tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53802491259518021242024-03-19T00:29:40.366-07:00Ari's BlogThe most awesome biblioblog you'll ever read on the topics of New Testament studies, Christian origins and more!Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.comBlogger270125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-48426628386814922902015-01-17T23:58:00.001-08:002015-01-17T23:58:25.460-08:00Where are they now, the Ari edition.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It has been some time since I last published to this blog and my irritation with conspiracy theorist brought me back in a reactionary mood. But it is a new year - so by way of update, what am I doing now? I have put a hold on further academic endeavours in the field of ancient history and New Testament scholarship and am currently practicing as a Barrister. Yes, those British/Australian lawyers who wear the olden day clothes and wigs. I look hilarious.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWeAxErtkka8W94bbRS6gDBZUp2ABBF9eRx58Gq3cOMo3RthM1RGq6oidDsyZ9nuyCizq5vUshYFQ317eRRLN3UCCQbtCyzRPVHyKGB1sggKb9y-F4Me97EeYwatlGwtAcz1KMproyPfs/s1600/barrister.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWeAxErtkka8W94bbRS6gDBZUp2ABBF9eRx58Gq3cOMo3RthM1RGq6oidDsyZ9nuyCizq5vUshYFQ317eRRLN3UCCQbtCyzRPVHyKGB1sggKb9y-F4Me97EeYwatlGwtAcz1KMproyPfs/s1600/barrister.png" height="320" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yes, I walk around in public and present in court dressed like this.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For those unfamiliar with a Barrister, in Australia (and the UK) the legal profession is split into two types of practitioners. Barristers are the small group of lawyers who are specialists in court room advocacy and the rules of evidence.<br />
<br />
My role as a barrister is no different to my ancient history scholarship. I evaluate evidence and base a theory on it and then I argue it against an opponent in peer review. The only difference is it is oral and you need to deal with witnesses who constantly change their evidence. Maybe it is fluid history.</div>
Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-17161379363251164412015-01-17T23:24:00.002-08:002015-01-17T23:24:35.876-08:00Review: The Christ Conspiracy, Acharya S<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>See also: <a href="http://sxcari.blogspot.com/2010/08/conspiracy-as-history.html">Conspiracy as History?</a></b> An easy to follow pictorial destruction of Acharya S' historical dishonesty.</blockquote>
<br />
I love a good conspiracy theory and I don't think I am alone in that. When they premiered that documentary questioning the moon landing a number of years ago <i>everyone </i>was watching and talking about it, myself included. But no matter how interesting a conspiracy theory is, there is a reason why it is a conspiracy. The theory simply lacks the evidence that mainstream theories do. With this in mind, this is the hermeneutic with which one should approach Acharya's book. It is a book about a conspiracy theory and it should not be confused with rigorous or even accurate historical inquiry.<br />
<br />
Before tackling this book, a note should be made about the author. Acharya S, also known as D.M. Murdock, is a new-aged conspiracy styled author over at her long running website www.truthbeknown.com. While she often refers to herself as a highly educated scholars, this is only a self-perception with little real value. She seems to grasp at straws to increase her credentials in the most amusing ways. She tells us of her undergraduate Bachelor of Arts, which is intrinsically superior because it is from the "17th oldest college in the United States" which appears "in the "highly selective" category in guides to the top universities and colleges." She recounts her time in Greece where she had an exam that took "several hours to complete." She has been under the impression that counting footnotes is a sign of scholarship, conveniently missing out the fact that her footnotes are generally references to 19th century works such as those by poet Gerald Massey who argued the Book of Revelation was written over 4000 years ago. But without going ad hominem, lets see what Acharya has to say.<br />
<br />
<b>Preface</b><br />
<br />
As an indicator for the rest of the book, the preface tells us that we should expect conspiracy and not history. It is written by conspiracy theorist Kenn Thomas author of some interesting works such as <i>Mind Control, Oswald & JFK</i> (1997),<i> NASA, Nazis & JFK: The Torbitt Documents; the Kennedy Assassination</i> (1996) and <i>Maury Island UFO: The Crisman Conspiracy</i> (1999). Thomas pans from Acharya's apparent "impressive set of academic credentials" to her website discussing "conspiracy and UFO/alien realities"<br />
<br />
Thomas introduces Acharya's thesis:<br />
<blockquote>
The thesis of her work, that Christianity was created artificially out of older religions to consolidate Roman state control over those religions, as well as various mystery schools and secret societies, is a wellspring of awareness for students of conspiracy. Acharya S also makes a clear case for the existence of an ancient global civilization. (4)</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Chapter 1: Introduction</b><br />
<br />
The chapter begins negatively branding religion as the cause of "extreme racism, sexism and even speciesism."(3). I assume Acharya envisions that the world would be some sort of utopia without religion. Her arguments do not appear to be sound at all. She quotes Hitler as being a Catholic, and maintains Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox. What is the result? All Christians are militant madmen. While historians hold that Jesus and movement was in no way a militant revolution, Acharya views Jesus' preaching as "exhorting his followers to violence" (7) while Paul was a terrorist terrorising the pagans. Note that here for Jesus to exhort violence he must have existed as a historical figure, something Acharya attempts to take apart later in the book.<br />
<br />
The chapter moves on to the issue of martyrdom and the early Christian persecutions. However, Acharya gives it her conspiracy twist - it is now "the myth of martyrdom" (8). She takes on the historicity of the persecutions against Christians by challenging a <i>single </i>reference by Tacitus. Although in honesty, the challenge is actually an assertion that it is "a forgery" fitting it into her conspiracy theory theme as "one of many made by the conspirators in the works of ancient authors." She makes no argument against authenticity. She then ends the sections claiming Christians weren't persecuted, and it was the Christians who started persecuting non-Christians.<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, there is nothing about Pliny's letter to Trajan (<i>Letters</i> 10.96); no mention of the Deciun persecution or the numerous edicts under the Great Persecution. Having read the book, in hindsight I suggest two equally plausible solutions. First of all, it may be that Acharya simply did not know about them. The engagement with ancient sources is almost non-existent and the best source she could come up with here was G.A. Well's <i>Jesus Did Not Exist.</i> The second case would be that she simply did not include it as it would destroy her conspiracy theory regarding Christian origins. I am not a mind reader so I leave it to the reader to make their own decision.<br />
<br />
<br />
She also calls the spread of Christianity a myth. I will not bother dealing with it here but those interested should look up the work by Rodney Stark.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 2: The Quest for Jesus Christ</b><br />
<br />
In this chapter she turns her attention to the person of Jesus, noting him as Christianity's "legendary founder" (13). After a few legitimate comments about many people finding the historical Jesus they want, she moves onto the question of Jesus' historicity. Obviously enough, she truly misrepresents the argument:<br />
<b></b><br />
<blockquote>
<b></b>Indeed, the majority of people are taught in most schools and churches that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure and that the only controversy regarding him is that some people accept him as the Son of God and the Messiah, while others do not. However, whereas this is the raging debate most evident today, it is not the most important. Shocking as it may seem to the general populace,<i> the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed. </i>(emphasis hers, p.14)</blockquote>
The most enduring debate about the person of Jesus is whether or not he really existed? Among whom? Her select sources from the 1800's? Here references to German language scholar G.A. Wells? Mark Allan Powell summarises the position of Jesus' historicity rather well:<br />
<blockquote>
A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today--in the academic world at least--gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat. ( <i>Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee</i>. p. 168)</blockquote>
She furthers her misrepresentations of the debate. Now, the "popular bookstores" are the ones responsible for misrepresenting the debate. She raises Wells as an example. Ironically enough, Wells works are popular press in popular bookstores. The facts of the matter are that historians do not argue that Jesus did not exist.<br />
<br />
In proving the popularity of the argument she uses some dubious logic. Regarding a written response to Wells, she states "It should be noted that no such book would be needed if the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure were a proven fact accepted by all." Anything can categorically be argued by such dubious means.<br />
<br />
She then proceeds to separate the school of thought on Jesus' historicity into interesting categories. Those who believe Jesus existed are "the believers and the evemerists." The believers are those who "take the Judeo-Christian bible as the literal “Word of God,” accepting “on faith” that everything contained within it is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God”" (15) that authenticate Jesus. The second group, the Evemerists, are non-Christians who falsely believe that Jesus existed for no reason other than "mental programming." She goes on that such an "opinion [is] usually based on the fact that it is commonly held, not because its proponents have studied the matter or seen clear evidence to that effect." (16).<br />
<br />
We then come to the final group, the enlightened mythicists. For some reason or another, this groups conclusions need not be backed up, as they are so overwhelmingly obvious. As if there is no debate surrounding her claim, Acharya remarks, "not only is there no proof of his existence but virtually all evidence points to him being a mythological character." (19). This statement is rather paradoxical. There is no evidence of Jesus' existence, yet there is evidence and that points to him not existing.<br />
<br />
She then goes on to paint the picture of historical Jesus scholarship. She doesn't agree with the scholarly norm that finds overwhelming evidence for Jesus but argues that "the mythicists’ arguments have been too intelligent and knifelike to do away with." In fact, the works of these guys are "fearfully suppressed because they are somewhat irrefutable." (19). Other than asserting the Christ myth position as being correct and unchallengable, she moves onto the next chapter.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 3: The Holy Forgery Mill</b><br />
<br />
