Part 1—“Paul,” the improbable phantom

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Josephus, mythicism, Paul, The second century | Leave a reply
Reply

While Jesus mythicists have been focusing on the (a)historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, a related scholarly war has been raging behind the scenes, as it were: the (a)historicity of Paul of Tarsus—or, more precisely, the inauthenticity of his epistles. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the two issues are intimately linked. After all, if the Pauline epistles are inauthentic, then what basis remains to posit the historicity of their author? Other than the epistles, all that’s really left regarding the historical Paul is the notoriously contrived text known to us as the Acts of the Apostles. Of the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in the New Testament (the Letter to the Hebrews is “anonymous”), six are considered even by … Continue reading →

Mythicism on the cusp of history–Pt. 2

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

Scholars mentioned: R. Gmirkin, N. Lemche, J. Milik, J. Wesselius.      Astonishing theories have been recently postulated regarding the origins of Jewish scripture. They may seem quite far-fetched (see below), and the long-standing Documentary Hypothesis (DH) firmly remains majority opinion. But it may need tweaking, if not an overhaul. We recall that the DH (current since the late 19th century and also known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory) posits four major strands of literature in the Pentateuch: Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly.      The DH offers explanations for differences in vocabulary, style, and point of view/content between various passages in the OT. It also goes a long way toward explaining outright contradictions, such as the two incompatible versions of the creation in Genesis … Continue reading →

Mythicism on the cusp of history–Pt. 1

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary, mythicism | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

Scholars mentioned: T. Brodie, H. Detering, E. Doherty, N. Lemche, D. MacDonald, R. Price, R. Salm, T. Thompson.      Readers of this blog recognize its dedication to mythicism—as in ‘Jesus mythicism’—the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as an historical figure. However, at this time in history when pressure is rapidly building in support of the Christian mythicist position, a different (yet equally important) kind of mythicism is also gaining ground… We can term it Jewish mythicism—the conviction that assumptions about Judaism’s past are (also) mythological.      Only the most naive today maintain the historicity of the patriarchs from Abraham to Moses. Major biblical figures and entities associated with “Ancient Israel” (i.e., the Iron Age, c. 1200–c. 600 BCE) are … Continue reading →

The book NazarethGate

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

Click here to order. This explosive sequel to The Myth of Nazareth documents astonishing scandals on the ground and a desperate race to create evidence for the nonexistent hometown of Jesus. With a bonus final chapter addressing the question: Was any prophet at the source of Christianity?   In softcover and Kindle editions from American Atheist Press by René Salm with a Foreword by Frank R. Zindler.   From the back cover:

Book Review: “Mark, Canonizer of Paul” by Tom Dykstra (2012) — Pt. 4

Posted on by
Posted in Book reviews, contemporary commentary, mythicism, Paul | 4 Replies
4

Deception and power      Dykstra writes that the canonical gospels are “scriptural historiography… The narrative is anchored to known historical facts, it is written to achieve a practical political or religious purpose, and in the furtherance of that purpose the author is free to invent whatever does not unreasonably transgress the bounds of plausibility” (p. 198). Dykstra then flat-out states that the evangelist is “compelled to invent whatever is necessary to achieve his purpose.” Well, that about sums up the situation: the evangelists invented what suited their purposes and that they could get away with (which is another way of saying: “whatever does not unreasonably transgress the bounds of plausibility”).      The closest contemporary genre to the above is probably what we … Continue reading →

Book Review: “Mark, Canonizer of Paul” by Tom Dykstra (2012) — Pt. 3

Posted on by
Posted in Book reviews, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Paul | Leave a reply
Reply

Chp. 5: Presenting Jesus as the Crucified One      Dykstra begins this chapter with an important observation: “Another theme unique to Paul is his emphasis on the cross, or more specifically on the crucified Christ over the resurrected Christ” (p. 93). The terminology “crucified Christ” vs. “resurrected Christ” mirrors the two great models of salvation fighting one another for hegemony in the pre-canonical religion: salvation through faith (the “cross”) vs. salvation through gnosis (spiritual “resurrection”). In Pauline thought, salvation in “Jesus” is through faith in his atoning death on the physical cross. In gnostic thought, salvation in “Jesus” is through the acquisition of spiritual gnosis. These are two different religions and two different Jesuses—one material, one spiritual. Paul’s disputes with both … Continue reading →

Book Review: “Mark, Canonizer of Paul” by Tom Dykstra (2012) — Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in Book reviews, Christian origins, John the Baptist | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

Chp. 3: The Chimera of Oral Tradition      Like the Aramaic substratum thesis (Casey et al) the poor oral tradition has really been taking a beating lately and seems to be going the way of the dodo. I have no problem dispensing with the oral tradition theory and so skipped this long chapter on the first run-through. Dykstra asks (41): “How can a narrative written 30-plus years after the events that it records include such vivid detail..?” And: “How is it that Mark’s elaborate narrative appeared suddenly out of nowhere after three decades?” Whoah. This dating is increasingly passé. Accumulating data are showing that the Gospel of Mark probably dates to the second century CE, not the first (hence GMt and … Continue reading →

Book Review: “Mark, Canonizer of Paul” by Tom Dykstra (2012) — Pt. 1

Posted on by
Posted in Book reviews, contemporary commentary, Gnosticism, Paul | Tagged | 5 Replies
5

I recently finished an excellent book by Tom Dykstra, a virtually unknown American writer whose work deserves a careful read by those interested in Christian origins. The title, Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel (OCABS PRESS, 2012) won’t raise many eyebrows. After all, no one questions that the Gospel of Mark postdates Paul. And most would also agree that Markan theology and Pauline theology are in virtual lock-step: salvation comes through belief that we have been saved by the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. That is the so-called Pauline kerygma. Stated baldly, salvation comes through belief (in salvation). Christianity has managed to flourish for two thousand years based on this circular proposition. … Continue reading →

New translation of Georges Ory book available

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Ory | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

The Analysis of Christian Origins (“Analyse des origines chrétiennes”) by Georges Ory has recently been translated into English by Paul Davidson. Thank you, Paul! This is a major work by Ory and runs to 92 pages in the original French edition of 1963, published by the Cercle Ernest Renan of Paris. Ory was at one time president of the CER. Three links are provided below. The first two are to Davidson’s translation. The third is the original French edition (all PDFs). Thanks also to John Felix and Neil Godfrey for facilitating this communication. I will not have time to either read or provide a review of this work until my book NazarethGate is completed this summer. Anyone who reads Ory’s work and cares to submit a review for … Continue reading →

Folly 5: The Churches, U.S. Government, and Land—Pt. 2

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary, Follies of Christianity | Leave a reply
Reply

[The following radio talk is excerpted with permission from the book, Atheist Heroes and Heroines by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.]      What do you suppose land is worth in New Jersey these days? Camp Kilmer had 2.87 acres and 2 buildings which had been acquired for $76,555. The government devalued this to $29,300 and then sold it to the Christian School Association of North Central New Jersey, at an 80% discount. That is, for the sum total of $586.      Aha! I see more Texas here. It appears that the Jesuit Fathers of Houston, Inc., knew that there were buildings at Ellington Air Force Base and that three of those buildings would be just dan-dan-dandy for the use of the good fathers. They … Continue reading →