Ari's Blog

China Adventure Pictures

2011-10-02T05:50:00.000-07:00

Posting pictures is much easier than writing a meaningful post so here are some pictures from my recent trip to China.

SHANGHAI

More European than Europe, Shanghai

At times it looked like a China town stereotype, Shanghai

Futuristic. Pudong, Shanghai from the Bund

Pudong from atop of Jin Mao Tower...87 or so floors up

Shanghai from hotel room, 74 stories up in Jin Mao Tower

YANGZHOU

Yangzhou from the hotel

GUANGDONG/CANTON

Guangzhou, Guangdong

View of some of Guangzhou from the hotel

Pedestrian street - Beijing Road, Guangzhou. American brands as far as the eye can see

Above

Heshan, Guangdong

I was visiting a factory literally in the middle of nowhere yet nearby there was this amazing resort.

View from room

Foshan City, Guangdong

Just delivering a few sofas by motorbike

In the middle of this run down district is this empty shopping centre

View from room...actual greenery

That's it for now.

Virtual Shelf Browsing is Awesome

2011-08-23T04:50:00.000-07:00

The "New Library" [source]

Macquarie University recently opened the technologically minded "New Library". While a lot of the changes have been impractical (books stored in a basement and retrieved by a robot, designer seats that have no functionality, NOISE!!!) there has been at least one good development.

You can now virtually browse the shelves. This is a great for doing research and coming across books that you may never have known existed without going into the library. If you already have this technology, I remind you that Australia is very far away from the rest of the world. We are a simple people easily impressed.

You may even discover that a fellow bibliobloggers book has finally been acquired by the library.

How does one read/write on this table/chair combination?

Events in Sydney

2011-06-13T02:55:00.000-07:00

A few upcoming events including Craig Blomberg and Professor Judge.

The Modern Fathers: Key Figures in early Christian Historiography - Franz Joseph Dölger and Fr. Georges Florovsky
Who	Professor Edwin Judge and Marios Baghos (PhD Candidate, Macquarie; Associate Lecturer at St Andrew's Greek Orthodox Theological College) and the Society for the Study of Early Christianity.
When	June 21, Tues 7:05 pm
Where	Macquarie University, W6A 308
Cost:	$7/$5 Members

Preaching the Parables
Who	Prof Craig L. Blomberg and Morling College
When	Monday, 11th of July 2011 (Register and More Information)
Where	Morling College, 120 Herring Rd, Macquarie Park
Cost:	$40

"The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" Seminar by Dr Craig Blomberg
Who	Professor Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Theological Seminary) and Student Life, Macquarie University
When	12 July · 16:30 - 18:00 (RSVP)
Where	Baden Powell Centre, Pomona Street Pennant Hills
Cost:	$5

Christology and Authority in the Gospel of Mark

2011-06-02T09:49:00.000-07:00

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 Journal for the Study of the New Testament:

Daniel Johansson, "Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark", Journal for the Study of the New Testament September 2010 33: 101-124.

He writes: "The thesis is, in short, that the ambiguous use of κυριος [in Mark] is intentional and serves the purpose of linking Jesus to the God of Israel, so that they both share the identity as κύριος." (102-3, emphasis in original.)

Abstract:

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.

Daniel Johansson "‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism" Journal for the Study of the New Testament June, 2011 33: 351-374.

Abstract:

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.

Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Review)

2011-05-29T00:26:00.000-07:00

Craig, William Lane. The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000. ISBN: 1-57910-464-9. 156 pp.

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.

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.

Chapter 1: Death and Resurrection 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 not. 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.

Chapter 2: Some Blind Alleys 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^th 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.

Chapter 3: The Empty Tomb 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)

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 Jesus, the Final Days (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.

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 physical 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)

Chapter 4: The Appearances of Jesus 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.

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 vision of Jesus (Acts 7:54-58), Paul’s was an appearances 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)

Chapter 5: The Origin of the Christian Faith draws on the explanatory power of the resurrection in light of the fact that “even the most sceptical scholars admit that at least the belief 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)

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: Jesus actually rose from the dead.” (134)

Chapter 6: Finding the Resurrection Faith 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.

Apologies for the Apologist: 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 Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. (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.

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 The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) and Michael R. Licona's recent The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Note: This review was mostly written in July last year so I have not been able to remember any errors in need of proof.

Fallacies in Dating the Gospel of Thomas

2011-05-28T07:16:00.000-07:00

Just a few thoughts on dating the Gospel of Thomas.

1. A sayings Gospel and Q

The reasoning behind this argument is to draw a similarity between the genre of the Thomas and the hypothetical Q document. There are a few forms of this argument as follows:

The result is a date for Thomas comparable to Q, capped by the date of Matthew and Luke.
Both arguments attempt to draw a similarity between the genre of the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical Q source. Yet when the argument is broken down the fatal flaws become blatantly obvious.

While it can be persuasively argued that there was some sort of sayings genre of which texts like Thomas 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 (Thomas, Proverbs, Sayings of Ahiqar, etc) must belong to the same period as Q and Thomas.

2. Developing Gnosticism

This next argument is as follows:

P1: Thomas represents mild Gnosticism
P2: Second century Gnostic texts have a more developed Gnosticism
C: Thomas must be early

I initially found this as one of the most persuasive arguments for some sort of early date for Thomas. On face value the logic is sound - over time the ideas were developed. However, it makes a number of assumptions.

First of all, the argument assumes a direct and continuing relationship between Thomas and later Gnostic texts. That is, it assumes that Thomas is an early text and over time these ideas were developed within a community using Thomas 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.

To demonstrate the point on a spectrum of proto-orthodoxy to Gnosticism:

Thomas 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, Thomas could have originated within the same stream as more developed texts and simply not included all aspects that we see as fundamental to 'Gnosticism'...

That is all for now as it is no longer peaceful and quiet here.

The Abhorrent Void: Robert Price and Historical Method

2011-05-28T06:24:00.000-07:00

One of the most frustrating essays within Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (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.

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:

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- what exactly is Price trying to prove?

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."

Of pressing importance is:

Why should we believe there is no "single historical founder of Christianity" when all of our historical sources are clear on this point?
Why should we abandon the first century origins of Christianity in order to pursue an indefinitely long development of Jesus tradition, when all our historical sources place the movement in the first century?

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 wholesale and rapid growth of a vast body of inauthentic Jesus traditions and even that it might have been expected." (110, emphasis mine)

(i) Kid Stuff
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)

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 rapidly went to work filling the newly apparent gap" and "There was an immediate 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 (Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc). However, John clearly presents the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10) not as an infancy story, but Jesus with his disciples.

(ii) The (Growing) Beard of the Prophet

Apple and Orange [source]

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 few centuries 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."

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?

(iii) From Muhammad to Nag Hammadi
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." (The New Testament Documents:Are they Reliable? 33.) Price rejects this interpretation of what was happening in the mid first century by pointing to the "deadly boring" Gnostic texts citing the Books of Jeu (3rd century), Gospel of Mary (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.

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?

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.

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 really like 3rd century Gnosticism" or "maybe it was really like this 7th century example" simply don't cut it in the realm of history, especially when it involves ignoring all of the first century evidence. 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.

Rapture Watch (Sydney, Australia)

2011-05-20T20:45:00.000-07:00

I am currently set up at the highest point in Australia's Bible Belt on Rapture Watch. My assumption is that this has to be the front line of Australian based raptures...and I just happen to live here.

I set up a live webcam feed but it refused to write the images the server so here is a boring still. As you can see, no rapture is yet in progress.

Should I not update it may be safe to assume I have been raptured. In that case, Joel Watts will inherit my blog.

1400 AEST: Scouted area with binoculars, no signs of a rapture.

1401 AEST: The world looks amazing.

1428 EST: Taking advantage of these "No repayments and no interest for 12 months" sales.

1441: Heard birds angrily chirping. May have been at a cat or at impending rapture.

1505: Watching Torchwood.Clear skies.

1618: Quite warm, sun still shining, no one flying...

1636: Checked my stats - have had a lot of blog hits from people searching as to whether Australia has been raptured. Sadly, not yet.

1729: Season 1 of Torchwood really lacks structure. You watch sequential episodes and there are entire plot holes.

1739: Saying goodbye to my German Shepherd dog Kaiser. Very sad.

1742: Putting on my Sunday best - new shirt, pants and shoes to impress. Must remember a jumper. Sun is down and it is getting much cooler.

1758: A few minutes to go. Will try and update on the way, or atleast, as long as my Wifi and 3G connections stay live.

1802: I believe I have officially been left behind. I even went outside...but nothing...so then I jumped to get the process started...nothing.

1810: Okay, the 21st is still not over so maybe I shouldn't give up hope

1928: Maybe there is a non-literal interpretation of the rapture...maybe it did happen and true believers remained on Earth to become closer to God?

22 May
0009: No sign of the rapture yet but sleeping with one eye open...just in case it really does come like a thief in the night.

0020: www.FamilyRadio.com appears to have been raptured and continued to time out. Any official word from Camping?

0950: No signs of the rapture in the USA either. Awaiting official announcement.

Kindle: I approve

2011-05-19T23:54:00.000-07:00

I am not the greatest fan of ebooks but Amazon's Kindle app on my Android tablet has impressed. A few positive notes:

It works well for novels and other books that you do not need to mark/refer to over and over again
It can save you some money - no printing or postage appears to be accounted for with many of the books in the Kindle store
No need to wait for the book to be delivered! This can be a real problem when you quickly need a book but no library or store nearby has it. And if you are buying from Amazon downunder shipping takes forever and it is by no means cheap.
It is portable. Many books on one light weight device.

There are also a few negatives:

I cannot imagine using an ebook to replace a traditional academic text. I have horrible habits of marking the pages with colours and annotations and I learn to quickly navigate important books by feel and memory. I have never been able to replicate this with my ebooks.
No physical book = no resale and no intelligent looking library.
Difficulty in navigating multiple books for a research project

I have finally justified spending money on my Tablet!

Exploring Our Matrix has not been deified

2011-05-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

Dr McGrath has not joined the Pantheon but has moved his blog to Patheos. I apologise for the inconvenience my earlier revelation may have caused.

Update your Feeds!

2011-05-19T05:23:00.000-07:00

Two excellent biblioblogs have moved joining Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight and others at Patheos:

James McGrath and Exploring our Matrix can now be found here
And Mike Bird and Joel Willitts of Euangelion fame are here

Feed is the correct word, right? Or is it feed subscription? Either way, just do it.

Bauckham on Divine Identity & Orthodox Christology

2011-05-02T03:23:00.000-07:00

After a lengthy summarising of Richard Bauckham's thesis (including some snazzy tables) I came across his own:

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.

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.

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.

And more...

Breaking: Alcohol abuse may not be good for you

2011-05-02T02:13:00.000-07:00

A FRESH analysis of cancer rates in Australia suggests alcohol is to blame for many more cases than previously thought.

With 5.6 per cent or 5663 cancers a year likely to be triggered by regular drinking even at moderate levels.

More than 2600 breast cancers - or more than one in five of total cases - nearly 1300 cancers of the mouth and nearly 600 cancers of the oesophagus a year are now thought to be due to patients' drinking habits.

The upward revisions appear in a new position statement on alcohol today by Cancer Council Australia, which warned there was no safe level of alcohol intake, and that the estimates provided another reason for Australians to stay within official healthy drinking guidelines

Source: Alcohol blamed for cancers (The Australian)

And at the risk of sounding like a freedom hating Democrat, tax away at alcohol and tobacco.

Search Engine Monopolies: zagourepagoure

2011-04-28T18:15:00.000-07:00

On the topic of search results, 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.)

So, what is zagourepagoure? As far as we can tell, it is gibberish from a Greek Magical papyri:

zagourepagoure

agourepagour

gourepagou

ourepagou

urepag

rupa

Master angels

and good, rid

Dias, whom

Sophia bore,

of the fever

gripping him,

on this

present day,

this very hour,

now, now quick-

ly, quickly.

Suppl. Mag 1.11

John Byron and The Myth of the Church's Golden Age

2011-04-27T03:21:00.000-07:00

Over at The Biblical World Dr John Byron has a post on the Myth of the Church's Golden Age. Briefly noting a few of the controversies in the early Church he concludes:

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.

To all those attacking disputes within modern day churches: they are simply being true to their aims in restoring the church of the NT.

Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, "The New Testament Definition of Heresy (or when do Jesus and the Apostles really get mad?)", JETS (2002) 45/1 59-71

Scripture of the Early Church (Quote of the Day)

2011-04-26T05:48:00.000-07:00

Ronald E. Heine writes:

"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...

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."

Ronald E. Heine, Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future). (Baker Academic, 2007). 45, 46.

OT in the Early Gentile Church

2011-04-26T04:37:00.000-07:00

These 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 earliest 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.

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.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 the author exhorts his audience to continue in the practice they have learnt from the beginning:

"But as for you, continue 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)

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 Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement) from the end of the first century:
He uses Psalms and Job to explain his theology of resurrection (26)
At 28 he states that God sees all things, quoting Psalm 139:7-10
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."
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.
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/Dialogue 11), the nature of the law and ritual before Moses, etc. Justin wrote:

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.(Dialogue 29)

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.[1] 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.

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.

[1] Philo, Life of Moses 2.37-40; Letter of Aristeas; Josephus, Antiquities 12; Irenaus, Against Heresies; Justin Martyr, First Apology, etc.

Christ is Risen!

2011-04-23T20:36:00.000-07:00

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 Christ is risen!

The Easter sermon of John Chrysostom

Are there any who are devout lovers of God?
Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival!

Are there any who are grateful servants?
Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting?
Let them now receive their wages!

If any have toiled from the first hour,
let them receive their due reward;
If any have come after the third hour,
let him with gratitude join in the Feast!
And he that arrived after the sixth hour,
let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss.
And if any delayed until the ninth hour,
let him not hesitate; but let him come too.
And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour,
let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.
For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first.
He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour,
as well as to him that toiled from the first.