This chapter begins with nothing much other than a few pages other than demonising the history of Christianity. She then goes to some very convincing authorities such as Joseph Wheless, a 19th-early 20th century lawyer who states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates." She backs this up with Barbara Walker (<i>The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets</i>)<b> </b>who contends that the "discovery that the Gospels were forged, centuries later than the events they described, is still not widely known even though the Catholic Encyclopedia admits." (22). I would love to see the Catholic Encylopaedia admit that the gospels were forged centuries after Jesus. Evidently, instead of turning to even an introductory text on the dating of the gospels, Acharya S prefers non-historians/biblical scholars to support her conspiracy theory.<br />
<br />
In the fashion of the Da Vinci Code, she contends that it was after the Council of Nicaea that the "autographs" were destroyed; they were again "revised" and "retouched" in "506 CE under Emperor Anastasius." She cites a 19th century work on this point, obviously unaware of a few important details. (1) We have numerous text types by the 6th century; (2) it would have been impossible for a 6th century Emperor to modify all these independent pre-6th century manuscripts and, (3) the existence of Codex Sinaiticus among other important 4th/5th century codices.<br />
<br />
These great discoveries that the gospels were forged centuries after Christ, is followed by a number of quotes by people I have never heard of before. Following her usual pattern, I have assumed they are 19th century public domain sources available online and composed by non-scholars. While failing to demonstrate anything but her uncritical eye and unschooled understanding, she concluded the chapter stating, "We have established the atmosphere of the foundation of Christianity: conspiracy, forgery and fraud, the result of which are its sacred texts, falsely alleged to be infallible accounts by eyewitnesses to the most extraordinary events in human “history.”"<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 4: Biblical Sources</b><br />
<br />
In this chapter she begins with the contention that their was no sort of Christian canon at all for 1000 years. Here she is apparently unaware of the reception of the proto-orthodox documents by orthodoxy. We have works which were consistently accepted as authoritative such as the four gospels (Irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, early codices cf. Gamble, Hengel and Stanton); etc. No closed canon is not equal to no uniformity on accepted texts. She continues under the Da Vinci Code impression - that is, the Christian documents were forcefully chosen at a council "from some 200 admitted forgeries called Gospels" (here citing Wheless, p.26).<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<b></b>She turns to the Pauline epsitles claiming they "never discuss a historical background of Jesus...any person in the gospel account of the Passion" and "never quotes from Jesus’s purported sermons and speeches..." (27). Anyone with an understanding of the Pauline epistles knows that Acharya is more than stretching the truth here. Paul places Jesus in recent past, and quotes his words and events a few times. For example, Paul recounts the narrative of the last supper including the words of Jeuss in 1 Cor 11:23-26 (compare to Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22.) Paul is aware of Jesus' teachings on divorce in 1 Cor 7:10-11 ("not I, but the Lord") as reflected in Matthew 5.<br />
<br />
Similarly, any argument exploiting Paul's relative silence demonstrates a complete ignorance of the genre of the Pauline epistles. Marcus Borg summarises this rather well:<br />
<blockquote>
"But Paul’s letters tell us very little about the life and message of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus’s historical life was unimportant to Paul, as some scholars have suggested. Rather, Jesus mattered greatly to Paul. Paul spoke of Jesus as Lord and as God’s Son, as did early Christians generally. He wrote about life “in Christ,” “Christ crucified,” and “imitating Christ.” But narrating the story of Jesus was not the purpose of his letters. Rather, as the literary genre of “letters” indicates, Paul was writing to Christian communities about issues that had arisen in their life together." (Marcus Borg, <i>Jesus </i>p.32)</blockquote>
Ironically enough, after arguing that the Pauline epistles are not evidence of Jesus' existence, she goes on to claim (through extensive quoting of the unknown Wheless) that "there are none of them by Paul...They are all, without distinction, pseudographia. (sic)" (27). That she believes all the Pauline epistles to be "pseudographia" or as those who know what they are talking about would say, "pseudepigrapha", really questions the extremes which she goes to to argue a conspiracy. Once again, after demonstrating nothing but her ignorance of the issues she concludes, "It is clear that the epistles do not demonstrate a historical Jesus and are not as early as they are pretended to be, written or edited by a number of hands over several decades during the second century, such that the “historical” Jesus apparently was not even known at that late point." (28)<br />
<br />
She turns her attention towards the gospels, opening with something completely ridiculous. She claims they "were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180." She appears to be completely unaware that we have quotations of the gospels as well as physical manuscript evidence from before that time. For exaple, P52 is a fragment of the Gospel of John generally dated to the first half (or even quarter?) of the second century. While arguing that the canonical gospels were late 2nd century (a date no scholar I know of affirms) she goes on to claim that the four were chosen by Irenaeus in the 2nd century, not because they were previously accepted, but because it is "Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of the Egyptian Ritual." (29)<br />
<br />
She dates the Gospel of Luke to 170 (30), Mark to 175, John 178 (while arguing an outdated Gnostic John hypothesis) (31) and Matthew to 180 (32). Following the delusion of her late second century date, she argues that the Gospels were based on Marcion's gospel, which dates to around the 150s, "[The Gospel of the Lord] predated the canonical gospels by decades." (29) As there is no evidence to support this (well, we do have evidence against it such as manuscripts above) such a position is rejected by all scholars I know of. It is generally held that Marcion's gospel was a version of the Gospel of Luke without a birth narrative as well as references to the Hebrew scriptures. This mutilation of the text was for theological reasons, namely, Marcion rejected the Israelite God and to have Jesus (or Paul) in that tradition was theologically detestable. While she discusses Marcion's gospel (which only survives through literary fragments), she claims that it demonstrates "the conspiracy" of Jesus' non-existence. (29) To Acharya, not containing the birth narrative necessitates Jesus was a Gnostic redeemer who came down from heaven. A logic which is flawed to the core and, ironically enough, doesn't apply to Mark.<br />
<br />
She attempts to dabble in textual criticism and bases her argument, again, on Wheless who is neither a historian or biblical scholar. Quoting Wheless, she contends that "Of the 150,000 variant readings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably 149,500 were additions and interpolations." (33) Other than the fact her source is a hundred or so years outdated regarding the number of variants, the claim that 99.7 of them are malicious interpolations is simply false. The vast majority of textual variants are unintentional scribal mistakes, or changes in word order. The conspiracy of mass textual corruption is simply fanciful fiction. (See <a href="http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart">Daniel Wallace's review of <i>Misquoting Jesus</i></a> for more information on textual criticism.)<br />
<br />
Despite having already argued (well, asserted as no argument was presented) that Jesus didn't exist, it is still odd that she entertains Jesus existing just to attack him. For example, in chapter 1 she claimed Jesus was exhorting people to violence. Now, we find that Jesus was mythical. We find this out while Acharya attempts to dabble in theology. She doesn't appear to recognise the consistent theological theme of Jesus ministry which Paul summarises as "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16).<br />
<br />
Having achieved nothing in this chapter, she moves on to the Non-Biblical Sources.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 5: Non-Biblical Sources</b><br />
<br />
She begins, noting her achievement of arbitrarily assigning a late second century date to the gospels that "We have seen that the gospel accounts are utterly unreliable as history and cannot serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed." (38)<b> </b>In this chapter, Acharya asserts that we have no non-Christian evidence for Jesus. She begins with Josephus, who she claims "they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, “brother of Jesus.”" (39) However, most Josephan and historical Jesus scholars agree that Josephus made mention of both Jesus and John the Baptist. Regarding the longer reference of Jesus, most scholars agree on embellishment, while none that I know of dispute the second reference. From <span style="font-style: italic;">The Missing Jesus </span>(Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans and Jacob Neusner):<br />
<blockquote>
"In the part of this embellished text that virtually all regard as authentic Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and wonderworker who was accused by the leading men (i.e., ruling priests) before the Roman governor." (p.21)</blockquote>
Evidently, Acharya's claim that everyone agrees they are forgeries is very far from true scholarly opinion summarising it as "virtually all". A similarly dishonest assertion is made for Tacitus and other non-Christian sources. Evidently, to support her conspiracy she needs to employ utter deception and msirerpesentation. This is continued in chapter 6.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 6: Further Evidence of a Fraud</b><br />
<br />
She opens by summarising her baseless assertions, "There is basically no textual evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, other than forged biblical books and epistles." (42). However, in reality we have seen that there is evidence - Christain and non-Christian. Similarly, her claims disputing the authenticity of such appear to be nothing but fanciful deception. However, let us entertain her thesis.<br />
<br />
She tries to argue that Christians saw Christianity as nothing new - but, like her conspiracy, simply a rehash of pagan religions which they copied. In this case, she attempts to raise primary evidence for the argument - something very rare in the book. She quotes Eusebius in chapter 4 of his church history as stating that Christianity and its core principles were "built on the natural concepts of those whom God loved in the distant past . . ." (42) However, as an honest reading of Eusebius demonstrates, he was referring to God's knowledge from creation in the Jewish tradition. For example, he names the continuous tradition in which he identifies, stating that "the Hebrews are not a youthful people, but are respected by all men for their antiquity and are known to all." Indeed, a far cry from Acharya's misrepresentation - and one which anyone acquainted with early Christian apologetics would know (e.g. Origen in <i>Contra Celsum.</i>).<br />
<br />
