism in Corinth by Walter Schmithals arrived in the mail and the first thing that hit my attention about it was a discussion in the “Introduction A” chapter of pre-Christian Christ Gnosticism. This looks interesting for the obvious reason that it just might throw some light on one particular interpretation … Continue reading “Pre-Christian Christ Gnosticism: 1”
This is a continuation from my previous “little bio” post. An earlier version was accidentally published about half an hour before I had completed it. This is the completed version. It never occurred to me that the historical existence of Jesus could be questioned until I came across Earl Doherty’s website. Till then I had … Continue reading “Why and how I came to question the historicity of Jesus”
The Gospel of John is notorious for its several awkward transitions and these have led a number of scholars to argue that the present Gospel we know is quite different from what must have been its first edition. A recent discussion led to the question of what scholarly publications there are on the original version … Continue reading “The First Edition of the Gospel of John (1)”
8th post in the series by Roger Parvus. The complete series is archived here. When I presented my first contention—that the real author of the Ignatians was Peregrinus—I argued that a proto-Catholic editor/interpolator later, probably around 200 CE, made changes to the letters to disguise Peregrinus’ authorship. To make the letters acceptable for use by … Continue reading “[8] THE LETTERS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: 8th post in the series”
I am posting this (posts found on Dr McGrath’s ExploringOurMatrix blog) here solely for the sake of having what I consider to be significant blog exchanges involving Earl Doherty in the one place. (If I miss anything that others think should be collated in the one site then do let me know.) Dr McGrath responded … Continue reading “The Earl Doherty — James McGrath discussion continued”
Dr McGrath’s review of the first part of Doherty’s chapter 10 is here. My response is here and between that post and this I have posted a number of McGrath’s defences against my criticisms. Earl Doherty has today posted his response(s) on McGrath’s blog and I copy them here. There are two. The first is … Continue reading “Doherty’s responses to McGrath’s ch.10 (pt.1) review”
This is my take on one part of Earl Doherty’s argument that when Paul spoke of “rulers of this age” ignorantly crucifying Christ he was not suggesting that the spirit powers were working through earthly potentates to do their will. Dr McGrath believes that Doherty is contradicting himself here because Doherty also notes that it … Continue reading “My take on the “heavenly paradigm” apparent contradiction in Doherty’s argument”
7th post in the series by Roger Parvus. The complete series is archived here. In my previous post I called attention to the assortment of unusual beliefs held by the author of the so-called Ignatian letters. That assortment and the description of his Judaizing and docetic opponents have convinced me that he was a follower … Continue reading “[7] THE LETTERS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: 7th post in the series”
Dr James McGrath has written another defence of his review in response to my discussion of it and I think it would be useful to post it here so it can sit beside my criticisms. I am still trying to understand the hostility towards mythicism as well as the apparent inability of even some of … Continue reading “McGrath’s further defence of his review and responses to my criticisms”
I don’t mean “scholar” generically, but one scholar and his reviews in particular. The reason is, not to put too fine a point on it, that he blatantly misrepresents and suppresses what Doherty actually says. I even wonder if he bothers to read Doherty and merely skims, sees a few words that feed his prejudice, … Continue reading “Why I don’t trust a scholar’s review of Doherty’s book”