The Secular Frontier

It is generally accepted by scholars that the New Testament is in part imitative in nature (see The Jewish Annotated New Testament, for instance).  This reflects the practice of mimesis from the Greeks (as Dennis MacDonald and Robyn Faith Walsh show, the New Testament being written in Greek), and Haggadic Midrash for the Hebrew tradition.  For example, Dennis MacDonald makes a compelling case that the earliest stratum of the Gospel of John imitates Euripides’s “Bacchae.”  And so for instance regarding the Jewish tradition, Mark constructs his crucifixion narrative by rewriting Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Matthew adds recapitulating the Wisdom of Solomon, and Matthew constructs Jesus’s portrait by framing him as the new and greater Moses.    Why were the writers doing this?  We do the same thing today when we say someone is the same as or greater than a famous figure in history.  Here are 2 examples along the lines of the recent election propaganda I created: ... Read Article

So often when we consider the Christmas story we think of the Virgin Birth, but often overlook the bloodline genealogies. And this makes sense because if Jesus is not Joseph's blood child, why should we care about Joseph's genealogy in Matthew or Luke. But, there may be more going on than meets the eye. I'll recapitulate what I said last time about Matthew's genealogy: (1) With Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (really of Joseph) we see Joseph adopted Jesus into a family with a Davidic royal bloodline. This fits in with the idea that Jesus was to restore the Davidic throne. God, after all, had promised the Davidic throne would be reestablished. Yet in Jesus’s time, there was little chance of that happening with Imperial Rome. But here’s a further problem. Rich Robinson notes: According to the genealogy in Matthew 1:12, Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah. But Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24 and 22:30: As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiaki ... Read Article

PREVIOUSLY: Merry Christmas! Jesus’s Bloodline in Matthew NOW: There's another interesting feature of Matthew's genealogy. There are women in it who are associated with sexual immorality in the Old Testament, who Spong labeled the Shady Ladies: The incest of Tamar, the prostitution of Rahab, the seduction of Ruth and the adultery of Bathsheba were the experiences in his ancestry through which Jesus came to be born, as shown in the story of Matthew’s genealogy. All of these women were foreign, and by the standards of that day, all of these women were sexually compromised. This is the way Matthew introduces the story of Jesus’ birth. Sexual immorality in the bible basically suggests that you defile yourself so you can't come into the presence of God. Interestingly, if you look at these women apart from the sexual sense that follows them, they are quite heroic. The symbolism seems to make the obvious connection that Jesus who is born of a mother that knew no sexuality and was only ad ... Read Article

Want to know a fun fact? In Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (really of Joseph) we see Joseph adopted Jesus into a family with a Davidic royal bloodline. This fits in with the idea that Jesus was to restore the Davidic throne. God, after all, had promised the Davidic throne would be reestablished. Yet in Jesus's time, there was little chance of that happening with Imperial Rome. But here's a further problem. Rich Robinson notes: According to the genealogy in Matthew 1:12, Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah. But Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24 and 22:30: As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. This is what the LORD says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah.” Since no descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne, ... Read Article

Appendix: Response to Richard Carrier’s Review (2024) In the few years since I wrote this essay there have been developments in what scholars call ‘the quest for the historical Jesus.’ One of the main contentions is that if we do not get more rigorous in uncovering the Jesus of history, the idea that Jesus never existed or that we can say nothing about him reliably will become the default position. Justin Meggitt, who has been a target of mythicists, writes: First, even if denial of the historicity of Jesus is rarely found among scholars within the field, the increasing popularity of this position in wider culture is unavoidable. While I won’t rehearse arguments I have made elsewhere about this phenomenon, unless those working in New Testament and Christian origins continue to think critically and publicly about what can be said about Jesus, it is likely that the denial of the historicity of Jesus will very soon become the de facto position in wider popular and academic discourse. Th ... Read Article

A couple of years ago I published a critique of the Christ Myth Theory, which Richard Carrier responded to. Well, hit the refresh button because I've updated the essay with an Appendix that responds to Carrier. Check it out HERE! ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In a series of posts about the Hallucination Theory (the view that Jesus' disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus because they had hallucinations of Jesus), one key point that I argued for is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. This point is also of general relevance to the question: Did God raise Jesus from the dead? That is because the evidence for the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead comes mainly from the Gospels, and the historical reliability of the Gospels is usually supported by the claim that the Gospels contain, or are based upon, eyewitness testimony. So, if eyewitness testimony is unreliable, then this common argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels FAILS. SUMMARIES OF THE RELEVANT POSTS In some of my posts about the Hallucination Theory, I have provided empirical evidence in support of two important factual claims: Human memory is unreliable. Humans are dishonest. In Part 13 of this series, I provided evidence showing tha ... Read Article

Over the last few days, these two debates on the historicity of Jesus have popped up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ick9jHp846Y&t https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XLQN67Pto&t I just watched Richard Carrier's friend Godless Engineer interview Jacob Berman on the Christ Myth theory.  I liked it very much and Berman said he thought some of the best evidence for the historical Jesus is 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 where Paul says: 14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins, but wrath has overtaken them at last. Clearly if Paul thought the Jews killed Jesus then Paul thought Jesus was a hi ... Read Article