To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows.
He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor.
The deed He honors and the intention He commends.
Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord!

First and last alike receive your reward;
rich and poor, rejoice together!
Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!
You that have kept the fast, and you that have not,
rejoice today for the Table is richly laden!

Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one.
Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith.
Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty,
for the universal kingdom has been revealed.

Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.

Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.
He destroyed Hell when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.

Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."
Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.

Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.

O death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!

Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

Corinth – Paul, People and Politics (May 14, 2011)

2011-04-13T07:01:00.000-07:00

What: Corinth – Paul, People and Politics (Society for the Study of Early Christianity Conference 2011)
Where: Macquarie University, X5B Theatre 1
When: Saturday 14 May, 2011

"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?
What role did politics play in the early Christian church?" Speakers will include Dr Paul Barnett, Professor Larry Welborn, Dr Bruce Winter and more.

The event will also include the launch of The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition edited by Professor Alanna Nobbs of Macquarie University and Dr Mark Harding of the Australian College of Theology

More details here.

Craig Keener, The Gospels in Light of Ancient Biographies and School Traditions

2011-04-09T02:11:00.000-07:00

Professor Craig Keener will be a presenting his paper The gospels in light of Ancient Biographies and School Traditions at Macquarie University next week.

Tuesday 12th of April, 7:05pm
Museum of Ancient Cultures X5B 321, Macquarie University
$5 members/$7 non-members

Do It Yourself: Metal Codex Edition

2011-04-07T01:36:00.000-07:00

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.

Before you get started ensure you have all the necessary materials (pictured).

The first step is to outline various shapes on cardboard and cut them out. A variety of shapes and symbols can be used. Favourites include:

Crosses
Palm Trees
Crocodiles
Alexander the Great. If you are unable to locate an ancient engraving of Alexander, you may find him on selected Greek Drachma coins.

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?

Step two 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.

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 (picture here). We would expect Alexander's face to be on a Christian text, but why would Queen Elizabeth II be on it? Silly.

The third step 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.

The final step 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).

If you really want to have some fun, hide it outside and pretend to find it while a journalist is around.

Should a collector be interested I will be posting this item on Ebay.

Still Kicking

2011-03-28T22:48:00.000-07:00

Just 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.

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.

The true Church history

2011-01-17T05:45:00.000-08:00

I don't know what factional Protestant school Jim West went to, but here is the true story of Christian denominational history:

Alternatively (to repeat my older diagram):

Blog Accreditation Success

2011-01-15T06:15:00.000-08:00

My application has been pending and a judgement has been made:

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...

Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus

2011-01-12T23:08:00.000-08:00

Michael Bird has shared his essay contribution to the massive Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 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.

I just looked up the contents pages (available on the side column here as pdfs) of this 4 volume set and it looks amazing and exhaustive.

Edit: Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni made a very similar post 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 Come Dine With Me (Κάτι ψήνεται) recently.

Book Giveaway at The Biblical World + more

2011-01-12T05:16:00.000-08:00

John Byron, Associate Professor of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary, over at The Biblical World is offering the chance to win a copy of Mark Goodacre's The synoptic Problem a way through the Maze (T & T Clark).

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 Resurrection of the Son of God for $100USD/AUD.) For that reason one of my best friends is a place called The Book Depository. I am not sure how it compares to Amazon for those inside the USA, Canada and UK but it is great for Australian buyers.

And related to a recent post, Jim West's review of The Content and the Setting of the Gospel Tradition is now up here. 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, Dr Chris Forbes 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 here with a semi-serious summary here.

Goodacre and Mythicism

2011-01-09T17:37:00.000-08:00

I apologise for another post on Jesus mythicism, but for those of you that don't follow Dr Mark Goodacre's NT Podcasts he has a new podcast on the subject: NT Pod 47 discusses the question "Did Jesus exist?"

He also references his November NT Pod 44, "What did Paul know about Jesus?"

John Barclay on Josephus (Video)

2011-01-09T02:20:00.000-08:00

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:

Josephus: the man and the myths. Part I from CPX on Vimeo.

Josephus: the man and the myths. Part II from CPX on Vimeo.

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.

Early Christian Papyri Resources

2011-01-07T21:13:00.000-08:00

Professor Larry Hurtado has shared an updated version of Christian Literary Texts in Manuscripts of Second andThird Centuries, originally a very useful appendix in The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Hurtado's book and Colin H. Roberts' Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt are two texts that got me very interested in papyrology and the rise of early Christianity in Egypt.

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 Ancient History Documentary Research Centre.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 Conspectus of Texts 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 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity volumes which are useful for those interested in the rise and perception of early Christianity in the greater Graeco-Roman world.

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: The Content and the Setting of the Gospel Tradition to soon be reviewed by Jim West

Robert M. Price, one of America's leading authorities on the Bible,

2011-01-07T20:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, I had a little chuckle as well. But according to Prices' own homepage regarding his newish book The Case Against The Case For Christ (American Atheist Press, 2010):

New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, one of America's leading authorities on the Bible, has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Strobel has misrepresented his field of study and won't take it any longer.

And on the other hand:

...[Strobel] consults alleged experts... He does not appear to have done any competent investigation on his own or consulted any genuine authorities on the relevant subjects...

I am not going to go down to the level of that blurb - but Dr Price is most definitely not one of America's leading authorities on the Bible.On the other hand, to claim that scholars such as the late Bruce Metzger, described by Bart Ehrman in his popular Misquoting Jesus as "the world's leading expert in the field [of textual criticism.]", were not genuine authorities in their field is not just deluded but offensive.

And if contributing to Christian apologetics somehow nullifies all scholarly credentials I would assume it also carries over to Prices' focus on polemics.

Regards,

One of Australia's leading authorities on everything...although posting something with a slightly apologetic tone may nullify any expertise I do have.

The Three Schools of Jewish Philosophy

2011-01-05T19:39:00.000-08:00

In Wars 2.119 Josephus writes that:

For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducces; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, and called Essenes.

In Antiquities 13.171 Josephus expands on the classification of these schools:

At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. (172) Now for the Pharisees,they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. (173) And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. (Cf. Ant. 18.11-22.)

But how useful is Josephus' three fold distinction of Jewish philosophical schools? We may note his mention of the " fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" of Judas the Galilean. On the other hand, we may view the fourth school as a subschool of the first: "These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." (Ant 18.23)

But as Dr McGrath asked, what of the "tribe of Christians", followers of the Jewish wise man Jesus? (Ant. 18.63-4) Why would they not constitute a "fifth philosophy" from among the Jews? What about the other Jewish sects we know of that failed to get a mention? As James H. Charlesworth writes,

"We also generally agree that there were more than three main schools of thought among the Jews in ancient Palestine. Today, we all admit this schematization is anachronistic and systematically excludes such major groups as the Samaritans, Zealots, Sicarii, Baptist groups, Enoch groups, the Jewish magical groups, the Boethusians, scribal groups, Galilean miracle-workers, Roman quislings, and many others who claimed to be faithful Torah-abiding Jews. It also excludes the group from the first century that eventually became most powerful: the Palestinian Jesus Movement." (James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Discovery and Challenge to Biblical Studies," in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Vol 1: Scripture and the Scrolls ed. J.H. Charlesworth, p.7.)

Noting the inadequate nature of Josephus' three school distinction, how should we approach it?

I would suggest that it is as a literary device, part of a consistent push by Josephus to relate the Jewish world to Greek thought and engage his Hellenistic Roman audience. At times he meets the Greek conception while at others he makes use of strong analogy. The three groups of Jewish thought are intended to draw analogy to the philosophical tradition. To point out the obvious, the terms "schools" and "philosophy" are appealing to a Roman understanding and not a contemporary Jewish classification. Furthermore, the classification/distinction of the schools with regard to human actions and fate has a lot more to do with philosophical thought than Jewish sectarianism. In a broad sense it may be suggested that Josephus is presenting groups of Judaism as analogy to the schools of Greek philosophy - Pharisees are presented like the Stoics(Life 1.12: sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them), the Sadducees as the Epicureans and the Essenes are like the Pythagoreans.

As an afterthought, the three philosophies are those that Josephus claims to have personally tried out:

and when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three:—The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might, choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; (Life 1:10)

Note (subject to the Greek I do not have on hand) the implication of there being more than the three sects that were among the Jews at the time.

Historical Fallacy of Negative Proof

2011-01-05T16:34:00.000-08:00

Paul Newall writes:

The fallacy of negative proof occurs when the lack of evidence for something is taken to justify the conclusion that it did not exist. The logical error involved becomes obvious when shown as a syllogism:

P1: No evidence has so far been found for A;
C: Therefore A did not exist/happen.

This is a formal fallacy: what is needed is an additional premise, to the effect that no evidence for A will ever be found subsequently.

A good example of this fallacy is found in studies of historical figures or events, especially religious ones, such as the debate over the historicity of Jesus or the existence of Atlantis. Where a person is referred to in stories or sagas, say, but no other evidence of their actual existence is found, should we conclude that the person is fictional? Notice that there is a considerable difference between claiming that the lack of evidence proves that the person did not exist (i.e., the negative proof fallacy) and asserting that the likelihood of their historicity is small; however, an elaboration of how such probabilities are assigned is still required.

Paul Newall, "The Logical Fallacies of the Historian" in A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy), pp.270-1.

R. Joseph Hoffman (ed.), Sources of the Jesus Tradition Contents

2011-01-05T06:19:00.000-08:00

Below is the contents of the new volume Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (Ed. R. Joseph Hoffman). The volume is comprised by members of the Jesus Project and as you will notice many of the essays follow closely to the 2008 conference, although a few papers are not included.

Preface: Of Rocks, Hard Places, and Jesus Figures
R. Joseph Hoffman

An Alternative Q and the Quest of the Earthly Jesus
Daniel R. MacDonald

Jesus and the Brothers: The Theology of the Imperfect Union
R. Joseph Hoffman

Popular Mythology in the Early Empire and the Multiplicity of Jesus Traditions
Justin Meggitt

Bayes’s Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method
Richard C. Carrier

The Abhorrent Void: The Rapid Attribution of Fictive Sayings and Stories to a Mythical Jesus
Robert M. Price

Jesus’ Dispute in the Temple and the Origin of the Eucharist
Bruce Chilton

The Authorised Version of His Birth and Death
David Trobisch

Prolegomenon to a Science of Christian Origins
Frank R. Zindler

“Every Plant Which My Heavenly Father Has Not Planted Shall Be Uprooted”
Robert Eisenman with Noelle Magana

On Not Finding the Historical Jesus
R. Joseph Hoffman

Assessing the Evidence: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives
Ronald A. Lindsay

Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus
Gerd Ludemann

Jesus’ Apocalyptic Vision and the Psychodynamics of Delusion
J. Harold Ellens

Epilogue: The Canonical-Historical Jesus
R. Joseph Hoffman.

So far I am not too impressed by the book.
And apologies for any transcription errors.

Craig A. Evans reviews Robert Price

2010-12-31T21:00:00.000-08:00

I have had quite a few search hits recently looking for a review of the work of Robert M. Price (i.e. Jesus did not exist guy) by Craig A. Evans. Evans provides a paragraph long review of Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man in the IBR's Bulletin of Biblical Research 14/2 Spring, 2004 which is available in pdf, word and html. I believe Evans also discusses Price in Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels although I have not read it.

More detailed reviews of Price are available. A wide array of good historical Jesus scholars including John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James D.G. Dunn and Darrell Bock reviewed his hypothesis that it is unlikely that Jesus existed in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (well worth $16 if you are interested in historical Jesus studies!). Tony Costa has also reviewed Price's Jesus is Dead for the Review of Biblical Literature and it is available here. Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy discuss Price and a range of surrounding areas of scholarship with regard to a minimalistic view of the historical Jesus in Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition.

Jesus Outside the New Testament

2010-12-30T00:02:00.000-08:00

My last post with an essay on Jesus outside the NT does not seem to go to the feed or whatever it is called. Anyway, here is the link.

Jesus outside of the New Testament

2010-12-29T21:59:00.000-08:00

Copy/pasted below is an old essay of mine on Jesus in historical sources outside of the New Testament - I cover the common non-Christian sources as well as as go with Thomas and P.Egerton 2. I cannot remember what I wrote so some of my views may have changed.[I tried editing it and ended up redacting it into something terrible.]

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned in a number of Christian and non-Christian documents found outside of the New Testament. The critical study of these sources in terms of origin,and date are important in determining their value as historical sources for the life of Jesus. This study will confine itself to sources that: have a high probability of having their origins in the first century and or are later sources that may preserve independent or authentic Jesus traditions. Sources such as Slavonic Josephus[1] and Sepher Toledot Yeshua which are widely seen as having no value for serious historical Jesus research have been omitted.

Non-Christian Sources

Minimal Value

Pliny the Younger was a Roman official sent to govern the province of Bithynia circia 110.[2] In a correspondence to Emperor Trajan Pliny makes reference to early Christians and their worship of Jesus. (Epistle book 10, letter 96) Jesus is referred to as “Christus” and the text reflects the ethical teaching of Jesus such as to “abstain from theft, robbery, adultery…”.[3] Pliny notes the Christian practice of coming together to “partake of a meal, but an ordinary and innocent meal.” This meal appears to be an allusion to the early Christian practice of the last supper that is multiply and independently attested to in the canonical gospels and 1 Corinthians.[4] Pliny’s investigation into the practices of Christians may have corrected a misunderstanding of the symbolism of wine and blood and other allegations against the Christians.[5]

Although reflecting Jesus traditions, the letter tells us more about early Christians of Bithynia. The Christology of Messiaship is important as Christ acts as a sufficient identification of Jesus.[6] Similarly, a high Christology is evident in the practice of singing hymns to “Christ as if to a god” which may have precedent among the Pauline churches.[7] Pliny informs us that his information is obtained through interviews, often forced, with Christians such as “the slave women, whom they call deaconesses.” On the question of reliability, there appear to be no reasons to doubt the textual authenticity of the reference.[8] In conclusion, Pliny’s letter tells nothing new about the historical Jesus, although alluding to early Christian practices, Christological models and his ethical teachings which are also developed within the canonical corpus.[9]

Suetonius writing c. 120 in Divus Claudius 25:4, the fifth volume of The Twelve Caesars, mentions that Emperor Claudius expelled the “Jews” because “at Rome [they] caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”[10] This sufficiently ambiguous text may be a reference to the situation mentioned in Acts 18:2, and may be making reference to Jesus as Chrestus. It has been suggested that Chrestus was a misspelling of the title Christus, of which Romans would not have been aware of.[11] If identified as a reference to Jesus, Suetonius mistakenly places Jesus in Rome at the time of Claudius making it unlikely that Suetonius was orally or literarily dependent on Christian sources. Suggestions such as Suetonius making use of imperial archives appear to be purely conjectural, especially as the source is unnamed.[12] Concluding, Suetonius’ vague and ambiguous reference essentially tells us nothing of Jesus as a historical figure.

