Carrier says: “In every case, his arguments are illogical, and sometimes show he didn’t even read the book.”
Because obviously if he had read the book he would agree with everything Carrier says, right? Sometimes Carrier is his own worst enemy. He and Prof Ehrman might have had a substantive debate if he hadn’t responded to Ehrman’s book so hysterically and started the personal attacks. So instead of Carrier we got Prof Price who I think most people would agree did a poor job of representing his position (or he did a good job of representing but his arguments are simply poor). Shame. Prof Ehrman has moved on and I think the mythicists have pretty much had their fifteen minutes.
I did read Prof Carrier’s response to Daniel’s article but because I can’t read Daniel’s article I feel it would be unfair to discuss that. Instead let me lay out my questions.
1. Is it proper to use Bayesian analysis to calculate the probability of the existence of a figure in ancient history? Carrier says it’s sixth grade math. Well, maybe but could an honest to god Bayesian expert chime in on this? Carrier relies very heavily on this approach.
2. Prof Carrier is very clever. He has a detailed explanation for every mythicist reading of the NT texts. What he doesn’t have is an explanation of why we should prefer his reading over the standard reading of the text. (Unless you start out with a conclusion and then interpret the text to support the conclusion. Carrier says he did not do this and we must take him at his word.) Occam’s Razor. In the face of a lack of conclusive evidence when is it ever going to be simpler to prefer magic space Jesus to a historical itinerant Jewish apocalyptic prophet?
3. Follows from #2. As a non-specialist I can think of a dozen examples of figures from history who were mythologized after death. What are the examples offered of mythical figures who were historicized in the way Jesus would have had to have been to follow the mythicist view? And where are their gospels? Osiris? Bad example. (And just how did his happen exactly? By whom?)
4. Follows from #3. One of the accomplishments of late twentieth century scholarship is the realization that these ancient cultures should be taken on their own terms. One result from this realization is the insight that the similarities between Jesus and the other so-called “dying and rising gods” are more apparent than real. It’s not so much that Jesus’ followers drew from these ancient divine savior cults as these other cultures were being interpreted by scholars using a Christian lens. Yet here are the mythicists dragging us back to 1890 with James Frazer and all that. It’s staggering to see these folks speaking across areas of expertise without being up on the latest best scholarship!
I have watched hours of Prof Carrier’s video lectures and debates. I am not a believer and have no vested interest in a historical Jesus. It’s just that I have read widely in the field and don’t take their arguments as seriously as they do. I will not be satisfied until I read Prof Carrier’s book. I’ve been trying for months to find an inexpensive used copy. I can’t justify spending 35 bucks on a paperback that proposes a hypothesis I don’t really take seriously. I do keep looking.
I have watched hours of Prof Carrier’s video lectures and debates. I am not a believer and have no vested interest in a historical Jesus. It’s just that I have read widely in the field and don’t take their arguments as seriously as they do. I will not be satisfied until I read Prof Carrier’s book. I’ve been trying for months to find an inexpensive used copy. I can’t justify spending 35 bucks on a paperback that proposes a hypothesis I don’t really take seriously. I do keep looking.
Maybe your local library can get you a copy?
Mr. Gullotta,
Moroni is considered a historic-human figure. Mormons revere him as the last writer to contribute to the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, he is considered the last “Nephite” to have existed and the person who buried the plates that would later become the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith reports to have seen him on several occasions but not merely as an angelic figure, but as an angelic figure who once walked the Americas as a human being, Moroni.
ardeare said
Mr. Gullotta,Moroni is considered a historic-human figure. Mormons revere him as the last writer to contribute to the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, he is considered the last “Nephite” to have existed and the person who buried the plates that would later become the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith reports to have seen him on several occasions but not merely as an angelic figure, but as an angelic figure who once walked the Americas as a human being, Moroni.
