The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

Still pretending that manuscripts that have ALREADY been dated to c 175-225 CE were written c 50-60 CE because one of the letters mention Aretas?


The same Pauline Corpus do state the Jesus story was FOOLISHNESS.

1 Corinthians 1:23

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

The Jesus story in the Pauline Corpus is NOT history but Childish and Foolish.

Julian corroborates that Jesus is a FOOLISH FICTION story

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

The Pauline Corpus was known as a Pack of FOOLISH Lies since at least 1600 hundred years ago.

 

[Craig B]

I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.

Much of it is stuff that is so banal as to require no refutation.

Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.

Indeed. Quite so.

 

[dejudge]

I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.

I suspect you are NOT familiar with the evidence from antiquity so must depend on the opinion of "authority".

Christians do the same thing.

You will not and is incapable of ever presenting a shred of evidence to show that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

I KNOW the evidence from antiquity.

I KNOW that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN by ALL authors of the NT Canon and was unknown in Multiple Christian and Non-Christian writings up to the late 2nd century.


I KNOW that NO manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.

I KNOW that the Pauline Corpus is historical garbage and was not used at all in the early development of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Pauline Corpus are ANTI-MARCIONITE writings FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later to counter Marcionism.

 

[Craig B]

Still pretending that manuscripts that have ALREADY been dated to c 175-225 CE were written c 50-60 CE because one of the letters mention Aretas?

No. I can't believe you're such a simpleton! Stop pretending. You know I'm not referring to the date of the earliest extant manuscripts. I'm saying that the text inscribed on these manuscripts was copied from earlier sources that have been lost.

Now, you have been told hundreds and hundreds of times that that is what is being claimed, on the basis of internal evidence contained in the wording of the written material. You may not agree with this, if you are mistaken enough; but I can't believe you don't even understand it. So I think you're making a joke for amusement or entertainment purposes.

 

[maximara]

I suspect you are NOT familiar with the evidence from antiquity so must depend on the opinion of "authority".

Christians do the same thing.

You will not and is incapable of ever presenting a shred of evidence to show that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

The basics of Historical criticism along with modern examples have been presented repeatedly.

Yes the Christians were the ones doing the copying but we must be sure we don't go off the deep end ala Joseph Wheless' Forgery In Christianity (1930) and claim there was some form of mammoth conspiracy by the Church to create the Gospels and supporting documents.

The one thing that helps is the fact living languages change. Not only meaning and grammar but rhythm, meter, and structure.

Even with modern spelling Shakespeare's English of just 400 years ago has a different grammar, rhythm, meter, and structure then the English used 200 years ago or even today.

Compare the novels the 19th century to those of today of any genre you like and you will see this difference though it is less pronounced. This is why fans of a particular era of literature get this uncanny valley effect when someone tries to mimic that era's style; they can't put it into words but they known that something is wrong.

The seven letters of Paul do NOT seem to have that disconnect. As in the context of Occam's Razor a later Paul just adds logistic complexity to the picture.

Detering's The Dutch Radical approach to the Pauline Epistles article which brought the long forgotten ideas of the Dutch Radical School to light is an interesting read but given Paul doesn't really give anything helps the pro-Historical Jesus argument and an early Paul actually hurts the pro-HJ position I have to again ask what is with the near obsession with Paul not existing either?

The classic Christ Mythers that knew of the Dutch Radical School didn't buy into the idea Paul didn't exist.

 

[Walter Ego]

I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot in the arm...

Are we sure that Carrier actually exists?

The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED ...

Cite? What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)

 

[IanS]

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

The scary thing is dejudge my not be pretending. He may honestly believe that date of composition = the earliest extant manuscript. I grant you the idea is insane and results in nonsense like Fomenko's New Chronology which the moment you sit down and actually think about it you realize is off the wall frothing at the mouth start raving bonkers.