She goes onto the topic of Gnosticism, claiming that "the fact is that Gnosticism was proto-Christianity."(45) In fact, she also pinpoints a date - Gnosticism "eventually changed into orthodox Christianity around 220" (46). A position thoroughly at odds with our evidence of Christianity which arose from a Jewish mileu, based on torah, etc. She now argues that everyone was a Gnostic. Irenaeus, who she earlier demonised for being orthodox, is now a Gnostic. (45). Regarding Augustine, "after the Council of Nicea, when he was “converted,” i.e., promised a prominent place in the newly formed Catholic Church, such that he then excoriated his former sect." (45) A pity such fanciful claims are unreferenced. Or even plausible. Augustine was born a good 25 years after the Council of Nicaea, so I do not know why he would have converted because of it. Similarly, why promise a "prominent place" to a heretic for converting? In essence, an absurd and unreferences claim at the logical and chronological level. A final note is that she is of the opinion that Augustine converted from Mandaenism, when in fact he was a Manichaeism.<br />
<br />
The rest of this chapter is mostly massive block quote, followed by massive block quote of non-scholars such as Gerald Massey and Kersey Graves.<br />
<br />
<i>This is a repost of an old review. Why? Because Ms Murdock seems to have spent a lot of money promoting articles on Facebook which appear to serve no other purpose than personally attacking Bart Ehrman. I do not know what I did wrong to have them appear on my feed.</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-49791144458131974022011-06-02T09:49:00.000-07:002011-06-02T09:51:35.006-07:00Christology and Authority in the Gospel of Mark<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">By coincidence I independently came across two articles by Daniel Johansson in the space of a few minutes. Obviously, a divine sign that I must share these articles both from the<i> Journal for the Study of the New Testament</i>:<br />
<br />
Daniel Johansson, "Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark", <i> Journal for the Study of the New Testament</i> September 2010 33: 101-124.<br />
<b><br />
</b> <br />
He writes: "The thesis is, in short, that the ambiguous use of κυριος [in Mark] is intentional and serves the purpose of <i>linking Jesus to the God of Israel</i>, so that they <i>both share the identity as</i> κύριος." (102-3, emphasis in original.) <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Abstract:</b><br />
<blockquote>Against the common view that the title κύριος plays a relatively insignificant role in the Gospel of Mark, this article argues that Mark uses κυριος to set out important aspects of Jesus’ identity. The first instance of κύριος, which refers to both God and Jesus (Mk 1.3), is seen as the key to Mark’s κύριος Christology. The difficulty of determining whether κύριος refers to God or Jesus in many of the following passages should be understood in light of this. Mark used κύριος ambiguously to link both God and Jesus to the title. While the evangelist maintains that there is only one κύριος , he also claims that Jesus shares the identity of being κύριος with the God of Israel.</blockquote><br />
Daniel Johansson "‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism" J<i>ournal for the Study of the New Testament</i> June, 2011 33: 351-374.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Abstract:</b><br />
<blockquote>Was forgiveness of sins viewed as a divine prerogative, uniquely reserved for the God of Israel in early Judaism? While some scholars think this was the case, others have questioned or qualified such a view, arguing that other figures, such as priests, prophets, various messianic figures, or angels, could forgive sins in the place of God. This article surveys and critiques the main evidence that has been put forward to demonstrate this. The outcome is mainly negative. With the possible exception of one or two passages which may ascribe the authority to pardon sin to the Angel of YHWH, no firm evidence can be found which demonstrates that other figures than God forgave sins. Various strands of early Judaism conceived of human and angelic agents who interceded on behalf of others, expiated sin and mediated forgiveness from God, but they all seem to have shared the view that forgiveness is divine prerogative.</blockquote></div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-26904180423848442862011-05-29T00:26:00.000-07:002011-05-29T07:17:20.434-07:00Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Review)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=arisbloofawe-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1579104649&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-AU">Craig, William Lane. </span><i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1579104649?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1579104649" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></i><span lang="EN-AU">. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000. ISBN: 1-57910-464-9. 156 pp.</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">In this short book William Lane Craig tackles the question of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical problem. Craig is currently Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, having received doctorates in philosophy and theology. In addition to his academic work, Craig is a prominent Christian apologist having engaged in many debates from the existence of God to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Craig makes no secret of his evangelistic aims – the preface notes the intended audience as “those who may believe in some kind of God or Supreme Being, but doubt whether He has revealed Himself to us in any decisive way.” (7) To Craig, God has been revealed in history through the resurrection of Jesus. Craig writes that there are two ways in which the Christian can affirm the resurrection of Jesus. The first is the historical evidence and arguments; however, the failure of the historical evidence does not mean the resurrection did not happen. The second ‘evidence’ is the “assurance that Jesus is risen because God’s Spirit bears unmistakable witness…that it is so.”(8) While I was initially critical of the inclusion of this argument from the historical perspective, Craig’s purpose is not just the “historical evidence” but the confession that it is the “son” that rises. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 1: <i>Death and Resurrection</i> is relatively brief. Craig tackles post-enlightenment thinking on the place of humans in the universe. Are we really just an insignificant product of natural selection? What are our options in this world? What is the meaning of life without resurrection? Craig proposes four which I will leap frog to the fourth as I did not pay close attention to the non-historical arguments. The final position is that an affirmation that there is God and immortality which gives life significance and value. This idea of immortality is a segue into the crux of the chapter from a historical perspective, that is, the concept of “resurrection from the dead.” (20) Again we find a list of four but in terms of what resurrection is <i>not</i>. The biblical view of Resurrection is not : “immortality of the soul alone” but a state where “body and soul [are] in unity.” (20); reincarnation but that “a man lives only one lifetime and then is raised from the dead and judged by God.”(21); resuscitation where an individual returns to earthly life to die again, but resurrection is to “eternal life, and a person raised from the dead is immortal.” (21); and finally resurrection is not translation – a Jewish view of immediate assumption into heaven. Resurrection is the “raising up of the dead man in the space-time universe, and the resurrected man is still part of the created world.” (21) For the Christian, the resurrection is an end times event where God will “raise up all those who have died and so reconstitute them as whole men of body and soul in union.” (21). Craig presents the backdrop of resurrection as a physical concept of both body and soul. This understanding is important for an orthodox defence of the resurrection, and is one that accurately represents the resurrection belief in the time of Jesus and, as Craig and I would argue, the earliest Christians. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 2: <i>Some Blind Alleys</i> deals with the alternative theories to historical resurrection that may be popular among skeptical treatments but are “unanimously rejected by contemporary scholarship.” (23) Craig deals with the “conspiracy theory” that the disciples stole the body (cf. Matt 28:13-15) as logically and ethically implausible. He goes on to cite 18<sup>th</sup> century scholar William Paley to provide an unsatisfying positive case – with some good and some bad arguments – for the reliability of the gospel accounts. He briefly deals with the “apparent death” and “wrong tomb” theories which do not have much going for them in contemporary debate. Finally, he comes to the “legend theory”, that which is widely known in New Testament studies. The purpose of the following three chapters are to argue the positive evidence for the resurrection accounts as history in favour of the legendary theory. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 3: <i>The Empty Tomb </i>is where Craig finally gets to the historical arguments. There are three lines of evidence for the resurrection: “the empty tomb of Jesus, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples, and the origin of the Christian faith. If it can be shown that the tomb of Jesus was found empty, that He did appear to His disciples and others after His death, and that the origin of the Christian faith cannot be explained adequately apart from His historical resurrection, then if there is no plausible natural explanation for these facts, one is amply justified in concluding that Jesus really did rise from the dead.” (45) </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">In establishing the empty tomb, Craig begins with the burial of Jesus: “If it can be shown that the story of Jesus’ burial in the tomb is basically reliable, then the fact that the tomb was later found empty is also close at hand.” (46) He discusses the burial in 1 Cor 15, Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:37-16:8 while demonstrating a common Christian tradition on Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and appearances. Craig contends that the burial account is very early and shows no signs of legend, widely attested and the witness of the women to it is “historically probable.” (59) Craig’s sober use of historical criteria on the NT sources has him conclude that “If one denies this [the burial], then one is reduced to denying the historicity of one of the most straightforward and unadorned narratives about Jesus…”(63) On an aside, for an excellent short study on the burial of Jesus within his historical context I highly recommend Craig A. Evans’ essay in <i>Jesus, the Final Days</i> (ed. Troy A. Miller). However, this sound method comes to a temporary halt when Craig controversially defends the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. (63-7) I do not have the relevant knowledge to delve into the issue, but my understanding is against the authenticity of the Shroud.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Having firmly established the likelihood of Jesus’ burial Craig presents 9 arguments in favour of the discovery of the empty tomb. He begins with the early pre-Pauline creed of 1 Cor 15 stating that “When Paul then says “He was raised,” he necessarily implies that the tomb was left empty.” (67) This is the best way to understand the linguistic choice, especially in the context of <i>physical </i>resurrection expectations. The gospel accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb are pre-Markan and it is early and historically likely due to – Aramaic expressions, lack of legendary development, the discovery by the women, etc. He notes that both Luke 24:11-12, 24 and John 20:2-10 contain independent witness to the “investigation of the empty tomb by Peter and John” (78), with special attention being given to the Gospel of John as having access to the eyewitness testimony of the beloved disciple who Craig identifies as John the son of Zebedee. (81) Craig defends the historicity that some of the disciples investigated the tomb (78), and that the Matthean apologetic Matt 28:11-15 evidences that polemics against Christians acknowledge that the tomb was in fact empty. If it was not, we would expect Christian’s to partake in tomb veneration. Craig believes that these (and other) points “constitute a powerful case for the fact that Jesus’ tomb was actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of His women followers” and that objections to this are not on historical grounds, but theological/philosophical ones.