Other sources of minimal, or at least questionable value, are those of Thallus and Mara bar Serapion. According to Julius Africanus (c. 160-240), as preserved by Byzantine historian George Syncellus, the first century historian Thallus refers to the darkness that accompanied Jesus’ death as found in the synoptic gospels.[13] Africanus disagrees with Thallus’ explanation that it was an eclipse of the sun, arguing that the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on a full moon making such impossible.[14] It has been argued that the value of Thallus lies in (1) an early non-Christian witness to the crucifixion; (2) a pre-Markan origin of the darkness.[15] However, there does not appear any reason to endorse either view in light of the very limited sources. Similarly, Mara bar Serapion in a letter to his son Serapion written “some indeterminate time after A.D. 73” makes reference to an unnamed “wise king” of the Jews who was presumably executed, in line with the theme of persecution.[16] However, in some sense the “wise king” transcended death by living on in the “teaching which he had given.”[17] The source of the reference was possibly non-Christian as there were (1) no Christological titles; (2) Jesus was placed on the same level as Socrates and Pythagoras; (3) the title wise king draws clearer parallels to possibly independent sources such as Josephus’ σοφóς áνηρ, Lucian’s σοφιστης and the Roman’s ó βασιλευς των ‘Ιουδαιων.[18]

Significant Value

The Roman source of greatest value appears to be by Roman official and historian Cornelius Tacitus, found in his Annals of Imperial Rome 15.44. Within this short but important reference from c.116, Tacitus confirms a number of core details about Jesus.[19] Firstly, Tacitus identifies Jesus - or Christus, as he is known – as “the founder of the name.” The life of Jesus is placed within a specific historical and geographical context. Tacitus connects Jesus and movement to “Judaea, the home of the disease” and within the “reign of Tiberius.” More specifically, Jesus was put to death at the sentence of Pontius Pilatus, who is identified as “procurator.” The reign of Tiberius was 14-37, and the governorship of Pilate was AD 26-36, a time span closer to the traditional dating of Jesus’ crucifixion.[20] In addition to this, a number of speculative views on what Tacitus meant in reference to “the superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more…” Habermas has suggestedd that Tacitus may have “indirectly referred to the Christians’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since his teachings “again broke out” after his death.”[21] A more sober proposal has been made by Meier suggesting that, if simply not a retrojection by Tacitus, this may indicate that the Jesus movement was already in existence before the crucifixion – temporarily being suppressed by such actions.[22]

Although without challenges – both historic and contemporary – the consensus appears to be in favour of authenticity of the passage. First of all, there is no textual basis to suspect interpolation as all extant manuscripts attest to the reference.[23] Secondly, the hostile nature of the references to Jesus and Christianity make it an unlikely interpolation. It is very unlikely that a Christian scribe would describe Christians as “loathed for their vices” and Christianity as a foreign superstitio, likened to a “disease” to be checked. Instead, it has been suggested that these views reflect the consistent Roman conservative approach of Tacitus’ views of foreign superstitio and hostility towards the Jews with whom he may have identified the movement’s origins.[24] Arthur Drews has argued that that the hostile nature towards the Christians may have been intentional in order to “to strengthen its changes of passing as genuine.”[25] However, such a view makes insufficient account of the nature of Tacitus’ criticism in identifying Christianity as a superstitio and presupposes modern critical criteria upon would-be forgers.[26] Finally, the lack of apologetic themes such as of the resurrection make it unlikely to be a Christian interpolation. For these reasons, Meier’s judgement that the “passage is obviously genuine” is endorsed.[27] Following on, on the reliability, it should be noted that Tacitus is generally credited as a thorough classical historian.[28] However, Tacitus assigns Pilate the rank of “procurator”, which appears to be an anachronism – either intentional or unintentional – as prior to Agrippa Roman governors held the rank of prefect.[29] This is confirmed by the “Pilate Stone” that provides epigraphical evidence of Pilate’s rank as “prefect of Judaea.”[30] It has been argued that this error should not discount Tacitus’ information as faulty as near contemporaneous writers.[31]

As Tacitus does not name his sources, a number of proposals have been put forward. Firstly, there may have been an earlier history no longer extant that Tacitus used in this case, or possibly in the missing books dealing with the time of Jesus.[32] Parallel to this, is that he may have made use of Josephus, however, it does not appear that Josephus describes Jesus and the early Christian movement in comparable terms. The two most plausible possibilities appear to be that Tacitus obtained his information by contact with Christians – whether through his administrative duties as governor of Asia, or through his friend Pliny who had personal contact with Christians; or that his information was obtained from Imperial archives.[33] Van Voorst has furthered the first by suggesting that this may have taken place as a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, in a role understanding the licit Judaism and its illicit derivative of Christianity.[34] This appears to be a plausible scenario for obtaining non-independent witness, although unverifiable. Similarly, it is possible that as an official Tacitus had access to a report to the Emperor by Pilate of the details, constituting an independent source.[35] Evidently, Tacitus has the potential to act as an independent source on the crucifixion of Jesus in addition to his geographical and historical context.

Jewish historian Josephus writing near the end of the first century is arguably the most important non-Christian witness to Jesus. Within Antiquities 20.9.1 Josephus makes a brief remark and the bringing forward of “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ” to the Sanhedrin.[36] There appears to be no reason to doubt the textual authenticity of the reference as Jesus and James are neither exhorted in any visible Christianised manner.[37] James is referred to as the brother of “Jesus”, contrary to early Christian usage as “brother of the Lord” while Jesus is not identified as Messiah, but said to be the Christ.[38] The implications of referring to Jesus in terms of the Christ is significant for the longer reference known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) as it appears to presuppose an earlier identification of this individual.

The textual authenticity of the longer reference, known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is debated within scholarly circles, and following from this the various reconstructions challenge the implications that may be drawn for the study of Jesus.[39] Although most scholars regard the passage as authentic but edited there are a number of polarized views from Robert M. Price’s assertion that the TF was fabricated by Church historian and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea or Carsten Peter Thiede’s contention that Josephus viewed Jesus as a Messiah.[40] Most reconstructions of the text identify interpolations regarding: identifying Jesus as the Messiah; implications that Jesus was more than a man; and, Jesus’ resurrection and post-resurrection discourse.[41] Reference has also been made to the “Arabic version” of the TF preserved in Agapius, Book of the Title that contains the possible interpolations conflated at the end of the passage. Evans has suggested that this conflation arose under influence of the Christianised Greek version.[42] Evidence that there was an authentic reference to Jesus may be argued on the basis of vocabulary. Josephus uses neuteral terms that do not appear to be common Christological titles for Jesus. Similar to Mara bar Serapion, Jesus is referred to as a “wise man.” At other times, Josephus appears to be critical of Jesus, describing his winning over of followers in a negative light. Graham Stanton describes Josephus’ use of ἐπηγἁετο as to “bring something upon someone, mostly something bad” making it unlikely to be an inauthentic Christian interpolation.[43] Josephus’ description may indicate a non-Christian source, and information probably received in his time in Palestine, which he had later supplemented first hand in noting the existence of Christians within Rome.[44]

What Josephus can tell us about Jesus is important, especially if an independent source. He confirms that Jesus was a wise man and teacher of some notable influence – winning both Jew and Greeks. Jesus in some sense was known for his “great deeds”, paralleling the rich miracle tradition associated with him. Like Tacitus, Josephus talks of Jesus execution – specified as crucifixion – under Pilate, having been accused by the “leading men” who may be identified as the ruling priests.[45] We are told that Jesus was identified as the Messiah by his followers, and that his brother James was influential in the movement after his death. In conclusion, Josephus is a source of important value to understanding the perceptions of Jesus and some key aspects of his ministry and death.

Christian Sources

By the end of the second century, a number of early Christian writings had accumulated. Many of these were identified as gospels, claiming to be composed by important figures in the ministry of Jesus. These writings reflect a wide theological spectrum, and often made use of the first century sources. Although most of these works are seen as secondary, a number of scholars have argued for exceptions that these sources may be independent and earlier than the canonical gospels.[46]

Over the past twenty years a number of scholars have launched a renewed interest in the application of the Gospel of Thomas to understanding the historical Jesus. Being described as “the most important early Christian text outside the canon of scripture” [47] has the text heavily debated especially in understanding the relationship between Thomas and the synoptic gospels. The extant version of the Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 “secret sayings” attributed to Jesus claiming to be recorded by Didymus Judas Thomas.[48] What is known as the Gospel of Thomas is contained in a Coptic translation as the second tractate in Codex II of the Nag Hammandi library, as well as partially preserved in three Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyri – P.Oxy1, P.Oxy654 and P.Oxy655.[49] Although containing a number of sayings found within the canonical gospels, Thomas contains no miracles, passion narrative or any obvious narrative framework. It stands as sayings source, structurally similar to various reconstructions of the hypothetical Q source.[50]

A shift mostly in North American studies grants Thomas the status of a “very, very, early” source with numerous and vocal scholars placing its composition pre-70.[51] Crossan argues a two-stage redaction of Thomas, with the first layer being completed under the authority of James in Jerusalem, the second under Thomas in Edessa.[52] However, this interpretation of sayings 12 and 13 are highly speculative at best. Other arguments for independence call attention to comparative literary genre: Thomas is a sayings source, and the genre of a sayings source can be identified in works such as Mishnah Abot, the book of Proverbs, the Sayings of Amen-hotep and various reconstruction of the hypothetical Q source.[53] However, to assign Thomas to the same period as Q is where the logic of genre becomes arbitrary; why not assign the document to the same period as other sayings collections?[54]

Against this backdrop, many scholars have been arguing that the composition of Thomas is a second-century document, reflecting later Syrian concerns and dependent on the canonical gospels.[55] Saying 114 and its rejection of womanhood has a Sitz im Leben in 2^nd-4^th century ascetic Christianity and not likely Jesus’ first century Judaic context.[56] Similarly, sayings 73-75 that begin resembling Matt 9:37-38//Luke 10:2 move towards a ‘Gnosticised’ speculative interpretation regarding the solitary one and the deeper life of the bridal chamber.[57]

Thomas contains parallels with all canonical sources, including Markan material, M, L, Q, the Gospel of John.[58] It has also been suggested that Thomas alludes to or presupposes Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, and Revelation[59] and has numerous points of contact with Tatian’s Diatessaron.[60] In addition, Thomas appears to be somewhat dependent on Lukan redactions of Markan traditions evident in structure and content.[61] The dependence postulated is one of oral dependence on the canonical traditions. This may be seen by examining the structure of the Parable of the Tenants as it appears in the synoptic gospels and Thomas. In all, the parable retelling is followed by reference to Psalm 118:22.[62] However, whereas in the synoptic gospels the reason of this allusion is clear, none is evident in Thomas. It may be that the Thomasine version being simplified through oral transmission disconnected the Psalm, but it continued to be passed on as an oral unit.[63]

In conclusion, Thomas most likely reflects a secondary document orally dependant on the canonical gospels. The secondary nature of this gospel is evident in Gnostic redactions, and the dealing with later issues. For this reason, caution should be used in applying its picture of Jesus purely as wisdom sage should be nuanced by the canonical sources, and should be subject to the same critical method.

The next non-canonical gospel of possible importance is the Unknown Gospel also known as Egerton Papyrus 2, which is now extant in four fragments usually dated to around 150.[64] Although generally dated as a second century document, Crossan has argued that the original composition is “independent of all the intracanonical Gospels” and could be dated as early as the fifties C.E.[65] The surviving fragments preserve four stories, with generally strong connections to the canonical gospels.[66] Ehrman writes that:

(1) an account of Jesus’ controversy with Jewish leaders that is similar to the stories found in John 5:39–47 and 10:31–39; (2) a healing of a leper, reminiscent of Matt 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–45; Luke 5:12–16; and Luke 17:11–14; (3) a controversy over paying tribute to Caesar, comparable to Matt 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; and Luke 20:20–26; and (4) a fragmentary account of a miracle of Jesus on the bank of the Jordan River, possibly performed to illustrate his parable about the miraculous growth of seeds. This final story has no parallel in the canonical Gospels.[67]

In addition, it has also been suggested that there may be connections with the secondary Infancy Gospel of Thomas.[68] Noting this single document contains both Johannine and synoptic material together, suggesting a late date as a requirement by necessity of canonical dependence seems most likely. Koester challenges this view arguing that the elements are in fact “pre Johannine and pre-synoptic” representing a more primitive reading where these traditions were not yet separated.[69] However, the most convincing argument against Koester (and shared by Crossan) is the existence of redactional elements in Egerton, reflecting clear Matthaean and Lucan redactions of common Markan material.[70] In conclusion, it is more likely that Papyrus Egerton 2 is an early gospel harmony drawing on the canonical gospels to present an orthodox Jesus who was a teacher and miracle worker who at times came in conflict with other Jews.

