Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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”
Updated with links and headings. Dr James McGrath continues with his chapter by chapter review of Earl Doherty’s Jesus Neither God Nor Man by posting a part one review of Doherty’s chapter 10. It will be clear from what follows that McGrath expresses much more about his own intolerant attitude towards mythicism than he does … Continue reading “McGrath’s review of Doherty’s chapter 10, part 1 — a response”
The earliest Christian records make no mention of Pilate. It is only with the composition of the Gospel of Mark that he first appears. And when he does appear, he is certainly not the bloodily efficient “historical Pilate” but almost a hapless figure who has no argument with Jesus at all. Thinking through the narrative … Continue reading “Why Mark Created a Gospel Role for Pilate”
Updated with NT passages for reference This follows my previous post that set me thinking along a related line. The verse for the day is Horsley’s sentence that I quoted there: It would thus appear that the supposedly standard Jewish ideas or expectations of the messiah are a flimsy foundation indeed from which to explain … Continue reading ““Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?”
(Edited with additional headings and discussion of the different kinds of Jesus portrayed – an hour after original posting.) (Again edited 8 Dec 2011) As someone rightfully said in relation to my earlier post on this theme, Matthew’s “Misunderstanding” of Mark’s Miracle Stories, It’s interesting what you can discover when you closely compare the two. … Continue reading “Why Matthew changed the way Mark wrote about Jairus’ daughter and the hemorrhaging woman”
Is this story a unique historical event that was related by eyewitnesses or do we have evidence that the author was basing this narrative on a similar story or stories well known to him? What is the more rational belief: that the dead rise or that authors imitate and adapt stories well known to them? … Continue reading “Reasons to entertain a smidgen of doubt about Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus”
I thought I had nailed the reason for Luke’s choice of Emmaus (Luke 24:23-35) as the destination of the two disciples after the crucifixion when I posted on The Origin and Meaning of the Emmaus Road Narrative in Luke. That explanation hinged on Codex Bezae containing the original word, Oulammaus, and that led to the … Continue reading “Another reason for the walk to Emmaus: looking for the wrong kind of deliverance”
There can be little doubt that when we read the Gospels and the books of Revelation and Acts we encounter many stories that sound remarkably like myths. Prison doors opening by themselves to release heroes, dragons descending from heavens to pursue comely women upon earth, finding coins in caught fish, raising the dead and walking … Continue reading “Explaining (the Gospel) Myths”
This is a continuation of my earlier post on the Nazarenes. As with that earlier post, this is primarily preparation to for adding articles to my vridar.info site. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it was not easy for me to find an online translation of the relevant passage by Epiphanius, Panarion 29. So hopefully … Continue reading “Earliest Nazarenes: Evidence of Epiphanius”
. . . . What would they make of the different birth narratives? The Gospels for All Christians (edited by Richard Bauckham) appeared about twelve years ago challenging the idea that each of our canonical gospels was tailored for a particular community audience: Mark, say, for Romans, Matthew to a church in Syria, etc. The … Continue reading “If the first readers of Luke’s Gospel also knew Matthew’s . . . .”
All posts in this series are collated here. Chapter three of Derek Murphy’s book, Jesus Potter Harry Christ, discusses the evidence commonly cited for the historical existence of Jesus. In his view the arguments used to support the historicity of Jesus are often a mixture of inferences, deductions and references to common knowledge and unfounded … Continue reading ““Jesus Potter Harry Christ” review, part 3: Where’s the Proof?”
Marcion was one of the favourite heretics of the second century that “proto-orthodox” Church Fathers like Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian loved to hate. His “heresy” posed a serious rival to other forms of Christianity, claiming followers from Syria and across Asia Minor (the main base) through to Italy and North Africa. The distinctive marks of … Continue reading “Marcion’s rules for “Mutilating” the Gospel of Luke”
Earl Doherty discusses the Ascension of Isaiah’s relevance for his case that some early Christians thought of the Christ’s activity occurring entirely in a non-earthly realm. So the date of the document is significant. I had hoped to include with the following notes from R. H. Charles some discussions on dating found in more recent … Continue reading “The Date of the Ascension of Isaiah (1: R. H. Charles)”
There are two accounts in Mark’s Gospel of restoring the sight of blind men. The first one, two-staged healing that took place at Bethsaida, was discussed here. Much of the following is owed to the discussion by Vernon K. Robbins in that linked post, even at points where I do not explicitly state this. In … Continue reading “Bartimaeus continued: If the disciples be fictional, what be their leader?”