(85-6)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 4: <i>The Appearances of Jesus </i>is the next piece in the puzzle for the historical argument in Craig’s positive argument for the resurrection of Jesus. He follows the “testimony of Paul” in 1 Cor 15 in order to demonstrate that the disciples had appearances of Jesus. He notes the appearances to Peter and the twelve which are also attested to in the gospels. He discusses the appearance to the 500 – Craig speculates it does not appear in the gospels as it took place in Galilee, and there appears to be no reason to make up such a large number if it simply did not happen. Significance is found in the evidence related to James and Paul who were both transformed by their experience to join the Jesus movement. Following these more scanty appearances he turns his attention to the gospel accounts contending that they are “fundamentally reliable historically.” (100) His first contention in this regard is that there was insufficient time for legends to develop, citing Muller’s critique of Strauss and more recently A.N. Sherwin-White. By arguing an early date for the Gospels as well as authoritative control by the apostles and presence of eyewitnesses within the Christian communities Craig tries to squeeze out any plausible opportunity for legendary developments.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Craig defends the view that the appearances were physical appearances, beginning with Paul. While many in favour of Jesus’ physical resurrection will separate Paul’s experience as visionary, Craig contends that unlike Stephen’s <i>vision</i> of Jesus (Acts 7:54-58), Paul’s was an <i>appearances</i> manifested by light and sounds. But this aside, Craig’s view of resurrection was one that was physical in nature balancing the whole 1 Cor 15 future body debate. Similarly, “the gospels prove that the appearances were bodily and physical.” (110)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 5: <i>The Origin of the Christian Faith</i> draws on the explanatory power of the resurrection in light of the fact that “even the most sceptical scholars admit that at least the <i>belief </i>that Jesus rose from the dead lay at the very heart of the earliest Christian faith.” (127) The resurrection of Jesus explains how the disciples came to see him as Messiah (and re-imagine the role) and Lord (e.g. Acts 2) Craig believes that the onus is on those denying the resurrection to provide a satisfactory origin for the Christian faith from Jewish precedents. The argument is that the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection is a mutation of the expectations held by the Jews (such as Jesus’ resurrection being separate from end times resurrection of the Jewish people). While it has been argued elsewhere that it was the empty tomb that lead to the belief that Jesus was resurrected, Craig believes that this would have simply lead the disciples to believe Jesus was translated such as with Enoch and Elijah.(132)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Craig concludes the chapter summarising his conclusion from the three sets of historical evidence. He writes, “Each of these three great facts – the empty tomb, the appearances, the origin of the Christian faith - is independently established. Together they point with unwavering conviction to the same unavoidable and marvellous conclusion: <i>Jesus actually rose from the dead.”</i> (134)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">Chapter 6: <i>Finding the Resurrection Faith </i>acts as an epilogue for those who have been convinced by the historical evidence. Citing 1 Corinthians 15 Craig notes that a Christian faith without the resurrection would have been “simply false” (135) and the proclamation that Jesus was Lord, Messiah and Son of God would have been “stupid” for he would have been simply another Jewish prophet meeting an unfortunate end. The resurrection is a necessary truth to the Christian message and Christian life where (1) God acted in time resurrecting Jesus from the dead, (2) confirmed Jesus’ claims about his unique relationship with the Father and divine authority and (3) shows “Jesus holds the key to eternal life”(141ff). The last 11 pages are essentially an alter call bringing the work back to the evangelistic aims noted earlier on.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-AU">Apologies for the Apologist</span></i><span lang="EN-AU">: This book was first published in 1981 and according to my constructed chronology of Craig’s life this was relatively early in his doctoral study on the resurrection. It was not for another 8 years that his 400+ page <i>Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus</i>. (Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press. 1989.) was published. I suggest that this may explain a number of the drawbacks in this book regarding Craig’s critical engagement with the gospel tradition. For example, in my opinion Craig failed to adequately defend his assumption on the reliability of the gospel tradition, or at the very least the historical reliability of the resurrection narratives he was working on. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">That said, the work is adequate and is representative of what I would view as a standard historical apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus. Those with an interest in the resurrection will find it easy to understand and follow, while those with a background in critical Gospel studies will find themselves disappointed at times.More thorough treatments for those with a lot more time on their hand include N.T. Wright's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0800626796" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> </i>and Michael R. Licona's recent <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach </a></i></span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU">Note: This review was mostly written in July last year so I have not been able to remember any errors in need of proof.</span></div></div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-42090449325656984572011-05-28T07:16:00.000-07:002011-05-28T10:11:28.987-07:00Fallacies in Dating the Gospel of Thomas<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Just a few thoughts on dating the <i>Gospel of Thomas</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>1. A sayings Gospel and Q</b><br />
<br />
The reasoning behind this argument is to draw a similarity between the genre of the <i>Thomas </i>and the hypothetical Q document. There are a few forms of this argument as follows:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBe-DTGpqVObTjRLLDjrcklQCtGEulLqBikd4yY9teQvVZMy18DG9htisGyZQj_e4Ds3M8QATr6Q9ihM_r7yOW3v9-Evcgkfh7n05XVPmn29xuv8PLeN5tXLbHLxZdf5Dhj8xjD4AXRsU/s1600/logic1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBe-DTGpqVObTjRLLDjrcklQCtGEulLqBikd4yY9teQvVZMy18DG9htisGyZQj_e4Ds3M8QATr6Q9ihM_r7yOW3v9-Evcgkfh7n05XVPmn29xuv8PLeN5tXLbHLxZdf5Dhj8xjD4AXRsU/s1600/logic1.png" /></a></div>The result is a date for <i>Thomas </i>comparable to Q, capped by the date of Matthew and Luke.<br />
Both arguments attempt to draw a similarity between the genre of the <i>Gospel of Thomas </i>and the hypothetical Q source. Yet when the argument is broken down the fatal flaws become blatantly obvious.<br />
<br />
While it can be persuasively argued that there was some sort of sayings genre of which texts like <i>Thomas </i>and Q may have belong to (e.g. Robertson), it does not necessarily follow that such broad a similarity as structural genre necessitates belonging to the same period. If we were to follow this argument to its logical conclusion, all sayings texts (<i>Thomas, </i>Proverbs, Sayings of Ahiqar, etc) must belong to the same period as Q and <i>Thomas.</i> <br />
<br />
<b>2. Developing Gnosticism</b><br />
<br />
This next argument is as follows:<br />
<blockquote><b> </b>P1: <i>Thomas </i>represents mild Gnosticism<br />
P2: Second century Gnostic texts have a more developed Gnosticism<br />
C: <i>Thomas </i>must be early</blockquote>I initially found this as one of the most persuasive arguments for some sort of early date for <i>Thomas</i>. On face value the logic is sound - over time the ideas were developed. However, it makes a number of assumptions.<br />
<br />
First of all, the argument assumes a direct and continuing relationship between <i>Thomas </i>and later Gnostic texts. That is, it assumes that <i>Thomas </i>is an early text and over time these ideas were developed within a community using <i>Thomas </i>to produce later more developed Gnostic texts. However, except for notably later collections (e.g. Nag Hammadi) there is no evidence to suggest this direct relationship in the formative stage.<br />
<br />
To demonstrate the point on a spectrum of proto-orthodoxy to Gnosticism:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnMTX8lQdY7iIuKpmPlYy4dYA5p6wIpFKegSDoFR1Sb_675fihOd5LU_vFwg2clfM0CmXdUB_VlPFE0TTnC2wUj_8JTUqlY1HDW08-TVTL-M8790JQ12jzyhnhsP2vbCc8lDlSTV2j3Y/s1600/possiblespectrum.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnMTX8lQdY7iIuKpmPlYy4dYA5p6wIpFKegSDoFR1Sb_675fihOd5LU_vFwg2clfM0CmXdUB_VlPFE0TTnC2wUj_8JTUqlY1HDW08-TVTL-M8790JQ12jzyhnhsP2vbCc8lDlSTV2j3Y/s320/possiblespectrum.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<i>Thomas </i>could be contemporary with these "more developed" Gnostic texts, but as part of a completely independent school of thought, just as other proto-orthodox texts were composed independently of other gnostic texts. Alternatively, <i>Thomas </i>could have originated within the same stream as more developed texts and simply not included all aspects that we see as fundamental to 'Gnosticism'...<br />
<br />
That is all for now as it is no longer peaceful and quiet here.</div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-21434708057368065832011-05-28T06:24:00.000-07:002011-05-28T07:59:16.331-07:00The Abhorrent Void: Robert Price and Historical Method<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">One of the most frustrating essays within <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Jesus-Tradition-Separating-History/dp/1616141891?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1616141891" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></i> (ed. R Joseph Hoffman) is Robert M. Price's "The Abhorrent Void: The Rapid Attribution of Fictive Sayings and Stories to a Mythic Jesus." Through bad analogy and questionable premises the self-proclaimed leading authority on the Bible presents another reason to believe in an historical Jesus.<br />
<br />
Beginning from the premise that there was no single historical founder of Christianity (i.e. Jesus), Price attempts to argue that it is plausible that the sayings attributed to Jesus were wholly fictive. In a nutshell, Price's underlying argument seems to be:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXlTM1AyLO3B-MSLSrlahtgEkQHRSxGwC8kXbAvv0CPuU3G-XLrR9kQ9i0WoPR_Uyfgh_CiIFyfj1KHZGy62VHzE_hAYS643eFKnWamQfcnXUcM2sFKlWJ3czM307sILI9S1i4vPDNsKU/s1600/pricelogic.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXlTM1AyLO3B-MSLSrlahtgEkQHRSxGwC8kXbAvv0CPuU3G-XLrR9kQ9i0WoPR_Uyfgh_CiIFyfj1KHZGy62VHzE_hAYS643eFKnWamQfcnXUcM2sFKlWJ3czM307sILI9S1i4vPDNsKU/s400/pricelogic.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