In conclusion, from the texts outside the New Testament a number of details may be known about Jesus. These details are generally biographical, however, some detail may be found in Pliny and Thomas about the teachings of Jesus, although not necessarily independent sources. With considerable certainty, these sources place Jesus within the historical context of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, and Pontius Pilate’s governorship. During this time he was executed – by crucifixion. That Jesus was perceived as a wise man and a teacher is multiply attested in the Christian and non-Christian sources. That he was in some sense a doer of miraculous deeds is evident in Josephus. Jesus was heralded as Messiah, and such an association may have been early by its constant association as a name. Jesus’ movement although temporarily halted after his death, continued to flourish in Judaea and beyond, with his brother James playing an influential role in Jerusalem. These details are also attested to in the canonical sources – gospels, Acts and epistles – increasing the reliability of these details.

Bibliography

Allison, Dale C. Jr, (2006), “Thallus on the Crucifixion” in A.-J. Levine, et al, (ed.) The historical Jesus in context. Princeton
Anderson, J.N.D. (1969), Christianity: The Witness of History. London,
Barnett, Paul, (2009), Finding the Historical Christ, Grand Rapids.
Bauckham, Richard. (1992), “Apocryphal Gospels” in J.B. Green, et al. (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and Gospel. Downers Grove.
Bruce F.F. Bruce, (1974), Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament, London,.
Casey, Maurice. (2002), An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Cambridge.

Crossan, John Dominic. (1991), The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco.

Davies, Steven L. (2002), The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained.

Drews, A, (1912), The Witness to the Historicity of Jesus. Tr. Joseph McCabe

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003a), Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scriptures and Faiths We Never Knew. New York.
__________. (2003b), Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it Into the New Testament. New York.
Evans, Craig A. (2005), Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody.
_________. (1994), “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources” in B. Chilton & C.A. Evans Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research,. New York.
_________ & Charlesworth, James H. (1994) “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels” in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (ed.) Authenticating Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research,. New York
Grant, Michael & Graves, Robert. (2003), The Twelve Caesars.

Feldman, L.H, (1982). “The Testamentum Flavianum: the State of the Question”, in R.F. Berkey and S.A. Edwards, (eds.)., Christological Perspectives, New York.
__________. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, (Loeb Classical Library No. 456)

Habermas, Gary, (1996), The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin.

Hadas, Moses. (1942) The Complete Works of Tacitus. California.

Hurtado, Larry W. (2005), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids.

Koester, H., (1990). Ancient Christian Gospels : their history and development. London

Mason, S. (1992), Josephus and the New Testament, Massachusetts.

McKechnie, Paul. (2001), The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church. Downers Grove.

Meier, John P. (1991), A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person (The Anchor Bible Reference Library). New York.

Pines, S. (1971) An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications. Jerusalem.

Perrin, Nicholas. "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206. 183.
_________. (2002) Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Boston.

Price, Robert M. (2009) “Jesus at the Vanishing Point” in J.K. Beilby & P.R. Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Downers Grove.

Thiede, Carsten Peter. (2005), Jesus, Man or Myth? Oxford.

Tuckett, C.M.“Thomas and the Synoptics”, Novum Testamentum vol. 30, 1988, pp. 132-157.

Sherwin-White., A.N. (1969). "Pliny, the Man and his Letters". Greece & Rome 16 (1): 76–90.
_________. (1985) The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford.

Snodgrass, Klyne, “The Gospel of Thomas: a secondary gospel”, Second Century, vol. 7, 1989/90, pp. 19-38.

Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000), Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Grand Rapids.

Vardaman, Jerry, “A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as ‘Prefect,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 70-71.

[1] Evans writes, “to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research” (Evans 1994:451.)

[2] For a general information on the biography of Pliny and more specifically on his letters as correspondence see A.N. Sherwin-White. (1969). "Pliny, the Man and his Letters". Greece & Rome 16 (1): 76–90.

[3] See Matt 5:27-28; Mark 10:19 as examples.

[4] 1 Corinthians 11:24ff. ; Mark 14:22ff. par.

[5] Paul McKechnie (2001), The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church. 112.

[6] Compare with Josephus and Tacitus below.

[7] Philippians 2:5-11. Cf. Larry W. Hurtado (2005), Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. 148-149; 606-607.

[8] A.N. Shervin-White, The Letters of Pliny. 691-692.

[9] This judgement appears to be consistent with John P.Meier, “But, again, it adds nothing to our knowledge of the historical Jesus.” A Marginal Jew. 1:92; and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources”, 459.

[10] Claudius 15.4. Trans. Michael Grant & Robert Graves, The Twelve Caesars. (Penguin Classics Series).

[11] For example, Tertullian notes that the title Christians is “wrongly pronounced” as “Chrestianus” (Tertullian, Apology 3. Tr. Roberts, Alexander ; Donaldson, James ; Coxe, A. Cleveland: The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325.) while the Christian scribal tradition of Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 shows spelling variations in Codex B reading Χριστιανóς and Codex Aleph Χρηστιανóς. (Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources” 458.)

[12] This is suggested in Van Voorst 200: 50.

[13] Mark 15:33//par; Dale C. Allisoon, “Thallus on the Crucifixion” in The Historical Jesus in Context. Ed. Amy-Jill Levine, J.D. Crossan and D.C. Allison.

[14] Tr. In Allison, “Thallus on the Crucifixion”/

[15] Evans 1992: 455; Allison 2006: 405.

[16] Bruce1974: 30. Translation, Allision 2006: 405-406.

[17] Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, 73 extracted in Evans 1994: 456.

[18] Αnt. 18.3.3; Peregrinus 13; Mark 15:26//par.

[19] Van Voorst 2000: 51

[20] Meier 1992: 90; Barnett 2009: 59.

[21] Habermas 1996: 190. cf. Anderson 1969: 19.

[22] Meier, 1992: 91.

[23] Meier 9921: 91; Evans 1994: 465.

[24] Barnett 2009: 57.

[25] Drews 1912: 26.

[26] Identifying Christianity as a superstitio fits the conservative nature of some Romans, including Tacitus and earlier Cicero (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 3.39-40) who drew clear distinction between superstitio and religio as expression of belief and cult. Ironically enough, later in the Christian era Christianity was the standard by which superstitio and proper belief were judged, Augustine writing ““the impious superstitions were fire with the Chaldeans…so, in the deluge of superstitio that flooded the whole world…” This is also reflected in the Theodosian Code 16.2.5 and the Edict of the people of the city of Constantinople, 27.2.380.

[27] Meier1992: 90.

[28] Moses Hadas calls him the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, Hadas, “Introduction” to The Complete Works of Tacitus. This view is shared by Van Voorst 2000: 51 and Habermas 1996: 187.

[29] Evans 1994: 465.

[30] Jerry Vardaman, “A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as ‘Prefect,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 70-71.

[31] For example, Josephus refers to two different governors of Judaea – Cuspius Fadus and Porcius Festus by both terms at different points of his work. Compare Antiquities 19.363 and 20.2,4; and Antiquities 20.193 and Jewish War 2.271. Evans 1994: 465 also writes that “This “error” should not be taken as evidence that Tacitus’ information is faulty.” (465).

[32] Barnett 2009: 58.

[33] For example, these have been suggested by Barnett, 58; Meier, 1992: 90-91; Bruce, 23 and Van Voorst 2000: 52.

[34] Van Voorst 2000: 52

[35] This suggestion is made by F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament. 23. Similarly, Meir states that one cannot “exclude the possibility that Tacitus used Roman archives.” (91).

[36] Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 Loeb Classical Library Tr.

[37]L.H. Feldman, Josephus X, Loeb Classical Library 456 states “few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James.”

[38] Galatians 1:19; Evans 1994: 469.

[39] An excellent summary of the state of TF research are Feldman 1982: 179-199, with an excellent summary at 199 in addition cf Whealey 2003.

[40] Evans 1994: 467 writes “Most today regard the passage as authentic but edited.”; Robert M. Price, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. 62.; Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? 12-13.

[41] See the reconstructions in Evans 1994: 467; Barnett 2009: 47; Meier 1991: 61.

[42] Evans 1994: 468.; Cf. S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications.

[43] Quoted in Evans 1994: 470.

[44] This view seems to be endorsed by a number of scholars, including Van Voorst 2000: 77; Barnett 2009: 51. Meier 1991: 68 states that “one cannot exclude” such a possibility, although opting more generally that many suggestions are equally possible as they are equally unverifiable.

[45] This identification is made by Barnett 2009: 50 and Evans 1994: 472.

[46] See the dates in Ehrman, 2003a: xi-xv.

[47] Nicholas Perrin, "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991-2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels" in Currents in Biblical Research. 2007; 5: 183-206. 183.

[48] P.Oxy. 654; Coptic Gospel of Thomas Preamble. Tr. Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures:Books that did not Make it into the New Testament. 25.ff.

[49] James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. 496.

[50] Casey 2002: 32.

[51] Crossan 1991: 427-428.

[52] Crossan 1991: 427-428.

[53] Davies 2002: 13-17.

[54] Casey 2002: 33.

[55] Brown 1997: 840; Bock 2005: 61, 63 make statements to the effect that the second century date is a majority view.

[56] Casey 2002: 34-35.

[57] Bruce touches on this slightly in his commentary, Bruce 1974: 141-142.

[58] A list of parallels in Matthew between M, L and Johannine material may be found in James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans 1994: 498.; C.M. Tuckett makes a strong case in “Tuckett 1988: 132-157.

[59] Evans 2005: 258.

[60] N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Although Syrian influence on the Thomasine versions of the canonical traditions is arguably evident, Perrin’s argument is unconvincing. See. Robert F Shedinger, review of Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2003).

[61] Here, the dominant two-source hypothesis of Luke’s use of Mark is assumed.

[62] Gos. Thom. 65; Mark 12:1-8; Matthew 21:33-39; Luke 20:9-15.

[63] See also the extensive discussions in Kylne Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel”, Second Century, 7, 1989. 19-30.

[64] Ehrman 2003b :29; Barnett 2009: 39.

[65] Crossan 1991: 428; Ehrman 2003b :29 states that “most have concluded that it was produced somewhat later, during the first half of the second century.”

[66] Barnett 2009: 40.

[67] Ehrman 2003b: 29.

[68] Barnett 2009: 40; Craig A. Evans 2005: 259.

[69] Koester 1990: 207.

[70] For example PEger 2, line 32 contains vocabulary from Matt 8:2 not found in Mark. More convincingly, PEger 2, lines 39-41 shows strong verbal agreement with the Lucan redaction (17:14) of Mark 1:44. Charlesworth and Evans conclude on the second example that “The best explanation for this is the influence of Lucan redaction, not some non- or pre-Synoptic tradition.” (521; cf. 520-525.)

Merry Christmas blog world!

2010-12-24T16:14:00.001-08:00

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on 3

What Bibliobloggers Really Drive

2010-11-28T16:31:00.000-08:00

An investigation by yours truly has uncovered the truth behind the mundane answers of some bibliobloggers to Mark Stevens what's your ride?

Nick Norelli

Joel Watts

Twitter has me believe Joel lives on the road

Jim West

Quote of the Day

2010-11-15T20:49:00.000-08:00

"If scholars believed Jesus existed, why are Jesus books in the mythology section of the library?"

- anon internet scholar

More Conspiracy as History

2010-11-13T20:19:00.000-08:00


The pre-existent Mandaean spirit of Augustine, Nicea 325 (per Murdock)

Via James McGrath, Muertos’s Blog has a post Herding Cats: How And Why Conspiracy Theorists Are Wrong About Experts and Academicians where he examines the phenomenon of conspiracy theorists masquerading as experts. He touches on the work of my personal favourite conspiracy theorist on Christians origins, Acharya S/D.M Murdock.

On a personal note, I really do wonder how Murdock deals with the fact that she is knowingly selling a book containing fatal errors. I have previously reviewed some of her book focusing on historical errors and her response was to brand it "irrelevant opinion" and made up "crap." More recently I addressed this matter of "opinion" in Conspiracy as History? where I demonstrated numerous historical impossibilities from a single sentence of her book.

Larry Hurtado reviews McGrath, "The Only True God"

2010-11-09T03:53:00.000-08:00

For those interested in the question of early Christology and Jesus devotion, Larry Hurtado has reviewed The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context by fellow biblioblogger James F. McGrath. The review can be found on the essays, etc page of Hurtado's blog here.

Ehrman's Forthcoming Book

2010-11-08T01:48:00.000-08:00

Bart Ehrman has a forthcoming volume provocatively titled Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.I would assume the subject matter of the book is the issue of attribution and pseudepigraphy in the New Testament corpus (in addition to repeating his discussions on non-canonical texts, early Christian diversity and textual variants as he seems to do in all his popular books.) And yes, you are right, Ehrman has already touched the topic in some detail in Jesus Interrupted (chapter four).

HT: Tim Henderson//Earliest Christianity

The Invisible Tentacles of the Catholic Church

2010-11-07T17:01:00.000-08:00

Earlier this year Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation debated ancient historian Dr Chris Forbes on the historicity of Jesus. Within this debate, Barker found it necessary to appeal to a conspiracy theory regarding fraud by early Christians to invent a Jesus figure.

I thought the plot stopped there but apparently it is much deeper than any of us could have known. The Daily Show and Jason Jones investigates the conspiracy of the United States Post Office, Mother Teresa, the Catholic Church and Dan Barker. It is amazing and well worth watching.

The Problem of Evil Explained (Video)

2010-11-06T02:28:00.000-07:00

This is a 3 minute extract from The Invention of Lying (2009) highlighting the question of the problem of evil in no uncertain terms. Be warned - it contains explicit language and blasphemy against "the man in the sky".

On a relevant note, I am reading Problem Of Evil: Selected Readings Ed. Michael L. Peterson in addition to everything on history and the Gospel of John.

Why I don't vote in Mid-term Elections

2010-11-02T21:18:00.001-07:00

Because I am not an American.

Modern Art on Campus

2010-10-28T01:02:00.000-07:00

I can related to and appreciate pretty and meaningful art. In fact, on occasion I am known to even appreciate nice looking modern art. But not all art is equal. There is a whole popular category of poor excuses for art. Yes, I make value judgements about art. Just because you personally find this black blotch or bleeding shape meaningful doesn't mean it is anything but an ugly piece of junk to me.