I actually point this out to Carrier on page 326, in footnote 50. See below:
“Carrier’s foundational argument is that Jesus was not understood within the earliest days of Christianity as a human-historic figure but rather as a celestial-angelic being, akin to Gabriel in Islam or to Moroni in Mormonism.50”
50 Richard C. Carrier, ‘Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?’, The Bible and Interpretation (2014), para. 5. Online: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** .bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/08/car388028.shtml [accessed ca. 2015]. It should be noted that Carrier’s correlation between Jesus and Moroni is not accurate. Moroni is thought by Latter-day Saint tradition to be the same person as a Book of Mormon’s prophet-warrior named Moroni, who was the last to write upon the golden plates of Nephi, and was, therefore, believed to be a historical person prior to his exaltation as an angelic being, see Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 11–12.
Yes, the comparison with Moroni is not accurate. Moroni is the brainchild of Joseph Smith, but this in not a good fit with Jesus of Nazareth – who was the brainchild of Mark.
There is persistent confusion and misrepresentation of the Mythicist hypothesis. Here is a summary:
- The Jesus sect started with a Jerusalem based belief in an celestial Jesus, the son of God. God send his son to the lower heavens (firmament) where he assumed human form, was not recognized for what he was, and was mistakenly killed (sacrificed) by the ignorant rulers of that world and hanged from a tree by Satan and his demons. The celestial Jesus was resurrected by God on the third day. The Ascension of Isaiah describes the process.
- This Jesus sect was initially persecuted by Paul who later adopted the Jesus belief including the notion that Jesus revealed himself through Apostles and scripture. Paul, and others started churches consisting of followers in the belief that Jesus would arrive on earth shortly, and the believers would be resurrected, and be with Jesus as his brothers. The Jesus of Paul’s letters is the celestial one, and is not the later Jesus of Nazareth.
- Decades later someone we call Mark created a literary invention called Jesus of Nazareth, who was based on Paul’s celestial entity and numerous other inputs. Mark’s story was successful and his story was copied, and embellished on, by others.
Christianity in a nutshell.
Tony, really? That’s “Christianity in a nutshell”?
The Jesus sect started…
Mythicists are always asking for evidence. Where is YOUR evidence? Poking holes in the historicist viewpoint does not mean your viewpoint is correct. Your first bullet is simply an assertion unsupported by any evidence. The Ascension of Isaiah is a text of doubtful provenance and our first complete copy comes from the late Middle Ages and is in Ethiopic although earlier Greek fragments survive. I mention all this because Mythicists frequently use these same criteria to question the historicity of the gospels.
The Jesus of Paul’s letters is the celestial one…
Clearly contradicted by a reading of the authentic Pauline letters. Have you done that? Depressing to encounter many Mythicists who have not. Watching a YouTube video is not enough.
…a literary invention called Jesus of Nazareth, who was based on Paul’s celestial entity…
Once again this is simply an assertion. Sure there is enough of a resemblance between the soteriology of Paul and “Mark” to make some scholars suspect an influence but their Christology is worlds apart. Paul thinks that Jesus was a pre-existent divine figure who became a human. (Paul’s entire argument about the first and second Adam in Romans makes no sense unless he thought they were real human beings.) “Mark” views Jesus as a righteous human who was adopted by God as his son. Both do share the belief though that Jesus during his earthly ministry was a human.
The evidence for a mythical Jesus is overwhelming. It is in Paul’s letters, and I’ll list it below. But let me address some of your other points first. There is nothing doubtful about AoI. The document clearly echos the beliefs of Paul. Have YOU actually read Paul? If you had, you would not make such brazen statements!
Of course, you’re likely reading the Gospels back into Paul. Common mistake of wannabee NT scholarship. No, neither “Adams” in Romans are historical figures… Of course, the Christology of Mark and Paul are worlds apart. Mark pulled Paul’s celestial Jesus down to earth and place him between the Baptist and Pilate. Good move on Mark’s part, but the evidence of his Pauline sourcing shows in his Gospel. Here is a list of evidence taken from Paul’s letters which you’ve apparently overlooked:
1) Paul’s letters show no knowledge of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. References to the imminent arrival of a celestial Jesus Christ – the Lord, are always, and only, in future tense – he is to come, to arrive etc. Nowhere does Paul state that Jesus will return, come again, or gives any other indication of an earlier earthly residence of Jesus Christ.