In my initial post on the word "miracle", I analyzed eight different definitions of the word “miracle” into seven different elements: IMPACT  GENUS  SPECIES  AGENT/CAUSE  EXCEPTION  BASELINE  PURPOSE  In Part 1 of this series of posts, I argued that the element of IMPACT should be eliminated from definitions of “miracle”. I also suggested that the requirements in the GENUS and SPECIES elements of the definition by Habermas were the best, and that the requirement in the SPECIES element of the definition by Evans was also very good and should be a requirement added to the requirement in the SPECIES element of the definition by Habermas. In Part 2, I argued that the AGENT/CAUSE element should be very broad in terms of a definition that captures the ordinary meaning of the word “miracle” (i.e. the very broad requirement in the definition by Habermas), but that in the context of miracles being put forward as evide ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In my initial post on miracles, I analyzed eight different definitions of the word "miracle" into seven different elements: IMPACT – the emotional or psychological effect of a miracle GENUS – the most general category to which a miracle belongs SPECIES – the sub-category (of the most general category) to which a miracle belongs AGENT/CAUSE – the person(s) or kind of being(s) or kind of thing(s) that brings about a miracle EXCEPTION – the way in which a miracle departs from ordinary or normal circumstances BASELINE – the ordinary or normal circumstances from which a miracle departs PURPOSE – the goal or intention behind the making of a miracle In Part 1 of this series of posts, I argued that the element of IMPACT should be eliminated from definitions of "miracle". I also suggested that the GENUS and SPECIES elements of the definition by Habermas were the best, and that the SPECIES element in the definition by Evans was a ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE I have previously analyzed eight different definitions of the word "miracle" into seven different elements: In Part 1, I examined the elements of Impact, Genus, and Species. In Part 2, I examined the elements of Cause/Agent, Exception, and Baseline. In Part 3, I argued that we should eliminate the Exception and Baseline elements from the definition of the word "miracle" in order to avoid importing questionable or controversial philosophical assumptions into the definition. THE ELEMENT OF PURPOSE In this current post, I will examine Purpose, the seventh element of definitions of "miracle": PURPOSE – the goal or intention behind the making of a miracle Habermas indicates that miracles must have some sort of purpose, they are "effected for a purpose". This seems only to imply that miracles are events that are produced intentionally by some person or agent. If the definition already requires that God be the cause of the event, then this very general requirement is red ... Read Article

BASELINE AND EXCEPTION ELEMENTS I have analyzed eight different definitions of the word "miracle" into seven elements: Two elements found in most definitions are what I call the "Baseline" and "Exception" elements: BASELINE – the ordinary or normal circumstances from which a miracle departs EXCEPTION – the way in which a miracle departs from ordinary or normal circumstances Only the definition by the Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans lacks these two elements: An event brought about by a special act of God. (Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2002, p.76.) I find the clarity and simplicity of Evans' definition appealing, but before I toss aside these two elements (baseline and exception), I will try to determine the REASON why Aquinas and Hume include these two elements in their definitions of "miracle". AQUINAS AND HUME ON MIRACLES AND NATURE Much philosophical discussion about miracle ... Read Article

In 2011 I was searching for scholarship engaging Christ Myth Theorist Earl Doherty, who argued Jesus never existed, and I found Prof James McGrath’s blog where he was critically blogging through Doherty’s book.  For example: Chapter 1 of Earl Doherty’s Jesus: Neither God Nor Man This year as Public Theology/Philosophy, I tried blogging through “The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus (2024).”  I took 1 to a few excerpts from each chapter and did a little commentary.  Hopefully people will be inspired to read this great book: (2) The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus: Reception History by Halvor Moxnes (3) The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus: Beyond The Jewish Jesus Debate by Adele Reinhartz (4) The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus: Biography by Helen K. Bond (5) The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus: Beyond What is Behind by Chris Keith (6) The Next Quest For The Historical Jesus: Missing Pieces by Mark Goodacre (7) The Next Quest ... Read Article

As is clear from the genealogies of Jesus, both of which belong to Joseph, Jesus is adopted into Joseph's bloodline (since he isn't Jesus' biological father), just as the new believer is adopted into the family of God through Jesus who Paul calls the first born of many brethren. Jesus' death is a literary pair with John the Baptist in Mark, though more painful and humiliating, as Jesus' death is a pair with forgiving Stephen's in Luke-Acts. We have characters wondering whether Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead, which is just a way of saying Jesus is the new and greater John like Matthew's Jesus is the new and greater Moses. Shedd comments: In our earliest portrayal of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, the somatic violence of the beheading of John the Baptist and the crucifixion of Jesus are keyed together. Both John and Jesus, for instance, are “handed over” (e.g., 1:14; 15:1, 10, 15), “grasped” (e.g., 6:17; 14:44, 46), and “bound” (e.g., 6:17; 15:1). At Mark 9:11–13, the design ... Read Article

APOCALYPTICISM AND MILLENARIANISM reflect the idea that the end of the age is at hand and would be followed by a judgment. This was the type of thing Jesus and John the Baptist were preaching. The world in which Jesus grew up that gave birth to this worldview was a time of anxiety and instability. Crossley writes: In this essay, I look at more precise comparisons that keep the emphasis on premodern, peasant apocalypticism and millenarianism as a vehicle for expressing discontent with the world.... Put crudely, a minority of urban elites dominated access to power and controlled resources produced by the overwhelmingly rural population from whom surplus was extracted. In the Levant, the town-countryside relationship helps explain class-based conflict, which included urban projects that introduced changes in traditional patterns of households, production, and demands on labor. In Galilee as Jesus was growing up, this involved the rebuilding of Sepphoris and the building of Tiberias, while in Judea this i ... Read Article