Blogs

The CNN news release on the web that Paul Verhoeven, the Hollywood director and Jesus Seminar participant, has written a biography of Jesus that attributes Jesus' birth to a rape of Mary by a Roman soldier is old news. In dealing with the theories of Jim Tabor in Dethroning Jesus (pp. 178-79) I wrote the following about this claim that goes back to Celsus and the late second century.

The latest issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is just out (volume 6, issue 1). As editor of this Journal I've always been pleased with its contents, but this issue is particularly interesting in its diversity: there is something for everyone. One of the features of this Journal that I've tried to stress is to foster conversation among the diversity of scholars involved in this field. Each of these essays involves such conversation in one way or another. The table of contents includes:

The Israeli paper, Haaretz, has an updated report on the trial of the alleged founder of the James Ossuary. Those who wish to keep up with the progress of the trial over its authenticity can read about it at:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html

In sum, it looks like a case has been made against the authenticity of this find. The defense is getting its turn now.

"Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why It Matters" is my newly posted article on the website created by the Christ on Campus Initiative of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.  It is a substantive 15,000 word article on the topic, the equivalent to a medium-size booklet but still easily readable in a short period of time.

Those of you familiar with my work known that I have discussed an alternative expression of Christianity I have called "Jesusanity." (See Dethroning Jesus) It is a view that says Jesus' teaching is an important religious guide, but his person and work are not centrial to Christian teaching.

Bruce Chilton, Professor at Bard College in New York, has presented a piece assessing The Gnostic Gospels of Elaine Pagels for the New York Sun. It is a serious, crisp assessment of her work, which he says is full of anachronisms. It is worth reading. Check out this link:

http://www2.nysun.com/pf.php?id=74033&v=0530547021 

 The core anachronism he describes as follows:

The third book that I considered during this Easter season, after the volumes I noted earlier by Geza Vermes and N.T. Wright, was written by Gary R. Habermas.  It is entitled, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).  It probably had more impact upon me than either of the other two, and profoundly impacted the implication of Jesus’ historical resurrection for my present life.

In this season of Eastertide, the period of fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday, we not only celebrate Jesus’ victory over death in his resurrection, but we also consider seriously the implications of his resurrection for our own lives.