A number of universities in NSW enjoy spending excessive amounts of cash they do not have on ridiculous pieces of art. At Macquarie University many would say the work exclusively falls into the second category, with features such as these:

This is one of the better pieces on campus. While no one is quite sure what it is, suggestions including "knotted whale intestines" have been put forward to explain the phenomenon.

The pink building wasn't enough - what we really needed were...those things.

This piece is officially known as "Mangroves." And no, the picture is not deceiving, it is just some metal pipes stuck on a wall with a bit of paint.

Epistolary Conversations: Opening the letter of Classical and Late Antiquity (Symposium)

2010-10-19T23:45:00.000-07:00

Epistolary Conversations: Opening the letter of Classical and Late Antiquity

symposium of historians, papyrologists and linguists for a day of discussing these and other issues shaping our understanding of the ancient letter.

Speakers include: Professor Pauline Allen, Dr Malcolm Choat, Dr Geoffrey Dunn, Dr Trevor Evans, Assoc. Prof. Andrew Gillett, Dr Stephen Lake and Dr Bronwen Neil.

Date: Monday 15 November 2010. 9.30am to 5.30pm

Venue: Macquarie University Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Building W6A, Floor 3, Western End.

All welcome. There is no charge for attendance, but please RSVP for catering purposes.
Enquiries and RSVP to: andrew.gillett@mq.edu.au

Long version.

Daily Wisdom

2010-10-10T20:19:00.000-07:00

In addition to being an excellent collection of Manichaean documentary and literary documents, Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum (Brepols, 2006) also makes a sturdy bench for writing up birthday cards while on the move.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on 3

0/10 Bibliobloggers Share My Music Taste

2010-10-10T08:27:00.000-07:00

*Statistics may not be based on any data (like that is the first time).

The most common sorts of songs on my playlist would best be described using the terms "Euro" or "dance"/"Electro"/"Trance". The origins of this love, nay, lust, are debatable. It may be my European side, it may be my hyper persona or it may be a consequence of my simple non-existence as a present figure. But origins aside, a selection of my music (which, surely, are on par with Jim West's total depravity) include:

Contrary to popular belief, some people do in fact listen to this music without ecstasy in their system. A brief note - I like many German songs similar to these, but I have found the more German the song the more inappropriate the music video is for this blog ;)

But the eclectic person I am, I also enjoy music from around 10 years before my time. Yet needless to say, these songs on occasion may be better enjoyed updated.

Please don't hold this against me and remove me from your blog roll.

The Myth of Ancient Greece

2010-10-07T19:20:00.000-07:00

The Onion has an amazing piece on the myth of ancient Greece:

WASHINGTON—A group of leading historians held a press conference Monday at the National Geographic Society to announce they had "entirely fabricated" ancient Greece, a culture long thought to be the intellectual basis of Western civilization.

The group acknowledged that the idea of a sophisticated, flourishing society existing in Greece more than two millennia ago was a complete fiction created by a team of some two dozen historians, anthropologists, and classicists who worked nonstop between 1971 and 1974 to forge "Greek" documents and artifacts.

And to say I thought it was only Jesus, Nazareth and the Dead Sea Scrolls that were the result of mythmaking.

Ht: Exploring Our Matrix: Mythicism Vindicated

Identifcation in the Libelli

2010-10-04T04:41:00.000-07:00

In the ancient world I would imagine identifying people in formal documentation to be a very difficult task. There was no photo identification, specific addresses and after the Edict of Caracalla many couldn't resist taking the nomen Aurelius. An example of identifying individuals in the ancient world can be found in the various surviving papyri libelli. The libelli (sing. libellus) were petitions issued in the time of Decius (250), certifying an individual's loyalty to pagan religion. At its core, it involved an attested certification that the individual had offered sacrifice to the gods.

P. Wisc. 2.87 (SB 3.6826)

To those appointed in Narmouthis to oversee the sacrifices. From Aurelius Aunes son of Silvanus of the village of Narmouthis. I have always been constant in sacrificing to the gods, and now too, in your presence, I have offered sacrifice in accordance with the orders, and I have poured a libtation, and I have eaten of the sacrificial offerings. I ask you to certify this below. May you proper. I, Aunes, aged about 19 with a scar on my right elbow.
I, Aurelius Sarapodorus, have certified.
I, Aurelius Patos, have certified.
I, Aurelius ...mon, have certified.
I, Aurelius [Sera?]pion, have certified.
I, Aurelius...onius, have certified.
I, Aurelius Itonin, have certified.
The year one of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Traianus Decius Pius Felix Augustus. Pauni 10.

This libellus makes the point. We have the common familial references, the village, we have a heap of Aureliuses and we have Decius' super long name. What I like is the reference to the "scar on my right elbow" as identification. In P.Lips. 2.152 the sacrifice is certified by "Aurelios Serenus, about 60 years old with a scar on his left leg"; Aurelius Diogenes "aged 72 years, with a scar on his right eyebrow" was certified in W. Chr. 124. I wonder how we today would like to be identified by our scars?

An interesting identification is that of "Aurelia Demos, fatherless, daughter of Helen and wife of Aurelius Irenaeus."(P.Ryld. 1.12.) Hath the virgin conceived?

I hope this is a joke

2010-10-03T06:54:00.000-07:00

Jim West reports the terrible news that actor George Clooney is officially a fool. Wire Service Canada writes:

In a film written and directed by Clooney, he claims that the Roman Catholic Church and the figurehead of Jesus were knowing inventions of the Roman government in the first century B.C.E., part of a hoax designed to produce a passive, orderly society.

While the theory itself is ridiculous and unfounded, this statement by the journalist wins the prize:

While there is much historical evidence to support Clooney’s claims, his motives for revealing such potentially explosive secrets are being called into question.

Where is this historical evidence? I ask this having read every major source on the late Roman Republic and early Christian history.

Update:
On further investigation, I am suspecting it is made up. The individual who submitted the article to Newswire has repeated the same rubbish history minus references to Clooney here and here. She appears to be a conspiracy theorist at best although fellow ~~crazies~~ theorists call her "an independant information-sciences researcher."

Ridiculous 10:10 Ads

2010-10-03T01:38:00.000-07:00

This is simply ridiculous. Killing off kids in ads because they don't join in with the 10:10 campaign?

In related news

Ben Witherington Videos

2010-10-01T21:02:00.000-07:00

While Professor Ben Witherington III was downunder a few months back, he was interviewed by the guys at the Centre for Public Christianity. Two videos have been shared so far and I believe there are a few more to come.

Jesus and Wisdom from CPX on Vimeo.

If you have problems watching them on Vimeo they are also available on Youtube.

Interview with Dunn

2010-10-01T20:48:00.000-07:00

John Byron over at The Biblical World has shared an interview with James D.G. Dunn.
ht

September Rankings

2010-10-01T18:23:00.000-07:00

For all those interested, the September Biblioblog rankings are up. My lack of blogging has dropped me from around 25-26 to 40. I didn't deserve to be that high anyway ;)

Unlocking Romans

2010-09-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

While I was browsing through Koorong Bookstore I saw a copy of Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God by J.R. Daniel Kirk. I had a quick look through it and was quite impressed. I then turned to the backcover and noticed it was $55. I quickly visited BookDepository.com on my Blackberry and saw it was only $26. I really wasn't surprised to see Koorong literally twice the price. I then put the book down with a frown.

Later on I wandered into the Markdowns section of the store and saw a group of Unlocking Romans for $20 each. I quickly grabbed a copy. While I have barely broken into it, I am still impressed.

Post Round up

2010-09-21T06:37:00.000-07:00

While I have been absent the amazing posts by fellow bibliobloggers continue to roll out. Some of the noteworthy that I am finally catching up on include a lot of chatter about Dale Allison's new Jesus book Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Tim over at Earliest Christianity has shared some previews and Dr James McGrath has shared a detailed and favourable review of his advanced copy.

Mike Bird has shared a clever protest against the Papal visit to the UK and earlier this month talked the Gospel of Thomas with Paul Foster. The Bulletin for the Study of Religion has been overrun by bibliobloggers. Joel asks if conservative readings of the New Testament are circular, responding in the negative. And J.R. Daniel Kirk investigated the origin of the rumour that Mary M was a prostitute.

Early Christology was discussed with some recent reviews of Dunn's Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? via here, here and with Scot McKnight here.

Hotmail is Complete Junk (+ my new fish pics)

2010-09-07T04:06:00.000-07:00

It is. I feel like an ancient species continuing to use my hotmail account. I can live with the useless interface and extra screens before they actually let you check your email - but the fact that at least once a week I have no access to my email for a few hours is ridiculous. I would give it the flick but I really need the email account - I get many emails a day, many forwarded from other accounts, etc. I would simply forward this to a new one (does hotmail even let you do that?) but if I fail to log in often, like my other account, they will just close it and delete all 30000+ emails.

If you have any useful options please do pass them on.

I intentionally meant this post to be about my new fish but hotmail would not open meaning I could not access the photos I emailed from my phone.

*save as draft here*
The big news? I bought a fish today. A very attractive mostly-blue-but-with-some red-through-the-blue-Siamese Fighting fish. I will fix up a proper home for him tomorrow. (The photos really fail to capture the beauty of this fish.)

Paul, the Theatre and Popular Culture (Lecture)

2010-09-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

For History Week, Professor Larry Welborn will be delivering a free public lecture on Paul, the theatre and popular culture.

Details:

Wednesday 8 September 2010

6.00pm

Theatre 1, Building Y3A

Macquarie University

Free entry

Synopsis:
Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was immersed in the culture of the Greco-Roman cities where he preached. His letters draw metaphors from the stadium, the voting assembly, and the military barracks.
Paul's most fascinating metaphors are drawn from the theatre, the principle venue of public life in the first century. In his correspondence with Corinth, Paul portrays himself as a 'fool' in the mime. This lecture will combine texts with archaeological artifacts to illuminate Paul's portrait of himself as 'the fool of Christ'.

Laurence L. Welborn is Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University and Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Fordham University in New York City. Welborn received his education at Yale, Tubingen, Vanderbilt and the University of Chicago.

http://www.arts.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/news/paul,_the_theatre_and_popular_culture

Update

2010-08-26T01:57:00.000-07:00

An ATM running Windows XP

Usually when I get very busy and have no time to blog I begin to blog...rapidly. Oddly enough, I have been quite busy the past few weeks and have not been posting! I am sure this is a terrible state of affairs for the world. Some updates:

I have been busy with both academic work in addition to business deals.
I am working on a review of Mike Bird's Are You the One Who is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question(Baker Academic, 2009) which may find its way to this blog in some capacity.
D.A. Carson will be in Australia in December.
I really did see that ATM/Cash Machine running Windows XP. And it had crashed as someone was attempting to withdraw cash.
Australia still has no result from last weeks election.

Election Night is Over...

2010-08-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

...but no election winner has been called to form government.At the closing of the night, the two major parties are essentially equal. Labor has won 70 seats, the Liberal/National Coalition has won 71. Five seats are yet to be called, 76 are needed to form government. The remaining of won seats are 1 Green and 3 independents. The first indigenous Australian member was elected to parliament as a member of the Libs.

What to do?

In the upper house it seems to be the major parties, the Greens (substantially, might I add) and possibly a single Family First senator.

On the lighter side, I made the entire panel on the Channel 9 coverage of the election laugh when they read my twitter update on live national TV.

Pay $50 for your chance to possibly win $1000!

2010-08-14T18:41:00.000-07:00

Last year I had nothing nice to say about the 2010 Mythicist Prize. The competition involves writing the best essay in support of the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure. How supporting a pre-selected conclusion in exchange for cash passes as honest scholarship is something I do not comprehend.

This year the Mythicists’ Forum is mixing it up with a new competition! Prove that Jesus did exist! The competition rules are quite...interesting to say the least.

If your essay and $50 cheque made out to Rene Salm convinces four mythicists actively engaged in anti-Christian polemics that Jesus existed you may win $1000. Of course, they explicitly state that there is no guarantee that the prize will be awarded. I guess it is a win win situation...if you're Rene Salm.

HT here and here

Tagging Mithras

2010-08-09T05:39:00.000-07:00

Facebook has a new feature where it finds faces on your photos automatically and harasses you by requesting you tag the face it has located. It is creepy to say the least. This is the photo it found and asked I tag:

Mithras slaying the bull, British Museum, London

Sadly after our falling out Mithras and I are no longer facebook friends

Conspiracy as History?

2010-08-08T00:50:00.000-07:00

At the end of last year I reviewed the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story ever sold by author Acharya S/D.M. Murdock. While I have only completed the review for the first six chapters, I believe the point has been made that the book is not a work of history. A historian must be conversant with historical method, the ancient evidence and scholarly discussions. Sadly, Ms Murdock fails on all three points.

I discovered that my review was recently shared with Murdock by one of her fans. Her response:

This person's opinion is irrelevant...They just make up whatever crap comes their way - whatever it takes to shore up the faith.

When legitimate historical issues are dismissed in such a way it is not hard to understand why her attempt at history has turned out so bad. In order to push a conspiracy theory it is essential that the theorist view the evidence as irrelevant or as it was so tactfully put by Murdock, "crap". While the historian adjusts their theory in light of careful consideration of the evidence, the conspiracy theorist picks and chooses the evidence to confirm their preconceived conspiracy theory. This is evident throughout the work, whether it be simply dismissing historical sources as forgeries (e.g. Tacitus) or by being oblivious to their very existence (e.g. numerous sources on persecution of Christians, early NT manuscripts and patristic citations, etc.)

