Category Archives: contemporary commentary

The heart of the matter

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Follies of Christianity, Jesus-skepticism | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

From time to time on this website I have reiterated the essence of the Christian religion: baptism, a sacrament involving immersion in running water where “water” symbolizes gnosis and “baptism” signifies conversion, enlightenment, and resurrection all in one. Baptism was the first Christian sacrament and for a long time the only one. It appeared among the Naṣarene Christians once the symbolic equivalence water = gnosis was firmly established, probably by the turn of the era. However, conversion, enlightenment, and resurrection are (and can only be) private. Originally, the sacrament of baptism was a ritual, a public acknowledgment, affirmation, and celebration of those all-important private transformations. Only later was baptism itself endowed with quasi-magical properties when it became a ceremony of … Continue reading →

The “alternative chronology” and Yeshu ha-Notsri—An update

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Yeshu ha-Notsri | Leave a reply
Reply

Yeshu didn’t exist? Since the 2015 publication of my second book, several treatments of the thesis that the Hasmonean figure Yeshu ha-Notsri was the founder of Christianity have appeared in print. They appear to be responses to, or inspired by, posts on this blog and perhaps also to the final chapter of NazarethGate, entitled “In Search of the Rejected Seer.” At seventy-five pages, that chapter remains the most detailed investigation of the Yeshu-was-Jesus thesis (also referred to as the “alternative chronology”). One of the recent treatments of the alternative chronology is A. Jordan’s book entitled Jesus the Nazarene, reviewed on this website in several posts beginning here. Though methodologically flawed, Jordan’s book represents a first step in grappling with the … Continue reading →

Blog returning to sleep mode…

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary, mythicism, Salm | 3 Replies
3

In March 2022 I began the latest series of posts, “A New Account of Christian Origins.” Numbering sixteen entries, the series has covered a lot of territory—from my views regarding the emergence of the Catholic religion in the middle of the second century CE, to the non-existence of Paul, of Marcion, and of the earliest Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna). While freely admitting that I may not be correct regarding all of these propositions, I am fairly confident that the most important will stand the test of time. At the very least, the onus is shifting onto the tradition to demonstrate to an increasing number of skeptics that the major figures in … Continue reading →

Nazareth update

Posted on by
Posted in Archeology, contemporary commentary, Nazareth | Leave a reply
Reply

Ken Dark For the last couple of years I have refrained from commenting on Prof. Ken Dark’s 2020 book, The Sisters of Nazareth Convent: A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth. Already in 2006 Dark wrote that his goal in examining the Sisters of Nazareth site over several summers was to produce “a book-length report—fully illustrated with detailed scale drawings and photographs—covering all of the data.” I have already extensively rebutted Dark’s claims of a first century dwelling on the site, both in my book NazarethGate (Chapter 6) and also online (academia.edu). The Sisters of Nazareth Convent is located about 100m west of the Church of the Annunciation. No one (not even Dark) contests the presence of a … Continue reading →

Baker Books proposes a new time-shift

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

A reader (thank you, Alan) recently apprized me of a book hot off the press (May 3, 2022): Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (RDNT), by Dr. Jonathan Bernier. According to the Amazon page, the book proposes that the New Testament was written twenty to thirty years earlier than traditionally thought, that is, towards the middle of the first century CE! I’d like to mention that the publisher, Baker Books, is a conservative Christian imprint on whose welcome page we read: Baker Books has a vision for building up the body of Christ through books that are relevant, intelligent, and engaging. We publish titles for lay Christians on topics such as discipleship, apologetics, spirituality, relationships, marriage, parenting, and the … Continue reading →

The obliteration of Gnosticism from early Christian history (cont.)

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary | 2 Replies
2

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 6 “At Alexandria [before c. 200 CE] it was hard to differentiate between gnostic and Christian doctrines…” The statement dates to 1986 and is by Robert M. Grant (d. 2014), the ‘dean’ of Early Christian History for a whole generation. Grant’s distinction between “gnostic” and “Christian” doctrines has been, and still is, typical of the field—and so wrong! By and large, the Gnostics considered themselves the true Christians: …There is much evidence to show that in the Roman Empire, at least, the Manichaeans considered themselves to be Christians, nay, the true Christians, while they condemned the Catholics for “judaizing,” and hence for being unfaithful to the true doctrine of Christ.     [G. Stroumsa, in: The Roots … Continue reading →

John the Baptist in Josephus—Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Josephus, The first century | 3 Replies
3

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 2 The Authenticity of John the Baptist in Josephus (continued) Arguments for inauthenticity By his own admission, Kirby’s points are indecisive as regards the authenticity or inauthenticity of the John the Baptist passage in Josephus (Ant. 18.116-119; Whiston’s chapter 18.5.2). In the second half of his article he argues mainly against Frank Zindler (The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, pp. 88–99), who raised a number of points against authenticity. Kirby also argues against Robert Price, citing rebuttals by Maurice Casey (d. 2014). This is revealing, for Casey believed “that the documents on Jesus of greatest historical value are the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles.” Right. The Pauline epistles have next to nothing … Continue reading →

The Hermann Detering Legacy/2—Curriculum Vitae to 2005

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Paul | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

This is the first of several posts that will review Dr. Detering’s life and scholarship according to the available material on- and offline. It is carried out from afar and in an admittedly impromptu manner. I invite readers to add data, links, or corrections—simply send me an email with the information and I will consider adding it to the CV. The Wikipedia article (German here) is a good place to begin, and Detering’s own brief VITA in German is on his website here. These posts are deceptively short. However, they are dense with links that offer the interested reader avenues to explore a good deal of material. If possible, I would like to add a personal impression of Dr. Detering’s … Continue reading →

An immodest proposal: Lock ’em up!

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Politics | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

Some good friends recently sent me the following recommendation: We the People of these United States—319 million of us, give or take a few hundred thousand—should locate the 500 richest Americans and gather them into one place. That shouldn’t be too hard. A single large room will be sufficient to seat those 500 persons. Once they are together, we can ask those wealthiest individuals a few questions. The first is: Why should I work for you? It’s a simple question. Not complicated. The People can listen attentively to the reply from the super-rich, some of whom might, however, respond boorishly: “If you don’t work for me, I’ll cut off your head.” Such a response, of course, would not be a … Continue reading →

Truth matters: By the numbers Donald Trump LOST

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Politics | 3 Replies
3

The “evidence” of the recent election is already almost completely forgotten. By the numbers, Donald Trump LOST. Few people have bothered to inquire into the shenanigans in the swing states that bear out this conclusion. But it’s patent. If there were an accurate count, I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary Clinton would win—both the popular and the electoral vote. Hands down. But, of course, there wasn’t an accurate count. That fact provides cover for Trump people to object. They taunt: “Prove to me that Hillary Clinton won those swing states.” My riposte is clear: “I’d love to prove it to you. But you won’t let me! An accurate count is precisely what Jill Stein and the Green Party tried … Continue reading →