2) Nowhere does Paul state where, or when, the death and resurrection of Jesus took place.
3) None of the Jerusalem Church members Cephas (Peter), John and James, or anyone else, are ever identified as followers (disciples) of an earthly Jesus.
4) Paul never identifies Jesus Christ as a preacher, teacher, or a leader of any Palestinian religious movement.
5) Nowhere are Paul’s “the twelve” from 1 Cor. 15:5 identified as disciples. That misplaced notion comes from reading the Gospels into Paul’s letters. Peter (Cephas) was not part of the twelve.
6) Paul does not identify where, or when, the bread and wine ceremony in 1 Cor 11:23-26 took place – or whether it even occurred on earth, Paul claims he received his information about the ceremony through a vision from Jesus.
7) Paul states that his knowledge about Jesus Christ came through direct revelation from Jesus Christ and scripture only – and not from any person. Gal. 1:11-12 and Rom.16:25-26.
8) There is no evidence that other apostles obtained their knowledge about Jesus Christ by means other than revelations and scripture as in 1 Cor. 15: 3-8.
9) Paul describes Jesus’ crucifixion in Gal 3:13 as having been hanged from a tree. The scripture reference is to Deut. 21:22-23. The OT verses deal with the postmortem display of executed criminals and not the Roman execution method. “Hanged from a tree” in Greek (stauros) will be translated as “crucifixion”.
10) In 1 Cor 2:6-10 Paul tells us who killed Jesus-without specifying a time or location. Jesus was “crucified” (see 9) by the “rulers of this age” (archonton tou aionos toutou). By using the term “rulers of this age” Paul refers to the supernatural powers of Satan and his demons who live in in the firmament, and not to earthly authorities. Apparently, these supernatural powers were ignorant and mistakenly killed Jesus – and by doing so are doomed to perish.
11) Elsewhere, in Romans 13:1- 4, Paul states that earthly authorities are servants of God who can do no wrong. Good conduct need not fear, but wrongdoers will be punished by God servants. Here Paul contradicts the Gospel’s claims that Jesus was not guilty of a crime, and unjustly executed – another indication that Paul Jesus Christ is not the Jesus of Nazareth of the Gospels.
12) In Rom. 8:22-23 Paul promises his followers adoption by God. Consequently, in Rom 8:29 God’s firstborn Jesus will be surrounded by many (adopted) brothers. They are, “the brothers of the Lord”.
13) A key part of Paul’s belief was a soon to come end-times cosmic battle when Satan his Demons and death, are defeated and subjugated by the celestial Christ. Since Christ had assumed human form in the firmament, his sacrifice nullified death introduced by the disobedience of Adam. 1 Cor. 15:20-27.
14) The late first century manuscript, “The Ascension of Isaiah”, describes the crucifixion, (hanged from a tree), and resurrection of a celestial Jesus in Satan’s world. It fits Paul’s Jesus story well. On the other hand, The Pauline narratives remain a difficult fit for an historical Jesus.
Tony said
(…)
Of course, you’re likely reading the Gospels back into Paul. Common mistake of wannabee NT scholarship. No, neither “Adams” in Romans are historical figures… Of course, the Christology of Mark and Paul are worlds apart. Mark pulled Paul’s celestial Jesus down to earth and place him between the Baptist and Pilate. Good move on Mark’s part, but the evidence of his Pauline sourcing shows in his Gospel. Here is a list of evidence taken from Paul’s letters which you’ve apparently overlooked:
(…)
If Paul did believe in a Jesus of a sub-lunar sphere, why don’t we see any followers elaborating this curious view? Why did every follower interpret Paul differently and incorrectly? I find it hard to believe that Pauls’s missionary effort during 30 years produced misunderstandings only.
gavriel said
If Paul did believe in a Jesus of a sub-lunar sphere, why don’t we see any followers elaborating this curious view? Why did every follower interpret Paul differently and incorrectly? I find it hard to believe that Pauls’s missionary effort during 30 years produced misunderstandings only.
