MetaCatholic

If you’re in Berlin before October 5, or in London between November 13 and March 15, then catch the exhibition Babylon – Mythos und Wahrheit, at the Pergamonmuseum and the British Museum respectively. It is a fantastic display of Babylonian history, followed by its Western reception history, remade as a symbol of power and destruction. [...]

[Read more →]

Discussion of biblical texts is regularly anachronistic. This certainly affects heated and ongoing debates carried out at a non-specialist level such as what the Bible says about “homosexuality”, when in fact it knows of no such category (which is bound up with the 19th century medicalisation of behaviour). But it happens at every level. Here’s [...]

[Read more →]

It seems to me that all too often, conservative and liberal share the same assumption in talking about the gospels. Early writings are held to carry a higher degree of historicity. Today Dan Wallace offered an initial post on the modern history of critical appraisal and dating of John. The idea that John was of [...]

[Read more →]

In one of those occasionally serendipitous coincidences of blogging, three different posts today interlock.

First up was Michael Bird on Fact and Meaning in Biblical Studies
Then came Matthew Montonini with a quote from Mark Strauss on the real Jesus and scientific historical enquiry.
Finally there was Ben Witherington fisking of a book by a raving nut-job proponent [...]

[Read more →]

There’s such a thing as following your teachers too slavishly. And there are two fine examples on the blogs today. In alphabetical order, first Chris Tilling:
After all, Moses himself prophesied (in the last few chapter [sic] of Deuteronomy), that Israel would not inherit the promised blessing through the Law, but rather its curse, i.e. exile. [...]

[Read more →]

In a comment on this earlier post, Peter Kirk said:
I am worried by your lack of interest in what actually happened, as a historical event. Sure, that is not all there is to the Christmas story. There is a place for “the challenging diversity that nurtures our encounter with Jesus”. But that encounter is nothing [...]

[Read more →]

I have been pondering the figure of John the Baptizer, as one tends to at this time of year. Jesus’ baptism by John, and his early association with the Baptizer’s circle, would seem – as most recognise – to be among the most securely attested historical facts about him, even for sceptics. At the root [...]

[Read more →]

Michael Halcomb has responded in some detail to my post yesterday (which was in turn a comment on this post of his), arguing for the compatibility of the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives. (He is not alone, as this comment by Peter Kirk reveals.) I would again like to repay the compliment. I have a [...]

[Read more →]

I have often found many of Ben Witherington’s books helpful and insightful, but he offers an extraordinary post today on Luke’s infancy narrative. The ostensible point is the quite unexceptional one, that Luke’s language by no means necessitates an inn. (While he thinks, quite plausibly, that kataluma means the guest-room, I doubt the evidence, linguistic [...]

[Read more →]

James Crossley has posted a detailed response to my previous post. I wish I’d been there for the discussion. Clearly we’re methodologically on a similar page – I knew that commenting on a partial summary was dodgy, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation. Historically I suggest that the question is one of assessing whether there are [...]

[Read more →]