I don't know what dejudge has actually said about any idea that "the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript", because I have not tried to read whatever arguments he has made about that. But what is obviously and unarguably true, is that we can only know what is said in the most useable relatively complete and relatively legible extant manuscripts of the gospels and letters. We certainly do not know if any supposed earlier original gospels and letters said all the same things that we find in those later extant more complete copies.

And for Craig's benefit (and the benefit of any other HJ people here who may be inclined to "gloss over" what I just said above without bothering to understand what I am saying - what I am saying is -

- the detail of the Jesus stories which bible scholars and other HJ believers are using and quoting from the gospels, are afaik most definitely being taken from those much later more complete and legible gospels typically dated to 4th-6th century and later (mostly later than 6th century, in fact). That has to be the case, because although there are a number of very small individual fragments thought to be from a much earlier date, such as P52 which may be as early as circa.125 AD, those individual fragments are of course nowhere near big enough to contain more than a few words from a certain few lines of just one individual gospel. And where there are apparently more extensive pages of gospel writing thought to also be from quite early dates (i.e. earlier than 4th-6th cent.) those more extensive remains are not in sufficiently good condition to be accurately readable except again for only partly legible sentences and paragraphs.

The point being - the missing parts of those earlier fragments and damaged remnant pages, are so extensive (i.e. almost all the contents are missing), that it's not possible to determine what those earliest gospels actually said about the full detail of the writers Jesus beliefs. For all anyone knows, a complete version from any of those scant earliest remnants might very easily have made clear that Jesus was originally believed only as spiritual entity ... but we just don't know, because we don't have anywhere near a complete copy from those earliest fragments and remnants. And that is exactly why the later 4th-6th century more complete and more readable copies have to be used to determine a more accurate and more complete picture of what those much later copyists were writing as the biblical story by the 4th-6th century and later.

But that's all the we actually have as the biblical stories of Jesus belief, and that is what afaik actually has to be used, and actually is being used, by bible scholars and others when they debate the detail of the biblical sentences about Jesus - they are using what was written from about 4th-6th century onwards ... not using any earlier fragments or extensively damaged remains.

IOW - the Jesus stories that everyone here is relying upon, and which biblical scholars and others are also relying upon, does come from extant 4th-6th century copies at the earliest.

And incidentally - that is also why the extant copies of Paul’s letters are more important and more credible as “earlier” description of Jesus beliefs than those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels (irrespective of whether or not dejudge is right or wrong to say that Paul’s letters were originally written after the gospels). Because P46, which is said to predate those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels by 100-200 years or more, is by far the earliest relatively complete and relatively legible account which can be used to determine more-or-less all that the writer (i.e. Paul in the case of P46) actually believed about Jesus.

That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

But the Jesus belief described in P46, is very clearly stated by the writer (“Paul”) to be only a spiritual belief which the author repeatedly stresses, was known to him only according to scripture and through divine revelation. Paul describes that spiritual belief as his “witnessing” of Jesus. He says that 500+ other people as well as the 12 disciples and James, were also “witnesses” of Jesus only in that same spiritual sense. I.e. he says that when all those other people “witnessed” Jesus, they witnessed only the “risen Jesus”, i.e. according to Paul they only ever witnessed the dead spirit of Jesus communicating from the heavens ... Paul never says that any of the people ever witnessed a living Jesus at all.

So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.

 

[maximara]

Cite? What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)

I am referring to the book On The Historicity of Jesus published by Sheffield Phoenix Press (the scholarly published part) and if you dig around enough you will find this response directly from Sheffield Phoenix Press itself regarding their requirements:

"We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted."

In fact, respectable academic publishers like Sheffield Phoenix Press have the final say on who does the peer reviewing. Their own web sites states "Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press."

Peer review in of itself doesn't mean much as the Open Journal of Geology shows. It's main publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, is considered little more then a vanity publisher with various examples of copyright violations aw well as padded and inaccurate editorial boards. The acceptance of paper created by a random text generator shows just how crap the peer review is there.