An example I raised in the review has to do with Murdock on Augustine of Hippo. Without any attached citation Murdock writes:

Furthermore, the great “Christian” saint Augustine was originally a Mandaean, i.e., a Gnostic, until 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. (60)

Every point is factually wrong. Augustine was never a Mandaean. Prior to his conversion to Christianity he was a Manichaean. There is no confusion about this in the primary historical sources- Confessions is filled with discussions and his experience with Manichaesim. Then there is the chronological impossibility of the claim. Augustine was born in AD 354 and converted to Christianity ~387. The council of Nicaea was AD 325. A yet to be born Augustine negotiating a prominent leadership position at the Council of Nicea is a hard picture to swallow. But this is what conspiracy theories masquerading as history demands of the reader.

The pre-existent Mandaean spirit of Augustine, Nicea 325

When her theories are chronologically plausible they often lack explanatory power. In the sentence immediately preceding the above on Augustine, Murdock writes that Ireaneus was actually a gnostic as there was apparently a zodiac on the floor of the church at Lyons. The problem is that Irenaeus is famous for Against the Heresies, a work defending orthodoxy against heresies including gnosticism. How does Murdock reconcile this difficulty? She just ignores it. A few pages later she writes that, "...by Irenaeus's time, around 170, the Gnostics were still so powerful that Irenaeus felt compelled to spend a great deal of effort refuting them, even though he himself was Gnostic." (68) What are we to make of this?

Maybe D.M. Murdock should take her own words seriously: "They just make up whatever crap comes their way - whatever it takes to shore up the faith."

Australian Big Cats

2010-08-06T21:26:00.000-07:00

The Australian version of the Bigfoot is probably the phenomenon of big cat sightings. Whenever news is slow a junior journalist goes on a brief search for the mysterious black panther roaming Australian bushland. The Daily Telegraph was the culprit today with this piece.

For those who have nothing better to do on a Saturday, this video (part 1 of 8) investigates the phenomenon with cheesy effects:

Evaluating the Cynic Thesis Bibliography

2010-08-06T18:11:00.000-07:00

The bibliography I shared on Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity appears to be popular. Here follows a bibliography for evaluating the so-called Cynic Jesus thesis. I have earlier shared some critical thoughts on the idea here.

Aune, David E. “Jesus and Cynics in First Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations”, in Hillel and Jesus. Eds. J.H Charlesworth et al. (Fortress Press, 1997)
Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ (Eerdmans, 2009)
Bauckham, Richard, “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John,” New Testament Studies 53, no. 1 (2007), 17-36.
Bird, Michael F. Are You the One who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. (Baker Academic, 2009)
__________. “The Formation of the Gospels in the Setting of Early Christianity: the Jesus Tradition as Corporate Memory,” Westminster Theological Journal 67.1 (2005): 113-94.
Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Dale C. Allison, “Eschatology” in Dictionary of Jesus and Gospel. Ed. Joel B. Green et al. (Invervarsity Press, 1992).
DeConick, April D. Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth. (2006, Volume 286 of Library of New Testament studies. Early Christianity in context .T & T Clark library of biblical studies)
Downing, F.G. Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (Sheffield, 1988).
_________. Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh, 1992).
Dunn, James D.G., Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making Volume 1), (Eerdmans, 2003).
Eddy, Paul R. “Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Thesis”, Journal of Biblical Literature. 115, 1996.
Evans, Craig A. “The Misplaced Jesus: Interpreting Jesus in a Judaic Context” in B. Chilton, C.A. Evans and J. Neusner, The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. (Brill Academic, 2002)
__________. “Context, Family and Formation” in Cambridge Companion to Jesus. ed. Markus Bockmuehl. (Cambridge University Press, 2001)
Gerhardsson, Birger. The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. (Hendrickson Publishers, 2001.)
G.F. Hawthorne, "Prophets" in Dictionary of Jesus and Gospels ed. Joel B. Green (InterVarsity Press, 1992)
Hock, R.F. “Cynicism”, Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman. (Doubleday, 1992)
Horsley, Richard A. “Jesus: Itinerant Cynic or Israelite Prophet?”, in Images of Jesus Today ed. J.H. Charlesworth et al. (Trinity Press, 1994)
Kirk, A, The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Brill, 1998)
Mack, Burton L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. (Fortress Press, 1988.)
__________.The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. (HarperCollins, 1993)
Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. (Regent College Publishing, 2004)
McKnight, Scot, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory. (Baylor University Press, 2005)
__________. “Jesus and Prophetic Actions”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.2 (2000) 197-232.
__________. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. (Eerdmans, 1999)
Stanton, Graham. “Message and Miracles” in Cambridge Companion to Jesus. ed. Markus Bockmuehl. (Cambridge University Press, 2001)
Kloppenborg, John. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Fortress Press, 1987.)
Vaage, Leif E. Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers According to Q. (Trinity Press International, 1992).
Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000), Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence. (Eerdmans, 2000)
Webb, Robert L., "Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications, " Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.2 (2000) 261-309.
Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. (Fortress Press, 2000) [General thesis and especially chapter three that engages the cynic question]
________. The Christology of Jesus. (Fortress Press, 1990)
________. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. (InterVarsity Press, 2007)

Blogger Statistics

2010-08-05T02:27:00.000-07:00

Recently blogger has provided a function for viewing a variety of statistics related to blog hits. For me it has added a whole new dimension to the blog. I can see what posts are being read, where people are coming from, who is referring them to me, and what people are searching to make their way here.

Those who have sent the most users here are:

James McGrath from Exploring Our Matrix. Dr McGrath is Associate Professor of Religion and Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. He blogs on a wide range of issues from NT studies to creationism. Often you will find a funny cartoon or a point you just don't want to accept.
Nick Norelli over at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. If you are after a book review or run down on quasi blood sports he is the guy to see. Despite his wishes, I am still using this sub par blogger platform.
Chuck over at A 'Goula Blogger. While I don't always know what Chuck means by his comments, he once bought me some very useful books and he is a gold mine for commentary notes.
Most recently a lot of hits came from the NT Blog aka "Mark Goodacre's academic blog. It focuses on issues of interest on the New Testament and Christian Origins." Goodacre is Associate Professor of New Testament in the Religion Department at Duke University and a name associated with "that guy who doesn't think Q existed."
Then there is Life's Crosses by Aloysius Ong. If this new feature did not exist I would not have had a clue about Ong's blog or his reference to my infamous diagram on orthodoxy and heresy from a RCC perspective.

So if you aren't already following these people, do check them out.

Most people who come to my blog through google seem to be interested in Jewish burial traditions, Geza Vermes, Gunnar Samuellsson, Walter Bauer and everything Orthodoxy and Heresy related, Kruger and Kostenberger's work The Heresy of Orthodoxy and the historicity of Jesus.

The most logical search term came through today:

why would john the baptist's remains be in bulgaria?

The short answer is most likely "they wouldn't be."

John the Baptist's Remains found in Bulgaria???

2010-08-03T14:56:00.000-07:00

Marc Cortez has the most professional insight:

So, in breaking news, archeologists have discovered a really old box that may or may not have something to do with John the Baptist and that contains bones which may very well not have belonged to John in the first place. When you say it like that, though, it’s not as exciting.

CNN report here

2010-08-03T07:13:00.000-07:00

On occasion pre-Constantine papyri can be quite profound. This late third century Greek magical papyri is not one of them - unless you are Dias, son of Sophia and suffering from a fever.

zagourepagoure

agourepagour

gourepagou

ourepagou

urepag

rupa

Master angels

and good, rid

Dias, whom

Sophia bore,

of the fever

gripping him,

on this

present day,

this very hour,

now, now quick-

ly, quickly.

Suppl. Mag 1.11

Cynic Jesus - rantish

2010-08-03T05:27:00.000-07:00

In light of some feedback I have revisited my article A Historical Critique of the Cynic Jesus (working title) which is a critical engagement with the works of F.G. Downing, Burton Mack, and to a lesser extent Leif E. Vaage and John Dominic Crossan. The draft at this time is quite sizeable yet there is just so much more that needs to be said. The real purpose of this update is some reflections on the process since it began in January. Many people have had to deal with my real life rants regarding my frustration at the thesis (hi Rob and Nic!) - from abuse of redaction criticism to simply bad analogies. I tried to blame Americans, but Dr McGrath assured me that not all of them are to blame. I could not get over the myth making of Mack and even ranted about the irony of liberal scholars being too believing at the most inappropriate times. At the end of May Dr Michael Barber was reading whatever I was reading and word-for-word (in terms of quotes) noted the The Uncritical Use of Redaction Criticism, including the warnings those drawing on Kloppenborg's stratification of Q managed to forget. To repeat them here:

“to say that the wisdom components were formative for Q and that the prophetic judgment oracles and apophthegms describing Jesus' conflict with "this generation" are secondary is not to imply anything about the ultimate tradition-historical provenance of any of the sayings. It is indeed possible, indeed probable, that some of the materials from the secondary compositional phase are dominical or at least very old, and that some of the formative elements are, from the standpoint of authenticity or tradition-history, relatively young. Tradition-history is not convertible with literary history, and it is the latter which we are treating here.”

Most recently I made light of this sort of thinking in my satirical International Project for Q discovers Non-Apocalyptic Qumran Community (featured in July's Biblical studies blog carnival hosted by Dr Jim West).

But things changed...the cynic thesis stopped sounding so ridiculous. Could it be that:

“As remembered by the Jesus people, Jesus was much more like the Cynic-teacher than either a Christ-savior or a messiah with a program for the reformation of second-temple Jewish society and religion.” (Burton Mack)
“the wealth of at least apparent ‘parallels’ between the Jesus tradition and popular Cynicism suggest that some kind of Cynic influence may well have been accepted by Jesus of Nazareth himself.” (F.G. Downing)

Unlikely. Very unlikely. The thesis continued to sound very unconvincing. However, the monochromatic view of those advancing the cynic thesis - especially with emphasising the stratification of Q as primarily sapiental, secondarily eschatological - is the very real issue that Jesus need not be confined to a single model. By emphasising the apocalyptic Jesus, there is a whole Jesus the sage out there; but emphasising Jesus the sage, there is a whole prophetic Jesus out there. As presented within the works of the Qumran sectarians, the so-called Teacher of Righteousness is presented as both prophet and authoritative teacher. E.g. CD XIII: 30-35; while like Moses he receives his teachings “from the mouth of God” (1QpHab II.2-3; cf. 1QpHab VII.5) Similarly, John the Baptist was seen as both prophet and teacher. That a charismatic figure such as Jesus was remembered in different non-exclusive roles should not be surprising, and of all of these why a cynic?

Granted that both Jesus and cynics employed aphorisms but why should this isolate Jesus from the rich Jewish Wisdom tradition? The Gospel tradition contains over one hundred aphorisms, both positive and admonitions. Old Testament and intertestamental literature including Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Sirach attest to a Jewish strand of aphorisms and Wisdom. Ben Witherington and others have convincingly argued in favour of a Jewish Wisdom tradition with which Jesus as a teacher may have self-identified. This tradition is arguably in far closer proximity to the context of Galilee, than the conjecture of Cynic influence and overt Hellenism in Lower Galilee.But it seems that most unconvicning history does away with Occam's Razor and works from the top down.

Then there are the tendentious parallels. Both Jesus and the cynics employed imagery of a birds not having store houses, F.G. Downing notes. But moving beyond the superficial, where is the similarity in meaning?

Luke 12:22-24

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! (NRSV)

Musonius 15:

Where do the little birds go to get food to feed their young, though they're much worse off than you are - the swallows and nightingales and larks and blackbirds? Do they store food away in safekeeping?

As Julian notes, “the end and aim of Cynic philosophy…is happiness…that consist in living according to nature and not according to the opinions of the multitude.” Through this mode the cynics strived for αύταρκεία yet we find Jesus here exhorting total dependence on God. If God provides for the birds, how much more will he provide for you? This metaphor is continued with imagery that draws no apparent parallel to Cynicism, and forms a common part of the Jesus tradition such as in the Lord’s prayer.

Then there is the Achilles heal where Downing notes that Q is most incompatible with Jesus as Cynic on the grounds of “healing, exorcism and eschatology.” However, these three elements are widely believed to have been essential to the preaching, teaching and ministry Jesus yet draw no analogy to Cynicism.

So again, why the Cynic model? It is historically probable that Jesus was perceived by his contemporaries as a prophet and with lesser certainity ihe self-identified in this fashion. It is widely attested to, it was not a chief Christology of significance to the later early church. Outside the gospels, it is found in the early preaching of Peter in Acts such as at 3:22-6 which probably reflect pre-Lukan Jerusalem Christian preaching. The Gospels report that Jesus was viewed by his contemporaries as a prophet, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.” (Matt 21:11). Jesus refers to himself as a prophet directly and indirectly, such as in Mark 6:4 and parallels. That Jesus was perceived as a prophet appears to be firmly established, however, this leads to the question of what sort of prophet? Is Mack correct in his contention in seeing “Cynics as the Greek analogue to the Hebrew prophets”? In terms of social criticism, there is analogy however superficial. Yet to see Jesus only as a prophet within the Old Testament tradition is misleading by omission. I would suggest that Jesus be best seen within the tradition of first century Jewish prophetic figures characterised as: “in contrast to the behaviors of the prophets of ancient Israel, the Jewish leadership prophets frequently embodied acts of eschatological liberation and restoration. Some of these actions intended to usher in the new age; put in other categories, they saw themselves inaugurating the Age to Come.” (Scot McKnight)

This eschatology of liberation, restoration and the new age is evident in viewing Jesus’ teachings, especially in light of his relationship with John the Baptist. Most scholars agree that Jesus was in some sense involved with the eschatological renewal movement of John the Baptist. The historical foundations for this relationship are firm, and are inconsistent with the broad method and results of the Cynic thesis. Jesus’ Baptism is multiply attested (Mark 1:9-11 and par ; Luke 3:16//Matthew 3:11; John 1:29-34), they were probably an issue of embarrassment (Jesus was not just subordinated to the Baptist but the ritual was related to repentance for the forgiveness of sins Mark 1:4.) The purpose of John’s preaching and baptism is important. John was perceived as a prophet who preached repentance (Q 7:3-9) and the coming of another coming figure (Luke 3:16-17). Five elements can be found in John’s expected figure: “(1) his activities include judgment and restoration; (2) he is coming; (3) he is mighty (i.e., mightier than John); (4) he will baptize with holy spirit and fire, and (5) his judgment and restoration are portrayed using imagery of the threshing floor.” It is therefore probable that Jesus’ involvement with the Baptist set him on a trajectory inconsistent with that of a wandering Hellenistic countercultural Cynic. Jesus moved forward with John’s vision of a reconstituted Israel initiated through baptism and continued to identify Israel’s need to repent. This renewal and the Kingdom will not just be present but it will be in the future. The Q tradition (Matt 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29) utilising apocalyptic imagery talks of the future Kingdom in terms of an eschatological banquet where those from east and west will join. In short, while not John the Baptist redivivus it does demonstrate historically probable inconsistencies with the Cynic view.