As the latter is a necessary conclusion of the former you would assume the emphasis should be on proving the first, which Price does not do. This makes us wonder- <i>what exactly is Price trying to prove? </i><br />
<br />
Price assume that there is no "single historical founder of Christianity" and that the founding of the movement/figure cannot be dated to the "4 and 6 BCE". In effect, we find the entire origins of the Christian movement uniquely removed from the constraints of a historical context. The implication is that Christianity has a pre-history long before the first century, and by the time we begin to receive our earliest sources there was no control over the Jesus tradition (or whatever we would call the tradition for a figure that didn't exist) by eyewitnesses or communities connected with eyewitnesses. Price then reveals to us that there was "all the time in the world" to create spurious "myths, legends and rumours."<br />
<br />
Of pressing importance is:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Why should we believe there is no "single historical founder of Christianity" when <i>all </i>of our historical sources are clear on this point?</li>
<li>Why should we abandon the first century origins of Christianity in order to pursue an indefinitely long development of Jesus tradition, when <i>all </i>our historical sources place the movement in the first century?</li>
</ol>With the cart in front of the horse Price leapfrogs any justification and ambitiously proposes "three models, three analogies, to help us understanding the plausibility of positing a <i>wholesale and rapid growth</i> of a vast body of inauthentic Jesus traditions and even that<i> it might have been expected.</i>" (110, emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
(i) Kid Stuff <br />
Price begins with the assertion that "many or most early Christians" believed that Jesus initially appeared "as a deity in adult form." (111) While I am not precisely sure about why Price believes this I suspect it may have something to do with his rejection of everything Paul says about Jesus and possibly a peculiar reading of the Gospel of Mark. However, Paul in our earliest sources makes it clear that Jesus was "descended from David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), "born of woman, born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and had a brother named James (Gal 1:9/Josephus/Gospels). And I cannot imagine how Mark beginning with John the Baptist followed by Jesus' baptism necessitates an early predominate Christian belief that Jesus only existed as an adult. Mark did believe Jesus to be a son, with brothers and sisters: "the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”" (Mark 6:3)<br />
<br />
Suddenly and without any specified reason, Price informs us that the early Christian's departed from this view and began to write infancy gospels and narratives about Jesus. Price then argues that by analogy, if this happened regarding the infancy stories then we can only assume that the same thing happened with the adult stories of Jesus (he was one day not assumed to be a person but then suddenly was?). Central to Price's argument is the immediacy at which Christian's began to create stories of Jesus. He writes, "Christian curiosity <i>rapidly </i>went to work filling the newly apparent gap" and "There was an <i>immediate </i>flood of stories." What evidence does Price have for this overwhelming flood of material as analogous to wholesale creation of the Jesus tradition? Two canonical stories (Luke 2:41-51 and John 2:1-10) and substantially later infancy gospels (<i>Infancy Gospel of Thomas, </i>etc). However, John clearly presents the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10) not as an infancy story, but Jesus with his disciples.<br />
<br />
<br />
(ii) The (Growing) Beard of the Prophet<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Apple_and_Orange_-_they_do_not_compare.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="136" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Apple_and_Orange_-_they_do_not_compare.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Apple and Orange [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_and_Orange_-_they_do_not_compare.jpg">source</a>]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>The next "analogy/model" is the "explosion of (universally spurious) hadith tradition of what the Prophet Muhammad said and did".(112) Price believes that the rise of inauthentic hadith traditions about Muhammad in the first <i>few centuries</i> of the Islamic era are the best analogy to the creation of the Gospel tradition. In fact, this model is a superior fit to that of near contemporary Judaism and early Rabbinic traditions developed by Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson which he rejects as "apologetics."<br />
<br />
Price asks, "Why not consider the analogy of the Muhammadan hadith?" (116) There are many reasons, most simply that the better analogy would be to compare near contemporary teachers and their disciples in a similar geographical, religious and cultural context and not with the informal traditions associated with a 7th century political and military prophet collected over 200 years later from a completely different geographical and cultural context. Does this really need to be said?<br />
<br />
<br />
(iii) From Muhammad to Nag Hammadi<br />
Price suddenly blockquotes F.F. Bruce stating that evidence such as 1 Corinthians 7:19 demonstrates that "early Christians were careful to distinguish between sayings of Jesus and their own inferences and judgements." (<i>The New Testament Documents:Are they Reliable? </i>33.) Price rejects this interpretation of what was happening in the mid first century by pointing to the "deadly boring" Gnostic texts citing the <i>Books of Jeu </i>(3rd century), <i>Gospel of Mary </i>(late 2nd?) , etc. Again, Price is rejecting the relevant sources and context in favour of a strained analogy with a later and very different thought world.<br />
<br />
On an aside, does the title of this section imply that Price has a "Muhammad-existed-before-the-Nag-Hammadi-texts conspiracy theory or is his chronology simply out of whack? <br />
<br />
<br />
Did Price demonstrate the plausibility of "a wholesale and rapid growth of a vast body of inauthentic Jesus traditions and even that it might have been expected"? I cannot for the life of me see it, and I made sure I wore my glasses while searching.<br />
<br />
Price's analogies barely make sense even if his improbable premises are assumed as true. Placing the origins of Christianity in some timeless and relative realm allows Price to draw on any improbable analogy for the Jesus tradition, irrespective of their context. It allows him to reject any forms of control that the historical context provides, whether it by relevant analogies or the question of eyewitness and informed communities. It is a rejection of the basic principle of analogy - similarity. "Maybe the first century was <i>really </i>like 3rd century Gnosticism" or "maybe it was <i>really </i>like this 7th century example" simply don't cut it in the realm of history, especially when it involves ignoring <i>all of the first century evidence.</i> The essay, like most of what Price has to say in recent times, is a first class exercise in polemics against "conservative scholars, apologists, and rank-and-file Gospel readers" (109) which in the process extends to undercutting mainstream scholarship. </div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-15859219675836721012011-05-19T18:43:00.000-07:002011-05-19T18:43:18.052-07:00Exploring Our Matrix has not been deified<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsQCL0cvvw42LmiMrKv9mPdE1Fmf3HF10yfcwWAaeEe_rASBU6sZWN_9GJP6ZInND9ugMniTDBhzTfX8ZL25kM7UkiZdLqto6vLVBIvDphpn-KYq0xwAJFFhzoyzml937V4wKymYCVnhE/s1600/panth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsQCL0cvvw42LmiMrKv9mPdE1Fmf3HF10yfcwWAaeEe_rASBU6sZWN_9GJP6ZInND9ugMniTDBhzTfX8ZL25kM7UkiZdLqto6vLVBIvDphpn-KYq0xwAJFFhzoyzml937V4wKymYCVnhE/s640/panth.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Dr McGrath has not joined the Pantheon but has moved his blog to <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/">Patheos</a>. I apologise for the inconvenience my earlier revelation may have caused.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-27744784762871289852011-05-19T05:23:00.000-07:002011-05-19T17:29:27.376-07:00Update your Feeds!Two excellent biblioblogs have moved joining Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight and others at Patheos:<br />
<ul><li>James McGrath and <a href="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/">Exploring our Matrix</a> can now be found <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/">here</a></li>
<li>And Mike Bird and Joel Willitts of <a href="http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/">Euangelion</a> fame are <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/euangelion/">here</a></li>
</ul>Feed is the correct word, right? Or is it feed subscription? Either way, just do it.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-92029141268598070712011-05-02T03:23:00.000-07:002011-05-02T03:23:19.635-07:00Bauckham on Divine Identity & Orthodox ChristologyAfter a lengthy summarising of Richard Bauckham's thesis (including some snazzy tables) I came across his own:<br />
<blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">In my view much work on New Testament christology has employed categories of thought that are certainly no less appropriate than those of the patristic definitions. In particular, much damage has been done by the standard distinction between functional christology and ontic christology. The former means that Jesus performs divine functions (such as saving and judging) but only as an agent of God, while ontic christology goes further in claiming that Jesus shares the being of God or is divine by nature. A widespread assumption has been that in the Jewish monotheistic context in which the earliest christology developed only functional christology is conceivable. Ontic christology is possible only to the extent that early Christianity moved outside a dominantly Jewish framework of thought, and the more scholars have come to think that most, if not all of the New Testament writings belong within a Jewish framework of thought, the more ontic christology has been pushed to the margins of the New Testament. There has been a strong tendency to read New Testament christological texts in as 'low' a way as possible on the grounds that their original Jewish context requires this. Obviously, the gap between the Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of later patristic orthodoxy grows deeper and wider.