Peer review by an established respected academic publisher (such as Wiley or Sheffield Phoenix Press) is a totally different animal.

I would like to mention the Anthropology of Consciousness is a peer-reviewed journal published by Wiley which stated in a 1994 article that "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16).

In fact, its abstract clearly states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example..." and that was when Carrier was still working on his Masters.

 

[maximara]

That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

Actually, Papyrus 75 (Luke 3:18-24:53 + John 1-15) at 175-225 has the same date range as P46 (also 175-225 CE)

Then you have Egerton Papyrus 2 which has a collection of four Jesus stories which have no equivalent in any known Gospel. With a slightly younger date range at 150-200 CE this rather then P46 is our oldest known manuscript references to Jesus

From what I can find out the four stories are:

1) a controversy similar to John 5:39-47 and 10:31-39;

2) curing a leper similar to Matt 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16 and Luke 17:11-14;

3) a controversy about paying tribute to Caesar analogous to Matt 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26; and

4) an incomplete account of a miracle on the Jordan River bank, perhaps carried out to illustrate the parable about seeds growing miraculously

Since Paul makes no references to these stories it seems a safe assumption that Paul predates them. EP2 also shows that idea of preexisting stories being used in our Gospels seems a reasonable assumption.

 

[IanS]

What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)

I don't read any religious journals or biblical studies journals. So I don't know what papers Carrier and others have published in any such journals. However, afaik Carrier does have several published papers in journals in that field. And since Carrier is very clearly sceptical of the existence of Jesus, I would not be surprised to find his published papers were fairly critical of evidence purporting to show a real Jesus.

Apart from that, iirc there has been mention in these various HJ threads, of biblical studies scholars and related academics who have published a good number of papers critical of the usual assumption of, or belief in, a HJ.

Hector Avalos, for example, is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State Univ., who is now very critical of Jesus belief amongst his academic colleagues, and who now believes and teaches that the evidence for a HJ is too hopelessly weak, and in fact has historically been presented in a deliberately deceptive way, such that (iirc) he now thinks Jesus was probably a mythical figure.

I expect Avalos will have published a good number of critical dissenting papers in the mainstream biblical studies journals. And he has also written a very informative and fully referenced academic book expressing those concerns in unmistakably frank terms highly critical of the profession of bible studies and it's practitioners ("The End of Biblical Studies", 2007). Here's a link to the wiki page on Hector Avalos ... but you and other HJ people here would do well to read that book (which is as I say, full of hundreds of academic references illustrating his criticisms of HJ belief, so without checking (though I do have the book, so I can check it if necessary), I expect the refs in that book are to papers that are critical of the HJ case and it's claimed evidence) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Avalos

See also this YouTube clip of Avalos talking about what is so wrong with the profession of Biblical studies and it's practitioners (this is part 1 of a two part talk and discussion ... part 2 and it's question and answer session is particularly revealing) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o&list=PLiNgTF1S32SjBdLpglExsapLWXAFM5BuY

 

[waters]

So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

This reference supports your opinion. It was written 25 years ago. I wonder if there has been any newer research, that affirms the belief that P46 antedates P45? As far as I am aware, the dating is based solely on palaeography. Can we really specify handwriting with such precision, that two manuscripts can be sorted chronologically?

As with all manuscripts dated solely by palaeography, the dating of P46 is uncertain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

I have looked at some of the images of P46, online, from UM library, and don't find them spectacularly different from Codex Sinaiticus.

The crucial bit of evidence, in my opinion, that leads one to suspect that Paul wrote after Mark's gospel had been distributed, (i.e. regardless of the dates of the two collections p45, p46) is the distinction between 1Corinthians 25:
τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι
the cup of blood represents the NEW covenant,
as opposed to the same story in Mark, which omits the word NEW, kaine. (n.b. ONLY in Codex Sinaiticus, not more recent bibles!!)
τουτο εϲτιν το αιμα μου τηϲ (omitted) διαθηκηϲ

Is there any portion of Jewish history and religion, more important, than the covenant with God? So, for Paul to CHANGE the significance of the blood contract, described by Mark, suggests, to me, if no one else, that Mark's plain vanilla portion MUST HAVE COME FIRST, and Paul then added a little extra flavor, by proclaiming that the contract, sealed in blood, represented a NEW agreement, and by implication, an invalidation of the former covenant of Moses, as Paul had explained in the foolish Galatians letter.