I don’t think there was any misunderstanding during Paul’s day. Paul’s followers show no knowledge of an earthly Jesus either. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6:12. Ephesians was likely not written by Paul, but by later followers of Paul’s religion.
“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
It was decades after Paul’s death that someone we call Mark decided to write a story about an earthly Jesus. Mark used Paul’s letters as one of his inputs. It is the Jesus of the Gospels that we know as the historical Jesus.
Tony said
I don’t think there was any misunderstanding during Paul’s day. Paul’s followers show no knowledge of an earthly Jesus either. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6:12. Ephesians was likely not written by Paul, but by later followers of Paul’s religion.
“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
It was decades after Paul’s death that someone we call Mark decided to write a story about an earthly Jesus. Mark used Paul’s letters as one of his inputs. It is the Jesus of the Gospels that we know as the historical Jesus.
It does not support the idea of a Jesus of the sub-lunar sphere, just that this [earthly] world ultimately is governed by evil spiritual powers.
This is a view that is not foreign to Mark, and it is also written after Mark. Mark wrote just some few years after Paul’s death, not decades. Also, please note Ephesians 4:9-13, which is following Paul’s idea of a divine being descending to earth to teach humans and then to become highly elevated, after death, which took place through crucifixion according to Eph 2:16. I’m afraid there is no comfort to find in Ephesians.
gavriel said
It does not support the idea of a Jesus of the sub-lunar sphere, just that this [earthly] world ultimately is governed by evil spiritual powers.
There is nothing in Ephesians that supports an earthly Jesus with a ministry and crucifixion in Jerusalem.
Jesus, God’s Son, did not come from a sub lunar space. He was sacrificed, in human form in the firmament, but ascended again. Here is a cleaned up version of Isaiah getting a guided tour through the heavens and his sacrifice explained. The key part is Chapter 9:12-17.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Tony said
There is nothing in Ephesians that supports an earthly Jesus with a ministry and crucifixion in Jerusalem.
Jesus, God’s Son, did not come from a sub lunar space. He was sacrificed, in human form in the firmament, but ascended again. Here is a cleaned up version of Isaiah getting a guided tour through the heavens and his sacrifice explained. The key part is Chapter 9:12-17.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I did not say that Ephesians says that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. It just says that Jesus had an earthly existence and that he was crucified. It reflects Paul’s idea of a heavenly pre-existence, incarnation on earth, crucifixion and elevation back to the heavenly sphere.
Gavriel, The Ephesians author is quoting an adaptation of Psalm 68:18,
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.
The author appears to be freewheeling and questioning his own interpretation. Paul, and others, only communicated with Jesus through direct revelations (appearances). There is no evidence of an earthly incarnation, ministry or crucifixion.
Tony said
Gavriel, The Ephesians author is quoting an adaptation of Psalm 68:18,When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.The author appears to be freewheeling and questioning his own interpretation. Paul, and others, only communicated with Jesus through direct revelations (appearances). There is no evidence of an earthly incarnation, ministry or crucifixion.
I doesn’t matter if an author is using a scriptural tradition to say something. That is what one will expect in any religious tradition. What matters is the ideas he wants to put forth, using his own language or borrowed language.
In this case a key phrase is : “he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth” (NRSV), which cannot mean anything but that Jesus descended to earth and Hades. So Ephesians definitely says by implication that Jesus had an earthly existence, died through crucifixion and went back to Heaven.
Paul has the same ideas , but is even more specific on an earthly existence, i.e Gal 4.4.
The trouble with AoI, is that it is written way after the historicist literature of the first century (early to middle second century, with a complicated redactional history) , at a time when all sorts of gnostic and docetic literature flourished. It cannot be seen as something written by an apprentice of Paul. Paul himself believed in an earthly Jesus and the deutero-pauline works written by his followers all assume the crucifixion and blood of Christ on earth.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)