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">While I entirely agree that Jewish monotheism was the context of thought within which early christology originated and developed, I think that the relationship of early christology and Jewish monotheism has been profoundly misunderstood. It is vital to work with categories that are appropriate to the texts we are considering, and it seems to me that the category most helpful for characterizing both Jewish monotheism and New Testament christology is that of divine identity. Jewish theology was much more concerned with 'who God is' (divine identity) than with 'what divinity is' (divine nature). Jewish monotheism defined the unique identity of God - what it is that constitutes God the only God - in a number of ways, of which the most prominent are that the God of Israel is the only creator of all things and the only sovereign ruler of all things. These were ways of distinguishing the one God absolutely from all other reality. The exclusive worship of only this one God was the appropriate way of recognizing his unique identity. When we read the New Testament with these ways of characterizing the unique identity of the God of Israel in view, it becomes very clear that the New Testament writings use precisely these uniquely divine characteristics to include Jesus within the unique identity of the God of Israel. When Jesus is pictured as seated at God's right hand on the cosmic throne in heaven from which God exercises his sovereign rule over all things, Jesus is being included in the unique divine identity. It is not that Jesus is exercising a divine function which God may delegate to someone other than God. Sovereignty over all things is a uniquely divine relationship to the world and belongs to who God is. Similarly, and even more unambiguously, when the New Testament portrays the pre-existent Christ participating in God's work of Creation, there could be no clearer way, in Jewish theological terms, of claiming that Jesus belongs - eternally - to the unique identity of the one God, the God of Israel, the Creator and Ruler of all things. This is why early Christians worshipped Jesus without supposing that they were abandoning Jewish monotheism. In terms of the definition of Jewish monotheism, the worship of Jesus as included in the unique divine identity made sense, whereas the worship of Jesus as someone other than God, to whom God merely delegated divine functions, would have been idolatry and effectively polytheism. Early Christianity remained monotheistic precise because it attributed divinity in the fullest (and only true) sense to Jesus, not because it made Jesus some kind of lesser divinity distinguished from God.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU">From this perspective all christology in the New Testament is equally 'high' since at least Jesus' status as exalted to the divine throne of the universe - the symbol of God's uniqueness - is everywhere presupposed and in this basic sense the New Testament writings share a common christology. Against the background of twentieth-century study of New Testament christology, I find rather astonishing to be able to say that, from Pentecost onwards, there was never a stage at which Christians did not consider Jesus to share in the unique divine identity, but I think this is true. In the New Testament there is christological development in the sense of drawing out the implications of this, but there is no development from 'low' to 'high' christology. New Testament christology is already the highest possible christology - but developed and expounded in Jewish theological terms. What made the difference for the Fathers was, first, a context in Hellenistic philosophy which highlighted divine nature rather than divine identity, and, secondly, the temptation to understand monotheism in a non-Jewish way, such that the uniqueness of the one God (the Father) could be maintained by attributing subordinate divinity to Christ. These problems required the Fathers to work through the issues of trinitarian and christological doctrine in order to reach definitions that adequately re-stated the claims of New Testament christology in a different intellectual context. These definitions are Hellenistic insofar as they give prominence to notions of divine and human nature (what it is to be divine, what it is to be human), but they also correspond to the New Testament's Jewish thinking about God insofar as the idea of divine nature is subordinated to a trinitarian understanding of God and a hypostatic (personal) understanding of incarnation. The Trinity is the Christian statement of God's identity (who God is) and the statement that the eternal divine Son made human nature his own in incarnation effectively includes the man Jesus within the identity of the one and only God.</span></div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"><br />
And <a href="http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/Orthodoxy%20in%20Christology.pdf">more</a>...</span></div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-37212338360823675412011-04-28T18:15:00.000-07:002011-04-28T18:15:29.992-07:00Search Engine Monopolies: zagourepagoureOn the <a href="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2011/04/r-joseph-hoffmann-is-sexy.html">topic of search results</a>, one of today's hits to my blog came from someone searching "zagourepagoure" on Bing. While my blog cannot tell you if R, Joseph Hoffmann is sexy, it is the only result for "zagourepagoure" on Bing and the only website on Google (although the latter index three books mentioning it.)<br />
<br />
So, what is zagourepagoure? As far as we can tell, it is gibberish from a<a href="http://sxcari.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-occasion-pre-constantine-papyri-can.html"> Greek Magical papyri</a>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">zagourepagoure</div><div style="text-align: center;">agourepagour</div><div style="text-align: center;">gourepagou</div><div style="text-align: center;">ourepagou</div><div style="text-align: center;">urepag</div><div style="text-align: center;">rupa</div><div style="text-align: center;">ep</div><div style="text-align: center;">Master angels</div><div style="text-align: center;">and good, rid</div><div style="text-align: center;">Dias, whom</div><div style="text-align: center;">Sophia bore, </div><div style="text-align: center;">of the fever</div><div style="text-align: center;">gripping him,</div><div style="text-align: center;">on this</div><div style="text-align: center;">present day,</div><div style="text-align: center;">this very hour,</div><div style="text-align: center;">now, now quick-</div><div style="text-align: center;">ly, quickly.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Suppl. Mag 1.11</div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-25327633724991339892011-04-27T03:21:00.000-07:002011-04-27T03:21:01.942-07:00John Byron and The Myth of the Church's Golden AgeOver at <i>The Biblical World </i>Dr John Byron has <a href="http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/04/myth-of-churchs-golden-age.html">a post</a> on the Myth of the Church's Golden Age. Briefly noting a few of the controversies in the early Church he concludes:<br />
<blockquote>The fact is, there never was a golden age of the church. The New Testament church was just as messed up as the 21st century church. And I take that as an encouragement rather than a rebuke from the past. The early church was full of greedy, bickering, sinful people who did not get along with each other, did not listen to their leaders and even split off from one another when disagreements became too heated. And sometimes their leaders said bad things about each other. Let's not forget that all of Paul's opponents were not non-believers, but followers of Jesus who happened to disagree with the apostle. Not unlike what we experience today. </blockquote>To all those attacking disputes within modern day churches: they are simply being true to their aims in restoring the church of the NT.<br />
<br />
Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, "<a href="http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Etim/study/BlombergHeresy.pdf">The New Testament Definition of Heresy (or when do Jesus and the Apostles really get mad?)</a>", <i>JETS</i> (2002) 45/1 59-71Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-57265509496675705452011-04-26T05:48:00.000-07:002011-04-26T07:24:32.267-07:00Scripture of the Early Church (Quote of the Day)<a href="http://www.northwestchristian.edu/about/contact-us/by-name/heine-ronald.aspx">Ronald E. Heine</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote>"The Christians of the first century and the first half of the second had no question that the Old Testament was their Scripture. As the apostolic writings began to make their appearance, they were held in high regard. This was especially true of the Gospels. The Old Testament, however, continued to hold the undisputed position of Scripture in the minds of the Christians. Gradually, the Gospels appear to have been elevated to a status of equal authority with the Old Testament in Christian worship because they contained the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, it was the Old Testament that gave significance to the story of Jesus in the minds of the early Christians, and they continued to turn to it both to define and to justify their faith in him...<br />
<br />
The Old Testament had a tremendous influence on the making of the early Christian mind; it was Scripture for the earliest Christians even before the Gospels were considered to be Scripture. According to the accounts given in the New Testament, the Old Testament was the earliest means for telling the story of Jesus. When we Christians think of returning to the sources of our faith, this earliest Christian Bible must head the list of those sources of we will misunderstand and misrepresent our origins."</blockquote> Ronald E. Heine, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Testament-Ancient-Church-Ressourcement/dp/0801027772?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0801027772" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></i>. (Baker Academic, 2007). 45, 46.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-48959921969317910472011-04-26T04:37:00.000-07:002011-04-26T05:02:36.442-07:00OT in the Early Gentile ChurchThese are just some quick notes from an email exchange with a friend regarding her belief that the early gentile Church had no use of the Old Testament. Noting the search terms that get people here, this post might be useful! While NT scholars and historians use the NT to reconstruct <i>earliest </i>Christianity as best we can, the early church writings remind us that the OT was the scripture of the first Christians for at least 100 or so years. <br />
<blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">Early church writers and theologians often commented on the Old Testament as "sacred scripture" and Christian communities which were most likely predominately gentile preserved the Old Testament (we have quite a few 2nd and 3rd century fragments; a 1st century Psalms manuscript is probably the earliest of Christian provenance.) Our earliest Bibles (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus) included the OT and they continue to do today.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">In 2 Timothy 3:16 the author exhorts his audience to<i> continue </i>in the practice they have learnt from the beginning:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 30pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">"But as for you, <i>continue </i>in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:14-17 (ESV)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