Okay, that turned really ranty.

Interview with Simon Gathercole on G.Thomas and G.Judas

2010-08-03T02:35:00.000-07:00

Over at Justin Taylor's blog is a short interview by Andy Naselli with Simon J. Gathercole on the Gospel of Judas and Gospel of Thomas. (ht) It touches on the missing gospels fad touched on in my even shorter interview with Darrell Bock. Naselli has also asked a few questions of T.D. Alexander on biblical theology. While on the topic of Gospel Coalition blogs, shouldn't the latest Themelios be out by now?

2010-07-30T19:24:00.001-07:00

I got a Blackberry this week as a form of protest against the new iPhone that was released here yesterday. Okay, not really as a protest. It is an excellent phone that allows me to write this post from it without any hassles. Regarding my blog the best benefit will be excellent quality phone pictures.

Things possibly worth clicking...

2010-07-22T07:40:00.000-07:00

Professor Larry Hurtado has shared a review essay for the Journal of Theological Studies on James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus. See here and the essay page here.
Paul Barnett's approach to historical Jesus studies has been examined in the most recent volume of American Theological Inquiry in the essay "Paul Barnett and the Logic of History: Some Problems With His Approach to the Historical Jesus" which coincides with a recent RBL review of Barnett's Finding the Historical Christ here.
Diglot/Kevin has critically reviewed Paul Tobin, "The Bible and Modern Scholarship" from The Christian Delusion in some detail here.
Paul Anderson's recent Bible and Interpretation essay has been discussed around the place and Brian LePort has collected a few links over at Near Emmaus

On a more personal note, it has come to my attention that I have not updated my currently reading list over there -> in a long time. Other than that it seems all is well in the world (except at Exploring our Matrix where you still cannot comment.)

A Fourth Quest? John and History

2010-07-21T10:21:00.000-07:00

Paul Anderson has an article over at The Bible and Interpretation

In that sense, the John, Jesus and History Project—as well as my own work on the Fourth Gospel and the quest for Jesus—is driven by the judgment that the first three quests for Jesus have overlooked an extremely important resource: the Gospel of John as an independent Jesus tradition, which, though highly theological, also has its own worthy claims to historicity.

Anderson challenges standard authenticity criteria as being synoptic centred and goes on to make a number of proposals to take John seriously.

James McGrath (in his new look blog) has taken up the issue in some detail here
.
HT

Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered

2010-07-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered edited by Gary Habermas and Robert Stewart was released at the beginning of this month. I believe the title makes the point of the book. Contributors include Markus Bockmuhel, Scot McKnight, Samuel Byrskog, Craig Blomberg, Ben Witherington , Craig A. Evans and more. Many of the essays focus on Dunn's proposals on oral transmission, although they also include the birth narratives, implications of textual criticism and the resurrection.

Robert H. Stein on the Empty Tomb

2010-07-15T00:01:00.000-07:00

As far as I am aware, "Was the tomb really empty?" by Robert H. Stein appears in three places. (1) Journal of the Evangelical Theologicla Society, 20, 1977, pp.23-29, (2) Themelios 5.1 (September 1979): 8-12. and (3) The Historical Jesus: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies (Vol. III Jesus' Mission, Death and Resurrection) ed. Craig A. Evans, 324-331. For the sake of simplicity, I will follow the numbering of the Themelios publication as it is freely available online here.

For Stein, the resurrection is fundamental to historical and contemporary Christian faith. For "Evangelical apologetics" there are four features to support the "historicity, the 'facticity', of the resurrection." (10) There are the resurrection appearances, the existence of the Christian church, "the existential experience of the risen Christ in the heart of the believer" and, finally, the witness to the empty tomb. It should be noted that Stein sees the resurrection appearances as the primary witness to the resurrection, as the narratives themselves testify that the empty tomb need not necessitate resurrection.(Luke 24:21-24, Jn. 20:13)

The purpose of the article is dealing with the final point in light of claims that the empty tomb was secondary in explaining the resurrection appearances. He has in mind Rudolf Bultmann who wrote, "The Story of the empty tomb is completely secondary.... The story is an apologetic legend as Mark 16: 8... clearly shows. Paul knows nothing about the empty tomb." (The History of the Synoptic Tradition. p. 290.)

Stein has a number of reasons that "support the fact that the Christian tradition of the empty tomb is very early and that the tomb in which the body of Jesus was placed was indeed empty."(11)

The story of the empty tomb is in three gospel sources - Mark, M and John. The variance in these accounts arise suggest independent traditions.
"Semitisms and Semitic customs" in the narratives indicate early Palestinian origin (Mark 16:2, Matthew 28:2-5, Luke 24:5.)
"Jewish belief in the resurrection necessitated an empty tomb" therefore in Jerusalem, especially among Pharasaic and Christina Jews, requires an empty tomb.
The early church would be unlikely to create women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb as their testimony "since women were invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence." A created story would probably have male disciples as the primary witnesses.
The Jewish polemic confirms the empty tomb "indicates that the account of the empty tomb had from the very beginning an important place in the early Church's proclamation of the resurrection." (12)
The firm tradition regarding Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43-46; Matt. 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-53; Jn. 19:38-42) has a number of implications. (1) Joseph was not a prominent Christian personality so an unlikely invention and (2) the tomb would have been identifiable.
The tradition of the empty tomb on the first day of the week is probably the event that shifted Christian religious observance from Saturday to Sunday
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 speaks of Jesus being "buried", the empty tomb is implied in the resurrection. As a Pharisee, Paul knew physical resurrection that necessitates the empty tomb.
There are also a few linguistic arguments provided.

Stein makes an interesting proposal for Paul's silence on the empty tomb:

It may be that the lack of a specific reference to the empty tomb by Paul stems from an apologetic motive rather than from ignorance. When it came to the resurrection appearances, the apostle could argue on equal terms with the other disciples. He, too, had seen the Lord! He could not, however, say the same about the empty tomb. Perhaps this is the reason why he does not refer to it specifically in his letters. (12)

Geza Vermes, "Six Theories to Explain the Resurrection of Jesus"

2010-07-14T08:35:00.000-07:00

For many years scholars waited for Geza Vermes' contribution to the resurrection of Jesus, and he came around in 2008 with The Resurrection. First of all, at only $6 it is recommended for those interested in the resurrection narratives, beliefs and the historical background (more so than a historical hypothesis on the resurrection).

Vermes contends that neither the empty tomb or resurrection appearances satisfy the "minimum requirements of a legal or scientific inquiry. The only alternative historians are left with in their effort to make some sense of the Resurrection is to fall back on speculation..."(141) This speculation requires the dismissal of "two extreme" theories - (1) the "blind faith of the fundamentalist" who accept the bodily resurrection and (2) the "unbelievers" who "treat the whole Resurrection story as the figment of early Christian imagination." (141) So what are the alternatives between this spectrum?

1. The Body was Removed by Someone Unconnected with Jesus
The emptiness of the tomb was genuine, but there are a number of reasons aside from Mark 16:6. The swift nature of the burial in a tomb "obviously prepared for someone else" is explained that someone - possibly the gardener (Jn 20:15) - "took the first opportunity to move the body of Jesus to another available tomb." (142) It was this innocent transfer of the body that later developed into the "legend of the Resurrection." (143) Vermes notes that this is itself problematic - those who organised the burial were well known and could have explained this.

2. The Body of Jesus was Stolen by His Disciples
Those familiar with the narrative in Matthew will recognise this hypothesis as a current polemic against the empty tomb tradition (Matt 28:15). Vermes points out that this theory "presupposes that a fraudulent prophecy concerning Jesus' rising from the dead was widely known among Palestinian Jews." (143) Evidently, this is a "later Jewish gossip" circulating the time the evangelist was writing and its value for the Resurrection is "next to nil".

3. The Empty Tomb was not the Tomb of Jesus
Drawing on the fact that the witness of women was not very convincing, the disciples who investigated the report of the empty tomb (Luke 24:11) may have suspected the women had "gone to the wrong tomb." The disciples may have simply been mistaken, and the resurrection appearances that soon followed "rendered such an inquiry [as to the location of the tomb] superfluous." (144)

4. Buried Alive, Jesus Later Left the Tomb
This is self-explanatory, and is elaborately forwarded by Barbara Thiering. Josephus' Life 420 evidences crucifixion victims surviving. The theory is that Jesus was on the cross for such a short time that he was not dead when Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body. John's mention of the spear in the side was an apologetic to dispel these sort of doubts. (John 19:34) However, I would argue that John's mention, if invention, would have more to do with suffering servant styled prophecy fulfilled. Vermes sees this as implausible - a "semiconscious Jesus crept out of the tomb in the darkness of night..." (145)

5. The Migrant Jesus
A belief evident in contemporary Ahmadiyya Islam which believes Jesus was revived and eventually died in Kashmir, India. Others such as Thiering believe that Jesus wandered off to Rome where he died. Vermes concludes "In the absence of real ancient evidence, these modern musings need not retain us."(146) By real evidence, he is of course referring to Thiering's discovery by using "Pesher" to find whatever she wants in whatever document. For a brief review of pesher see my earlier post.

6. Do the appearances suggest spiritual, not bodily, resurrection?
Visions of the risen Jesus are abundant in the Christian sources (with a notable exception being the shorter ending of Mark.) These visions are separated into 4 categories:

"In Matthew no concrete details are given"
John/Luke - unknown man such as the gardener and travel are later recognised as Jesus
Luke/John - "a spirit mysteriously enters the apostles' residence despite the locked doors"
"The ghost later becomes a stranger with flesh and bones, who says he is Jesus and invited the apostles to touch him, and eat with him." (146)

As the evangelists do not mention appearances to people outside the circle of his close followers Vermes takes these to imply that the Resurrection was not meant to be an extension of public ministry. In essence, the "Resurrection becomes a purely spiritual concept without requiring any accompanying physical reality." (147) The idea of spiritual resurrection accounts for the visions, but the Jewish bond of body and spirit spurred the empty tomb and physicality of the body in John and Luke. In appealing to the mystic tradition, Vermes contends that this view is no different from crosscultural experiences. [I didn't explain this option best although in my defence neither does Vermes.]

Conclusions
Vermes really does come to something quite unsatisfying - "All in all, none of the six suggested theories stands up to stringent scrutiny." (148)

Burial of Jesus and Jewish burial traditions - C.A Evans "Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus", JSHJ

2010-07-13T03:08:00.000-07:00

In 2005, Volume 3(2) of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus was dedicated to engaging the resurrection with an emphasis on the treatment by N.T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God. The articles are well worth the read and they cover a wide perspective of views. This post contains my notes on Craig A. Evans' article "Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus" from the aforementioned volume.

Abstract

The burial of Jesus, in light of Jewish tradition, is almost certain for at least two reasons: (1) strong Jewish concerns that the dead—righteous or unrighteous—be properly buried; and (2) desire to avoid defilement of the land. Jewish writers from late antiquity, such as Philo and Josephus, indicate that Roman officials permitted executed Jews to be buried before nightfall. Only in times of rebellion— when Roman authorities did not honour Jewish sensitivities—were bodies not taken down from crosses or gibbets and given proper burial. It is highly improbable, therefore, that the bodies of Jesus and the other two men crucified with him would have been left unburied overnight, on the eve of a major Jewish holiday, just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Scholarly discussion of the resurrection of Jesus should reckon with the likelihood that Jesus was buried in an identifiable tomb, a tomb that may well have been known to have been found empty.

Evans' concern is that scholars do not always sufficiently address the Jewish practices of death and burial in treatments of the resurrection. For example, Crossan's suggestion that, in line with Roman practices, Jesus was not given a customary Jewish burial. If Jesus was not properly buried, the stories of the empty tomb are simply theology and apologetics.

The Necessity of Burial in Jewish Thinking

In the Mediteranean world at the time, burial of the dead was a "sacred duty". For Jewish culture, this is well attested to in scripture (Gen 23:4-19, 50:4-14, 50:22-26 Joshua 24:32 1 Sam 31:12-13, 2 Sam 2:4-5, 21:12-14) which even extends to the "wicked" and enemies of Israel (Numbers 11:33-34, Deut 21:22-23, 1 Kings 11:15, Ezekiel 39:11-16). In Tobit, Tobit's greatest virtue is burying the dead (1.18-20, 2.3-8; 4.3-4; 6.15; 14.10-13). These buried also include those that were executed (Tobit 2:3) Similarly, Josephus states "We must fumish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied show consideration even to declared enemies' (Apion 2.29 §211; cf 2.26 §205).(236) The importance is also evident in the rabbinic writings where even a Nazarie or High Priest is obligated to bury an abandoned body (B. Meg. 3b, Sipre Num on Numbers 6:6-8) The importance of this is set against the backdrop of those who will not be buried, often in relation to eschatological warnings. E.g. Moses' warning to Israel that birds will consume their unburied bodies ((Deut. 28:25-26) or Jeremiah's warning (Jer. 7:33)
Burial is also important "to avoid defilement of the land of Israel" (236) See Deut. 21:22-23; Ezekiel 39:14, 16 which is expanded in the Temple Scroll 11QT 64.7-13a. "In Deuteronomy it simply says, 'you shall bury him the same day'; but the Temple Scroll adds 'you must not let their bodies remain on the tree overnight'. The reason given for taking the bodies down and burying them the day (or evening) of death is to avoid defiling the land, for the executed person is 'cursed of God'." (237) On various fragmentary DSS he believes that while God will give them victory of the Romans, the High Priest will still need to oversee the burial of the bodies to save the land from defilement. In the Mishnah one hanged must not be left over night, but not buried in the "place of their fathers" but a place allocated for criminals. After decomposition, the bones may then be taken to the family burial place. (m. Sanh. 6.4-6). He concludes, "even in the case of the executed criminal, proper burial was anticipated. Various restrictions may have applied, such as being forbidden burial in one's family tomb—at least until the fiesh had decomposed— or not being allowed to moum publicly, but burial was to take place, in keeping with the scriptural command of Deut. 21.22-23 and the Jewish customs that had grown up alongside it." (238)

Burial and Non-Burial of Executed Criminals
Deals with objection to the gospel narratives that appeal to the Roman practice of non-burial. Evans wishes to question the assumption that the practices of Rome during the siege of Jerusalem is indicative of normal Roman practices in Palestine. He contends that a review of Josephus shows this to be an exception from normal practices.

