Biblioblog Ranking by Vote, Biblical Studies Carnival, and March Biblioblogging Begins

The ranking of biblioblogs by vote for February has been posted, and thank you to everyone who voted for Exploring Our Matrix, which came in first again.

Matthew Crowe has published the latest Biblical Studies Carnival.

Via AWOL, I learned that issues of the Bulletin of the Palestine Exploration Society are online, as are additional Hebrew, Syriac and other manuscripts at E-Corpus.

Chris Brady invites you to take advantage of the extension of the deadline for submissions for the SBL 2011 Annual Meeting.

Christopher Skinner sees Bart Ehrman everywhere – but only Rafael dreams about him.

Lauri Lebo points out the irony of creationists trying to claim that they are being treated as Scopes was.

P. Z. Myers experiences predictable frustration after dealing with Terry Mortensen.

Inside Higher Ed drew attention to a blog “Stuff Academics Like” as well as having an article on what students remember.

"Yes, it could have been that too. It's hard to draw definitive conclusions when the ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania
"Yep. Could have been that.Or could have been just a dream and few charismatic styled ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania
"Sure, important to Paul from a theological standpoint, but nothing from which you could describe ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania
"I have no idea what the difference is between a regular body and a resurrection ..."

Resurrection, Rumors, and Romania

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Anonymous

    Nice to see you win the Biblioblog poll — and even nicer to see cantankerous old Jim West not even make the list!

  • David A.
  • Anonymous

    The problem with the article is already evident just by looking at its title. I seriously recommend that this guy take a serious look at biblical studies before he tells Canada whether or not Jesus has been subject to historical scrutiny. That left a bad taste in my mouth…that and any blogpost written by PZ Myers. The man know his biology but he and his commentors are most unplesant.Brian

  • I still don't get the logic of the argument "These were written by Jesus' followers who had reasons to promulgate the idea that he existed." That is the equivalent to saying that followers of Gandhi had reasons to promulgate the idea that Gandhi existed since they were his followers. We don't actually find any of our early sources trying to "promote" the idea that Jesus existed – that way of putting it suggests that this was something they had to argue for and that others might have objected to. In fact, they seem to take it for granted and do not seem to anticipate mythicist objections in their time. 🙂

  • David A.

    Oh for a Canadian James McGrath! 🙂

  • Anonymous

    Exactly.And although I typically hate using this kind of argument, I would have to say that someone who works in the political sciences shouldn't really be taken seriously as oppose to someone who works in ancient history. But I'll excuse him just this one time…Gah I feel insulted. What's worse is that those poor unsuspecting Canadians are going to get the impression that New Testament Studies is a lot less agnostic on the existence of Jesus than he gives them credit for. Anyway I wish I had Meier's book handy with me, so that I could respond to the article. And speaking of which [and in addition to James' point] I believe that using the Bible to reconstruct Jesus is appropiate as long as you could show that it is warranted. All to many times people misuse the circular argument to protest against using good sources like Paul's letters.Brian

  • Anonymous

    Oops I meant to say a lot more agnostic on the historicity of Christ.

  • We don't actually find any of our early sources trying to "promote" the idea that Jesus existedApparently the NT is not an early source.

  • 2 Peter is not an early source – and a "New Testament" that contains 2 Peter is later still, but that's another issue.

  • Dr. McGrath, when do you think that 2 Peter was composed?

  • Most likely sometime in the second century. It is hard to be more precise.

  • The range given at ECW is 100-160. Do you feel something written in 100 CE is late?What differences between 2 Peter and other NT texts allow you to date earlier works more precisely?

  • Evan, what allows dating with much precision or with almost no certainty whatsoever differs for every work. Any introduction to the New Testament will explain and discuss these issues if you are interested in learning more about this subject.

  • Dr. McGrath, my first question is the one I was more interested in your answer to. Do you think that 100 CE is a late production? I'm familiar with the standard dating and also familiar with the works of the Dutch Radicals, who view the entire NT as a second century production. On ECW Hebrews is given a date of 50-95 (which is the standard dating). If Hebrews is an early work, and it was written 5 years earlier than 2 Peter, how is 2 Peter late?Once again, when biologists are asked questions about how evolution works, they usually don't punt to books, or authority, or other such elisions. They explain the situation.

  • I have seen experts in every field who have blogs encourage people who keep asking the same questions or vague, general ones, respond by encouraging the individual to read a book on the subject, rather than asking the individual to write a book for them on the blog. You often claim to have looked into this subject, but are asking questions the answers to which are found in just about every introduction to the New Testament: what linguistic evidence, citations, allusions to historical events, and other factors allow us to date this or that work to a certain period, and with what degree of certainty."Early" and "late" are not absolute terms. They are only useful for the purpose of comparison. Earlier than what? Later than what? Early enough, or too late for, what purpose?

  • John C. Poirier

    The dating of 2 Peter (which I consider the latest book in the NT [written 130 CE or later]) is a red herring to the original question about mythicism, as the point of 2 Pet 1:16 is *not* to claim something about the historicity of Jesus in general, but rather something about the historicity of the Transfiguration in particular.

  • Dr. McGrath, if early and late aren't absolute terms, then I am at a loss as to how you use the term in your statement above. You said there were no early sources promoting the idea of the historicity of Jesus. Perhaps you could be more definitive about what dates are early.

  • If one is talking about a question of history, then the period of those who lived in the time period, and those who could have known that first generation personally, can be described as "early" in a relative but nonetheless clear sense.I meant that none of the sources from the first or even second generation of Christians seem concerned to make a case for Jesus' historicity. It is natural that, in later times when there was historical distance from Jesus and anyone who might have known him, the question could arise. That someone in the second century or the 21st can raise the question doesn't say much; that no one in the first generation or two of Christianity thought it was an issue that needed to be addressed, on the other hand, seems telling.

  • What sources that date from the first generation of Christians exist?

  • Anonymous

    Paul?All his authenic writings date to the early second half of the first century and he personally knew the apostles…he could be lying but it is unlikely that he is.Brian