Clement of Rome refers to the Old Testament as "scripture" and “sacred scripture” and uses it as the source for much of his theology and teaching. A few random examples from his <i>Epistle to the Corinthians </i>(<i>1 Clement</i>) from the end of the first century:</span></div><ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; line-height: normal;">He uses Psalms and Job to explain his theology of resurrection (26) </li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; line-height: normal;">At 28 he states that God sees all things, quoting Psalm 139:7-10 </li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; line-height: normal;">At 45 he gives a high theology of the Old Testament exhorting the Corinthians to, "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." </li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; line-height: normal;">At 53 he tells us that the Corinthians he is writing to "understand well the Sacred scriptures." He quotes and paraphrases Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9. </li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="color: black;">In the latter half of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr recounts an engagement with a Jew named Trypho. They discuss the Old Testament, issues of the 'New Covenant' (Jeremiah 31:31-32/<i>Dialogue </i>11), the nature of the law and ritual before Moses, etc. Justin wrote:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.(<i>Dialogue</i> 29)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">We also know that Greek and Latin speaking Christians learnt Hebrew in order to properly understand the Old Testament. It should be noted that most Jews and Christians of the time thought this was unnecessary as it was believed that the Septuagint Greek translation was an authoritative translation.<a href="http://draft.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5380249125951802124#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></a> Origen in the third century learnt Hebrew to study the OT indetail. We have surviving copies of his homilies on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. We also know that the Syriac translation of the OT known as the Peshitta was used by gentile Christians such as Aphraat and Ephrem.</span></div><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></blockquote><div>If Luke was in fact a gentile his intimate knowledge of the Septuagint is noteworthy. As there is much I have not read of the early Church Fathers I can only say so much.</div><div><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><div class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://draft.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5380249125951802124#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-AU"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-AU"> </span>Philo, <i>Life of Moses</i> 2.37-40; <i>Letter of Aristeas</i>; Josephus, <i>Antiquities </i>12; Irenaus, <i>Against Heresies</i>; Justin Martyr, <i>First Apology, </i>etc.</div></div></div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-19687767781672220702011-04-23T20:36:00.000-07:002011-04-23T20:36:27.751-07:00Christ is Risen!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Russian_Resurrection_icon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Russian_Resurrection_icon.jpg" /></a></div>The first Christians understood that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures". But this is not the end of the story. The creed goes on that Jesus "was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." Today, Christians worldwide (in both East and Western churches) willl be celebrating the resurrection of Christ, proclaiming that <i>Christ is risen!</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>The Easter sermon of John Chrysostom</b><span style="color: maroon;"><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"> </span></span></strong></span> <br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span></div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Are there any who are devout lovers of God?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"> </span>Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival!</span> <span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Are there any who are grateful servants?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Are there any weary with fasting?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let them now receive their wages!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">If any have toiled from the first hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">let them receive their due reward;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">If any have come after the third hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">let him with gratitude join in the Feast!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">And he that arrived after the sixth hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">And if any delayed until the ninth hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">let him not hesitate; but let him come too.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">as well as to him that toiled from the first.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">The deed He honors and the intention He commends.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">First and last alike receive your reward;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">rich and poor, rejoice together!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">You that have kept the fast, and you that have not,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">rejoice today for the Table is richly laden!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let no one grieve at his poverty,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">for the universal kingdom has been revealed.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">for forgiveness has risen from the grave.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"> </span>He has destroyed it by enduring it.</span> <span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">He destroyed Hell when He descended into it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Isaiah foretold this when he said,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It was in an uproar because it is mocked.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Hell took a body, and discovered God.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It took earth, and encountered Heaven.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"> </span>O death, where is thy sting?</span> <span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">O Hell, where is thy victory?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">for Christ having risen from the dead,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!</span></span></blockquote>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-19407606651594103292011-04-13T07:01:00.000-07:002011-04-13T07:03:24.949-07:00Corinth – Paul, People and Politics (May 14, 2011)<b>What:</b> Corinth – Paul, People and Politics (Society for the Study of Early Christianity Conference 2011)<br />
<b>Where:</b> Macquarie University, X5B Theatre 1<br />
<b>When:</b> Saturday 14 May, 2011<br />
<br />
"In Paul’s letters to the Corinthians we see an early Christian society dealing with factionalism arising from varied interpretations of the Christian message. At the same time, Christianity was trying to define itself within the context of a cosmopolitan Roman city. Who were the main players in Corinth during Paul’s mission there?<br />
What role did politics play in the early Christian church?" Speakers will include Dr Paul Barnett, Professor Larry Welborn, Dr Bruce Winter and <i>more</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRttjj1kD3Sk6bHIrhKlpjgWZE93ktI1yjpZK52g9vt8SnX1aZZcJSRPmG8VgZLtAZKDv9xhnKcwUpbx02ytBGIQfcIBfk_R_GecJKSudQaZq9_s7XwUhXrnMATx9klsVE9UyS6LHfhFs/s1600/ssec.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRttjj1kD3Sk6bHIrhKlpjgWZE93ktI1yjpZK52g9vt8SnX1aZZcJSRPmG8VgZLtAZKDv9xhnKcwUpbx02ytBGIQfcIBfk_R_GecJKSudQaZq9_s7XwUhXrnMATx9klsVE9UyS6LHfhFs/s640/ssec.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
The event will also include the launch of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Content-Setting-Gospel-Tradition/dp/0802833187?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition </a></i><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0802833187" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />edited by Professor Alanna Nobbs of Macquarie University and Dr Mark Harding of the Australian College of Theology<br />
<br />
More details <a href="http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/SSEC/newslettersforms/SSECbrochureMay11.pdf">here</a>.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-84011635129545285412011-04-09T02:11:00.000-07:002011-04-09T02:14:04.657-07:00Craig Keener, The Gospels in Light of Ancient Biographies and School Traditions<b></b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=arisbloofawe-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0802862926&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Professor Craig Keener will be a presenting his paper <i>The gospels in light of Ancient Biographies and School Traditions </i>at Macquarie University next week.<i></i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
Tuesday 12th of April, 7:05pm<br />
Museum of Ancient Cultures X5B 321, Macquarie University<br />
$5 members/$7 non-membersArihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-52728410714162061302011-04-07T01:36:00.000-07:002011-04-07T04:32:43.951-07:00Do It Yourself: Metal Codex Edition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5472/finald.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/5472/finald.jpg" width="284" /></a></div>With Easter just around the corner the time is ripe for new discoveries challenging the history of Christianity as we know it. If you want to keep this age old tradition alive we have some handy hints for you. This week we will we be showing you how to make your very own metallic tablet.<br />
<br />
Before you get started ensure you have all the necessary <b>materials</b> (pictured).<br />
<br />
The<b> first step</b> is to outline various shapes on cardboard and cut them out. A variety of shapes and symbols can be used. Favourites include:<br />
<ul><li>Crosses</li>
<li>Palm Trees</li>
<li>Crocodiles</li>
<li>Alexander the Great. If you are unable to locate an ancient engraving of Alexander, you may find him on selected Greek Drachma coins.</li>
</ul>You are not limited to Christian icons. To give an air of authenticity, I will also be using a Pegasus. How about spice it up with a Buddha?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5751/img01517201104071437304.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><a href="http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9647/img01539201104071741218.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9647/img01539201104071741218.jpg" width="200" /></a><b>Step two </b>involves transferring these images to foil and creating a border. Metal coins are relatively easy and you can rub the image on with your hands. Cardboard outlines are generally harder, and you may use a sponge so you do not break the foil. To create the frame, I used a chain necklace.<br />
<br />
I suggest getting a feel with a practice version, and playing around with it for some time. For example, I tried having Alexander the Great with Queen Elizabeth II (<a href="http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5751/img01517201104071437304.jpg">picture here</a>). We would expect Alexander's face to be on a Christian text, but why would Queen Elizabeth II be on it? Silly.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3366/img01522201104071637381.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3366/img01522201104071637381.jpg" width="150" /></a><br />
The <b>third step </b>is quite simple, and involves attaching the foil (with imprints) onto cardboard. I wrapped the foil around the cardboard and used a clear sticky tape to finish off the attachment. By this stage your metallic Christian artifact should be close to completion.<br />
<br />
The <b>final step </b>will require the addition of text. For an early Christian theme I suggest Greek although others have had some success combining it with Hebrew. If you do not know what to write, why not visit your local museum and copy a text? Write the text with the felt pen, then wash off the ink. Do not be worried if you do not know the script, most letters look the same so just write them how you see it. For this version I have taken a text from some third century letter. If you can figure out what letter it is I will send you an Amazon giftcard I have no use with (I think it's $10.50).<br />
<br />
If you really want to have some fun, hide it outside and pretend to find it while a journalist is around.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2961/img01530201104071659519.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2961/img01530201104071659519.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Should a collector be interested I will be posting this item on Ebay.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-5539146262338504462011-03-28T22:48:00.000-07:002011-03-28T22:48:19.344-07:00Still KickingJust an update to inform people that I am actually still alive. Much of my spare time over the past few months went towards Saturday's New South Wales state election. Trying to convince 4.5mil people to vote in a particular way is not easy. It was probably for the best that I didn't blog during that time, as I am sure no one actually cares about NSW politics.<br />