Josephus mentions many mass executions/crucifixions but does not mention the burial. This may be indicative of an assumption that they would not have been buried. Cases explicitly mentioning no burial are those of executions by Jewish rebels. On this behaviour Josephus remarked 'Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset." (240) These cases, however, are not representative of peace time Roman administration.
Josephus and Philo suggest that Roman administration did not interferece with Jewish customs; for example John the Baptist's disciples are allowed to bury his body (Mark 6:14-29; Ant 18.5.2). Roman law also provided that "those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives" (Digesta 48.24.2). That said, non-burial was often part of the punishment of crucifixion, but would this still apply in peace time?
Conclusions: In all probability Jesus and the two others crucified would have been buried, especially with concern of defilement of the land. Furthermore, politically Pilate would not have wished to provoke the Jewish population, nor would the Jewish authorities.

Gospel Narratives
"The Gospels' portrait of the execution of Jesus is consistent with what we know of crucifixion." (241) And the judicial procedure is very similar to that of Jesus ben Ananias 30 years later (Josephus, War 6.5.3 §§300-309). The ossuary of a crucified man c.20CE (Ossuary no. 4. in Tomb I, at Giv'at ha-
Mivtar) - evidences nailed feet (although not nailed hands/wrists which is evidenced in literary sources); broken legs, possibly to hasten death. And this, and other tombs, evidence the burial of execution victims. He returns to the archaeological evidence in 246-7, that a lack of other crucifixion victims buried has many explanations.

Some historical probable elements of the narrative:

The story of Joseph of Arimathea at its core is probably historical. At the core, he may have volunteered or been assigned to the burial.
"The story of the women who witness Jesus' burial and then return early on Sunday to anoint his body smacks of historicity." (245). The women's prominent position in the narrative is unlikely to be fictitious. "Carefully observing where Jesus is buried and then retuning on Sunday morning to confirm and even mark, for identification, his corpse, is in keeping with Jewish burial customs." (246)
Pre-Pauline 1 Cor 15:4 evidences the burial and elsewhere Paul presupposes the burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

Conclusions

It is concluded that it is very probable that Jesus was buried, in keeping with Jewish customs, and was not left hanging on his cross, nor was cast into a ditch, exposed to animals. It is further concluded that it is very probable that some of Jesus' followers (such as the women mentioned in the Gospel accounts) knew where Jesus' body had been placed and intended to mark the location, perfume his body, and moum, in keeping with Jewish customs. The intention was to take possession of Jesus' remains, at some point in the future, and transfer them to his family burial place.
In my estimation, discussion of the resurrection of Jesus should take into account a known place of burial. Interpretation of the resurrection should take into account, not only Jewish beliefs about resurrection, but Jewish beliefs about death and burial. (247-8)

Burial of Jesus in Dunn, "Jesus Remembered"

2010-07-12T23:44:00.000-07:00

While making little mention of the burial of Jesus in an earlier treatment of the resurrection, Dunn addresses the assertion of Crossan and others that Jesus was not buried. Against this view, Dunn contends that "the tradition is firm that Jesus was given a proper burial (Mark 15:42-47 pars.), and there are good reasons why its testimony should be respected." (781) There are a number of reasons as to why this is so:

It is one of the oldest traditions we have available to us about Jesus 1 Cor. 15:4 and like in the narrative accounts, it is not drawn from scripture.
Jewish law required the body be removed before nightfall (Deut 21:22-23; Josephus Wars 4.317) and Passover was a sensitive time meaning the Romans would probably hold to it.
Literary and archaeological evidence of crucifixion victims being buried - Philo, Flacc. 83, Josephus Life 420, the disciples of John in Mark 6:29; Crucified man in family tomb discovered at Giv'at ha-Mivtar.
Joseph of Arimathea is a plausible historical character (Mark 15:43 pars; G. Peter 2:3-5), unlikely to create a sympathiser from among the Jewish council, Arimathea has no scriptural significance.
Presence of women at the cross and their involvement in the burial - "more plausibly [attributed] to early oral memory than creative story telling" (783)

Resurrection in Dunn "The Evidence for Jesus"

2010-07-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

I have recently been working on the burial and resurrection traditions and a number of treatments of these. I might as well share my notes on some of these for all those interested (and I know at least one person around here has written a book on the subject.)

James D.G. Dunn discusses the resurrection in a number of works that I will later discuss (namely, Jesus Remembered and Jesus and the Spirit). This first post will set out his position as presented in the shorter popular level book The Evidence for Jesus (1985).

What did the first Christians believe about the resurrection?
Dunn begins with a short(ish) discussion on the nature of history and that the historians task is to provide a reconstruction on the available data. This reconstruction will always risk being imperfect - it is an event in the past that cannot be repeated. The data/evidence is never enough.

Reports of the Empty Tomb
Dunn points to the gospel accounts of the empty tomb - Matt 28.1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 23.1-11, John 20:1-10. (57) There are inconsistencies with these accounts at different levels: Matt has two women discover the tomb/Mark has three/ John has one; was it discovered before dawn (Matt, John) or after dawn (Mark)? When was the stone rolled back? Did the women tell the other disciples of the discovery or not? Dunn contends that these inconsistencies are insufficient to dismiss the accounts, the litmus test being "is the degree of confusion more or less than we might expect where the participants were very emotionally involved?" (64) Secondly, are these differences any more significant than those we would usually find in the synoptic gospels? Furthermore, what do we make of Paul's silence on the empty tomb?

Dunn provides four key arguments in favour of the authenticity of the Gospel's testimony of the empty tomb.

Discovery by women - all the gospels testify to the discovery of the empty tomb by women, in the historical context the testimony of women was not worth as much as a man's. It is unlikely that a contrived story would attribute the discovery of the empty tomb to women, especially if there was a high chance of their testimony being rejected. (65)
"The confusion between the different accounts in the Gospels does not appear to have been contrived. The conflict of testimony is more a mark of the sincerity of those from whom the testimony was derived than a mark against their veracity." (65) The hallmark of a created witness would be a unified testimony. In Mark the empty tomb is ambiguous and does not lead directly to the realisation of resurrection. While the early creed of 1 Cor 15 has no empty tomb but has resurrection appearances, but Mark has an empty tomb and no resurrection appearances - both were independent in some sense and not contrived to apologise for or expand the other.
Archaeology and burial practices. From the evidence we can say that resurrection beliefs had a lot to do with bones in tombs. "It follows that in Palestine the ideas of resurrection and of empty tomb would naturally go together for many people. But this also means that any assertion that Jesus had been raised would be unlikely to cut much ice unless his tomb was empty." (67) Without an empty tomb, the claim of resurrection would not stand and even the Jewish polemics at the time of Matthew witness this (Matt. 28:13-15)
No tomb veneration - although this was current among Jewish contemporaries (e.g. Matt 23:29) This lack of veneration is explained quite easily: "The tomb was not venerated, it did not become a place of pilgrimage, because the tomb was empty!" (68)

The verdict on the empty tomb: "As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that its emptiness was a factor in the first Christians' belief in the resurrection of Jesus."(68)

Resurrection Appearances
The chief narrative data for the "sightings" are Matthew and Luke. Matthew contains two sightings in Matt. 28:8-10 and Matt 28:16-20. In addition to those there is the Emmaus appearance (Luke 24.13-35); an allusion to an appearance to Peter (Luke 24:34) and an explicit appearance to the disciples as a group (Luke 24:36-43.) In John there is Mary M at the tomb (John 20:11-18), an appearance to the disciples w/o Thomas (Jn 20:19-23), Thomas with the disciples (Jn 20:24-29) and a Galilee appearance (John 21:1-23). Finally, there are the sightings in the pre-Pauline creed of 1 Cor. 15:3-8.

Like the empty tomb tradition, there is some confusion such as with the when/where of the appearances. Were there Galilean appearances or were they only in Jerusalem? Of the five traditions Dunn notes that "Each contain one or more reports of which the others make no mention. Indeed, almost the only common ground between two or more is that (1) the earliest appearances were to
women (Matthew and John), (2) one of the first appearances was to Peter (Luke 24.34; I Cor. 15.5), and (3) there was one or more appearances to 'the twelve' (all five, including Acts 1.2-3 and I Cor.
15.5)." (69)

Dunn provides three positive considerations for the resurrection appearances.

The earliest testimony is very early. Paul recorded the 1 Cor 15 creed in the 50s while those purporting to be witnesses would still be alive. By providing the appearances Paul is inviting cross examination. Furthermore, the creed is itself is what Paul had earlier received. Most likely within 2-3 years of the crucifixion/resurrection when Paul converted.
First sightings reported by the women, as with point 1 for empty tomb. For these reasons it is most likely authentic, and the omission in 1 Cor 15 may reflect a bias in including them as witnesses in the "fairly formal list".
As for note two under empty tomb - the divergence in the appearances does not reflect a uniform contrived story. The inclusion of unresolved doubt in Matt 28:17 whereas Luke and John resolve the doubt. In Matthew it is is not a literary technique but "it was introduced simply because it was part of the original eyewitness testimony." (70) The honesty of confusion and doubt in the appearances is in favour of authenticity.

How do the alternative explanations to the resurrection appearances stack up? Drawing parallels with visions of Isis and Asclepius are insufficient. Dreams of Asclepius, for example, were conditioned and a prerequisite of the healing. The psychological process for the disciples visions would be more complicated, and require more speculative theories. Dunn suggests closer parallals would be found in Jewish visionary experiences- such as those of dead Jewish heroes in near/contemporary literature. However, these visionary experiences never lead to the conclusion that the figure was raised from the dead. It is this conclusion, more so than the visions themselves, that set the story of Jesus apart. He points out that in 1 Cor 15 Paul sets his own appearance apart from those that came before him.

Circumstantial evidence:

Up to the crucifixion, the disciples were demoralised - Peter disowned Jesus (Mark 15:66-72), the disciples on the road to Emmaus lamented (Luke 24:21) and the disciples returned to Galilee lacking purpose (John 21:2-3). This is in contrast to the disciples as presented in Acts as bold and charismatic individuals. According to the preaching, it is the resurrection of Jesus that was the source of this transformation. "From the Christian perspective 'the resurrection of Jesus' is a central part of that explanation." (60)
"But already within the first generation of Christianity we see Jesus being spoken of in divine terms."(61) But why? "For Paul the Christian, confession of Jesus as Lord evidently
arose out of belief that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10.9)." (62)

Resurrection redefined
Dunn emphasises the innovation regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Firstly, although many Jews at the time held to a resurrection belief, this belief was a "final" and "general" resurrection at the "end of history" (72, cf. Daniel 12:12). However, the Christian's belief was that Jesus was resurrected before the end. Secondly, "the first Christians believed that with Jesus' resurrection the general resurrection had already begun." (73) Romans 1:4 has Jesus resurrection as "the resurrection of the dead" and 1 Cor 15:20-23 describes Jesus resurrection as the "first fruits" for all; it was "the beginning of the harvest." This understanding is incompatible with the visionary claims as it is from these sightings that the first Christians came to believe "that God had actually begun the resurrection of the dead is without any real precedent." (73)

This brings us to the meaning of resurrection and the NT writer's conception of a resurrected body.

Luke - a very physical body (Luke 24:39)
Paul - distinguishes between the "body of this life (='physical or natural body') and the resurrection body (= 'spiritual body') (I Cor. 15.42-46). And he concludes his discussion on the
point with the ringing declaration: 'I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God . . .' (I Cor. 15.50). What Luke affirms (Jesus' resurrection body was flesh and bones) Paul denies (the resurrection body is not composed of flesh and blood)!" (74) How do we reconclise this? In 1 Cor 15 Paul was addressing a Greek audience who were not fans of bodily resurrection. However, Paul continues to emphasise the bodily aspect but there is both continuity and discontinuity.

Conclusions
Dunn lists five conclusions to take away from his examination.

It is impossible to deny that the origins of Christianity lie in some visionary experience of Jesus that lead to the belief that God raised Jesus.
The empty tomb was a "contributory fact" to this belief "
In the terms Paul has given us, Christian belief in resurrection is not properly speaking belief in a physical resurrection. Nor is it properly speaking belief in immortality (the true 'me' will never die). The Christian believes rather that death is followed by resurrection more in the sense of recreation." (75-6)
(1) At the historical level it is hard to explain the resurrection belief w/o the empty tomb but (2) at the theological level it is not necessary. But as both these statements can be made independently, they both strengthen the historical and theological significance. Evidently, whether one emphasises one or the other should not mean they are breaching orthodoxy.
The Christian interpretation of the data (empty tomb/appearances) that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of the alternatives.

Sorry if this needs to be proof read but it is 2.30am here and they are mostly for my own benefit. Next posts will probably be on the Markan burial tradition, Fitzmyer's discussion in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series) or an almost completed review of The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus