Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
It is easy for both historicists and mythicists to to descend to shallow proof-texting when arguing over the significance of Paul’s reference to James, the brother of the Lord, as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I am not attempting here in this post to cover all the arguments. I only want to address the … Continue reading “Applying Sound Historical Methodology to “James the Brother of the Lord””
Well, they don’t believe all of it, of course, but they do believe enough of it (they would deny faith is involved) to use as a skeletal framework in their various reconstructions of Christian origins. Mainstream biblical scholarship (both Christian and secular) for most part bases its reconstructions of Christian origins on methods that would … Continue reading “The Bible says it, biblical historians believe it”
I was recently reading a historian’s discussion of the events of Masada that attempted to unravel the myth from the historical fact. The similarities and differences with the way biblical historians attempt to unravel the myth and history of the Passion of Jesus were unavoidable. Masada Josephus created the myth of Masada — 960 Jewish … Continue reading “The Myth and History of Masada and Jesus’ Passion”
I recently received Earl Doherty’s new book, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. The Case for a Mythical Jesus, and have finally caught up with a chance to begin reading it. It may take a little while since I have a vicious habit of reading several things at once and a need to attend to real … Continue reading “Introduction to Earl Doherty”
The following comparative overview of the extents of the “orthodox” and “nonorthodox” forms of Christianity from the time of the fall of Jerusalem through the second century is taken from chapter 8 of Walter Bauer‘s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. His information is inferred from the surviving literature from this period, and later references … Continue reading “Map of second century Christianities”
Continuing from Taking Eddy & Boyd Seriously (3) . . . . Indicting “The Jews” for the murder of the Lord Jesus Having insisted that 1 Thess 2:13-16 was indeed written by Paul, Eddy and Boyd (The Jesus Legend) must now attempt to argue that the contents of the passage are not antisemitic. One of … Continue reading “Taking Eddy & Boyd Seriously (4)”
Updated with a new para near the end, Or if we take John 20. . . In response to a few comments on previous posts (Funk’s mix and Cracked argument) I have been giving a few moments to reflect on “embarrassment” as a criterion to establish historicity of a narrative. In Matthew’s gospel, after Jesus … Continue reading “The Embarrassing Honesty of Matthew”
In relation to my earlier post Forgery in the ancient world: It is sometimes argued by scholars of the New Testament that forgery was so common in the ancient world that no one took it seriously: since the deceit could normally be easily detected, it was never really meant to fool anyone. (p.115 of Jesus, … Continue reading “Was forgery treated seriously by the ancients?”
There is one explanation for the crucifixion of Jesus that seems to be almost taken for granted in much of the literature I read on the origins of Christianity, and that is that Pilate had Jesus crucified as a political rebel. The gospel accounts deny this, of course, but that is explained by their authors … Continue reading “How the Jewish leaders could have wiped out Christianity the day it started”
Jesus’ death by crucifixion at the direction of Pilate is very commonly cited as a “bedrock fact” of Christian history. I have previously shown that early Christianity was not united on Pilate’s role in the crucifixion: there was an early widespread belief that the Jewish King Herod was responsible. I would be very interested to … Continue reading “Reasons to question the historicity of the crucifixion”
An illustration of how evidence is manufactured to support historicity in biblical studies: the twelve disciples (The following criteria are taken from John Meier’s defence of the historicity of the Twelve, JBL, 116/4 (1997) 635-672 that promises to apply “with rigor” “the criteria of historicity” (636). This post is also in one sense a complement … Continue reading “Manufacturing “evidence” for the historicity of 12 apostles”
Back into Josephus and the TF. I think my original draft really began at the heading Continuing the context of TF in Book 18 below — that is probably the best place to start for continuity with my previous post. I can scarcely recall where I left off now, and the first part of this … Continue reading “Cuckoo in the nest, 3 — why ALL proposed TFs are unJosephan”
In an earlier post outlining notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle I mentioned Tyson’s reference to Andrew Gregory’s conclusion that Ignatius did not make use of The Gospel of Luke: Ignatius? The passage in Smyrnaeans 3:2 has striking resemblances to Luke 24:39. See the table on Glenn Davis’s site. Tyson refers here … Continue reading “Ignatius and the Gospel of Luke: In a relationship or just distant cousins?”
This post follows on from one I completed — here — way back in February. The lot can be found in my archive for the Tyson category. Continuing notes from reading of Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts . . . . Tyson summarizes the hypothesis of John Knox published in 1942, that Acts (and canonical Luke) … Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: Acts as a response to the Marcionite Challenge”