<br />
And a final piece of news before I go -the wedding cake at the Royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton will be a traditional fruitcake, featuring a floral theme, including an English rose.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-16568137657991301862011-01-17T05:45:00.000-08:002011-01-17T07:23:09.272-08:00The true Church historyI don't know what <a href="http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/a-neat-little-church-history-aid/">factional Protestant school Jim West went to</a>, but here is the<i> true</i> story of Christian denominational history:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiltyarbFHVARrMWelDujKAt2Danw01AKDFSyY220gtRGHPh38rYMw8T0Kll_ZhC4yRc_RxIActgAlBhXEBt1sEPQo7OaCmrES2QjOJp_QV7-q1PA_MtwJ4LG9sRL28lFtpZn7NhLJTLsU/s1600/true.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiltyarbFHVARrMWelDujKAt2Danw01AKDFSyY220gtRGHPh38rYMw8T0Kll_ZhC4yRc_RxIActgAlBhXEBt1sEPQo7OaCmrES2QjOJp_QV7-q1PA_MtwJ4LG9sRL28lFtpZn7NhLJTLsU/s400/true.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Alternatively (to repeat my older diagram):<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1134/rccapologist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1134/rccapologist.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-87125926403681123112011-01-15T06:15:00.000-08:002011-01-15T06:15:26.770-08:00Blog Accreditation SuccessMy application has been pending and<a href="http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/01/an-awesome-blog-to-check-out/"> a judgement has been made</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYAbSmdaY5aQa8T8us79KchKVzdJamCf97dODAbE3G6CXEHDtV8Sc1n7G0kfQ8P3qyqtL0EDf3qmB0b2QfalDndYfnXY0UqhZmPYCfjNe5KRexYXwqmdlomphyJceLU03erpx963sW4pg/s1600/approved.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYAbSmdaY5aQa8T8us79KchKVzdJamCf97dODAbE3G6CXEHDtV8Sc1n7G0kfQ8P3qyqtL0EDf3qmB0b2QfalDndYfnXY0UqhZmPYCfjNe5KRexYXwqmdlomphyJceLU03erpx963sW4pg/s1600/approved.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
All we need to do now is get this seal on Australia. Although I thought that was the whole point of paying Oprah to come over...Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-87941718370290408192011-01-12T23:08:00.000-08:002011-02-01T04:09:49.778-08:00Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus<a href="http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2011/01/historical-jesus-and-parting-of-ways.html">Michael Bird has shared </a>his essay contribution to the massive <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Study-Historical-Jesus-Holmen/dp/9004163727?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=9004163727" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></i>. It is a well done essay on the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism, and Bird carefully places the origins of this parting as a consequence of the the life of the historical Jesus. It is well worth the read.<br />
<br />
I just looked up the contents pages (available on the side column <a href="http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=25836">here </a>as pdfs) of this 4 volume set and it looks amazing and exhaustive.<br />
<br />
<b>Edit:</b> <a href="http://biblicalstudiesblog.blogspot.com/">Ekaterini G. Tsalampoun</a>i made a <a href="http://biblicalstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-book-on-historical-jesus.html">very similar post</a> just before me. Everyone knows I don't know modern Greek well enough to copy her that quickly, although it has improved with the episodes I have been watching of the Greek version of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Dine_With_Me">Come Dine With Me</a> </i>(Κάτι ψήνεται) recently.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-70058844426764720022011-01-12T05:16:00.000-08:002011-01-12T05:16:20.312-08:00Book Giveaway at The Biblical World + moreJohn Byron, Associate Professor of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary, over at <i>T<a href="http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/was-jesus-historical-person.html">he Biblical World</a> </i>is offering the chance to win a copy of Mark Goodacre's <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Synoptic-Problem-through-Understanding-Bible/dp/0567080560?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The synoptic Problem a way through the Maze</a></i><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0567080560" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> (T & T Clark).<br />
<br />
I would enter but it is never in anyone's charitable interest to send a book all the way to Australia. You do not understand how badly we get ripped off on academic books by retailers (e.g. a paperback of Wright's <i><a href="http://orders.koorong.com/search/product/view.jhtml?code=0281055505">Resurrection of the Son of God</a> </i>for $100USD/AUD.) For that reason one of my best friends is a place called <a href="http://www.bookdepository.com/">The Book Depository</a>. I am not sure how it compares to Amazon for those inside the USA, Canada and UK but it is great for Australian buyers.<br />
<br />
And related to a recent post, Jim West's review of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Content-Setting-Gospel-Tradition/dp/0802833187?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Content and the Setting of the Gospel Tradition</a></i><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0802833187" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> is now up <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/46686022/Harding">here</a>. West notes that "Mercifully, the editors and essayists didn't trouble themselves with the relatively absurd question as to whether Jesus existed or not." But on that point, <a href="http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/staff/chrisforbes.html">Dr Chris Forbes</a> who contributed the introduction to historical Jesus studies in Chapter 10: "Who was Jesus?" debated Dan Barker on the very question. What is better than that? The audio of the debate is exclusively found <a href="http://sxcari.blogspot.com/2010/04/jesus-man-or-myth-aka-dan-barker-v.html">here</a> with a semi-serious summary<a href="http://sxcari.blogspot.com/2010/03/historicity-of-jesus-debate-in-summary.html"> here</a>.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-32168908006609223852011-01-09T17:37:00.000-08:002011-01-09T17:37:17.041-08:00Goodacre and MythicismI apologise for another post on Jesus mythicism, but for those of you that don't follow <a href="http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/">Dr Mark Goodacre's</a> NT Podcasts he has a new podcast on the subject: <a href="http://podacre.blogspot.com/2011/01/nt-pod-47-did-jesus-exist.html">NT Pod 47 discusses the question "Did Jesus exist?</a>"<br />
<br />
He also references his November <a href="http://podacre.blogspot.com/2010/11/nt-pod-44-what-did-paul-know-about.html">NT Pod 44, "What did Paul know about Jesus?"</a>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-36013359112657193962011-01-09T02:20:00.000-08:002011-01-09T02:48:42.068-08:00John Barclay on Josephus (Video)With a recent post on Josephus it may be appropriate to share these video interview with Professor John Barclay on Josephus. So here is to some easy Sunday watching:<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/13120145?portrait=0" width="400"></iframe><br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/13120145">Josephus: the man and the myths. Part I</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user760684">CPX</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/13120942?portrait=0" width="400"></iframe><br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/13120942">Josephus: the man and the myths. Part II</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user760684">CPX</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
<br />
The second video focuses on Josephus on Jesus, and even the claim that Jesus did not exist. Don't you hate it when a talk about Josephus on his own terms gets hijacked by silly claims.Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5380249125951802124.post-80500690458985884992011-01-07T21:13:00.000-08:002011-01-07T21:13:13.677-08:00Early Christian Papyri Resources<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=arisbloofawe-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0802828957&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Professor <a href="http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/earliest-christian-manuscripts/">Larry Hurtado</a> has shared an updated version of <a href="http://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/christian-lit-texts-2nd3rd-cents.pdf">Christian Literary Texts in Manuscripts of Second andThird Centuries</a>, originally a very useful appendix in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Earliest-Christian-Artifacts-Manuscripts-Origins/dp/0802828957?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank"><i>The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origin</i>s</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0802828957" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. Hurtado's book and Colin H. Roberts' <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Manuscript-Society-Belief-Early-Christian/dp/0856727105?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0856727105" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> </i> are two texts that got me very interested in papyrology and the rise of early Christianity in Egypt.<br />
<br />
And this brings me to my next point. Hurtado undertook some his research for this book while Visiting Fellow here at Macquarie University, in collaboration with the <a href="http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/ahdrc.html">Ancient History Documentary Research Centre</a>.The Papyri from the Rise of Christianity in Egypt project has a few useful resources for those interested in a wide range of questions that make use of papyri.Chief of these is the <a href="http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf">Conspectus of Texts </a>which lists, dates and summarises a whole stack of pre-Constane (or abouts) literary and documentary papyri relating to Christians and Christianity. In addition to these, there is the publication of the various <i>New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity </i>volumes which are useful for those interested in the rise and perception of early Christianity in the greater Graeco-Roman world.<br />
<br />
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=arisbloofawe-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0802833187&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe><br />
And for those interested in how ancient historians approach Jesus and Gospel studies, academics and former students of the Ancient History department have put together a new volume: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Content-Setting-Gospel-Tradition/dp/0802833187?ie=UTF8&tag=arisbloofawe-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Content and the Setting of the Gospel Tradition</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=arisbloofawe-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0802833187" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> to soon be reviewed by <a href="http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/the-content-and-setting-of-the-gospel-tradition/">Jim West</a>Arihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com0