Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Is it possible that our canonical gospels, even the apparently pioneering Gospel of Mark, were really composed well into the second century? The possibility has been argued by a few and I don’t discount it. I often find myself suspecting it is true although very often for the sake of argument I will assume that at … Continue reading “Aesop, Guide to a Very Late Date for the Gospels?”
There is an inconsistency in a fundamental argument, or assumption, rather, among critical scholars of Christian origins that has long been bugging me. The principle was set down by David Friedrich Strauss in the nineteenth century, when we find details in the life of Jesus evidently sketched after the pattern of these prophecies and prototypes, we cannot but … Continue reading “A Case for the “Easter” Appearances of Jesus BEFORE the Crucifixion”
My response to Cornelis Hoogerwerf’s post on Γεγραμμένα, Misquoting Albert Schweitzer, has raised the question of the intended meaning of Schweitzer’s words in relation to historical probability, common sense, and more. Cornelis has said my own explanation of S’s words is wrong; I attempted to explain why I disagreed. But rather than leave the discussion … Continue reading “Schweitzer in context”
There are many excellent biblical scholars whose works are discussed here as often as opportunity arises. Check out the Categories list in the right column here to see the extent of our coverage. But as with any profession there are some rogues who need to be exposed. A few hours ago on the Religion Prof … Continue reading “Biblical Scholar Watch #1”
I expect this post will conclude my series challenging Richard Carrier’s arguments in On the Historicity of Jesus attempting to justify the common belief that early first century Judea was patchwork quilt of messianic movements. This belief has been challenged by specialist scholars* (see comment) especially since the 1990s but their work has still to … Continue reading “Questioning Carrier: Was the Book of Daniel Really a “Key Messianic Text”?”
Biblical scholars are reacting uncomfortably to signs of public interest in the view that Jesus did not exist. Not all biblical scholars, though. A tiny few do publicly welcome and accommodate this mythicist view of Jesus with their Christian faith and others who have confessed to being open-minded on the question. (For details see Who’s Who: Mythicists and … Continue reading “Biblical Scholars Reacting to Public Interest in Mythicism: Part 1”
What does it mean to say that a written work from ancient times is “well attested”? If you browse Christian apologetic web sites, you’ll read that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is superior to anything else from antiquity. The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) site, for example, tells us that our “New … Continue reading “Little White Lies: Is the NT the Best Attested Work from Antiquity?”
Let’s get this thing out of the way. Here are some of the “highlights” of Brant Pitre’s new book, The Case for Jesus, supporting some of my criticisms in the previous post. More may follow. (I’ve only covered chapter one in this post.) If Brant Pitre kept his book from the view of his academic … Continue reading “Highlights from Brant Pitre’s The Case for Jesus“
Abstract of a recently published article by Princeton University Professor of Classics, Brent D. Shaw: A conventional certainty is that the first state-driven persecution of Christians happened in the reign of Nero and that it involved the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the mass execution of Christians in the aftermath of the great fire … Continue reading “The Myth of Nero’s Persecution of Christians”
In foreign policy, the United States — especially in the last hundred years or so — has tried to have it both ways: assiduously following the Constitution and domestic law, as well as keeping within the dictates of international agreements, while at the same time aggressively maintaining an empire with far-reaching hegemony. In doing so, the … Continue reading “The Memory Mavens, Part 7: When Terms Matter”
The following response by Dr Hector Avalos to Dr Robert Myles‘ review of The Bad Jesus was originally posted on Debunking Christianity and is reposted here with permission. Dr Robert Myles and The Bad Jesus: An Androcentric Defense of Family/Household Abandonment? By Dr. Hector Avalos Dr. Robert Myles of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) has reviewed The … Continue reading “Hector Avalos Responds to Robert Myles’ Review of The Bad Jesus“
Continuing from the previous post. . . . Fallibility of eyewitness accounts Eyewitness accounts are not necessarily more reliable than other sources. Timothy Good compiled 100 eyewitness accounts of the assassination of President Lincoln and its immediate aftermath in We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts. David Henige comments in Historical Evidence and Argument (2005):df Reading these … Continue reading “Testing (or not) Historical Sources for Reliability”
James McGrath’s review of Maurice Casey’s Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? has appeared in RBL. Casey’s work is a diatribe against persons who have been associated with the Christ Myth arguments (even though some of them do not argue a mythicist case themselves), and against a selection of what he asserts (often inaccurately) are their … Continue reading “The Casey-McGrath Profiles of Mythicists and Mythicism”
Many years ago, I had what I still consider the best job in the world. A second lieutenant in my twenties, I found myself in charge of operational maintenance on the swing shift for the entire “black side” of the flightline at Beale Air Force Base. Back then, the tankers were on the north side … Continue reading “More Thoughts on Minimal Historicity: When Bigger Isn’t Better”