Had Paul's letters been known to Mark, would it not have been presumptious of Mark, to have ignored the concept of a changed covenant, by failing to reference the word NEW?

That page of text from P46, containing 1 Corinthians 25, is found in the Chester Beatty Collection in Ireland. I have not seen it, but would profit from someone on the forum with access to the library, confirming the same text as found, above, in Codex Sinaiticus.

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the corresponding page from P45, Mark 14:24, does not exist. Codex Sinaiticus contains the oldest extant copy of it.

So, IanS, yes, Paul could have written before Mark, but I don't see any evidence supporting that legend. As far as I am concerned, Codex Sinaiticus suggests, contrarily, that Mark MUST have written first, else, there is no way to understand why Mark would not have included the crucial adjective, NEW, in describing the blood covenant from the last supper. I claim he did not include it, because Mark didn't know that the covenant had been changed.

 

[dejudge]

I don't know what dejudge has actually said about any idea that "the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript", because I have not tried to read whatever arguments he has made about that.

What a most blatant fallacy.

You have argued with me about the dating of the Pauline Corpus.

Why are you repeating the known false claims by Craig B?

You appear to be promoting "Chinese Whispers" or propaganda.

And incidentally - that is also why the extant copies of Paul’s letters are more important and more credible as “earlier” description of Jesus beliefs than those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels (irrespective of whether or not dejudge is right or wrong to say that Paul’s letters were originally written after the gospels).

What?? The Pauline Corpus cannot be credible when it is riddled with forgeries or false attribution and events which did not and could not have happened.

Forgeries and false attribution are specifically fabricated to deceive the reader.

The Pauline Corpus is a most deceptive and fictional compilation.

Because P46, which is said to predate those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels by 100-200 years or more, is by far the earliest relatively complete and relatively legible account which can be used to determine more-or-less all that the writer (i.e. Paul in the case of P46) actually believed about Jesus.

You statement is a well established fallacy. Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] c 175-225 CE are dated around the same time period as Papyri 46.

You also very well know that P 46 does not contain all the Epistles of the Pauline Corpus and some of the leaves are damaged

Why can't you even admit that manuscripts of gLuke and gJohn are dated just as P 46?

In addition, Christian writings of antiquity ADMIT the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John and that the Pauline writers knew of and commended gLuke.

That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

Again, you repeat your fallacies.

Don't you remember that we have the DATING of NT manuscripts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Papyri 46--200 CE.

Papyri 75--175-225 CE.

It is completely unacceptable that you continue to spout the same fallacies over and over although you have been shown the dating by Paleographers.

But the Jesus belief described in P46, is very clearly stated by the writer (“Paul”) to be only a spiritual belief which the author repeatedly stresses, was known to him only according to scripture and through divine revelation. Paul describes that spiritual belief as his “witnessing” of Jesus. He says that 500+ other people as well as the 12 disciples and James, were also “witnesses” of Jesus only in that same spiritual sense. I.e. he says that when all those other people “witnessed” Jesus, they witnessed only the “risen Jesus”, i.e. according to Paul they only ever witnessed the dead spirit of Jesus communicating from the heavens ... Paul never says that any of the people ever witnessed a living Jesus at all.

Again, you present more fallacies.

The Pauline Corpus was used to ARGUE AGAINST an ALL DIVINE Son of God.

You don't remember that the Pauline Corpus was USED almost exclusively to ARGUE AGAINST Marcion's Phantom Son of God.

So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.

Your claim is a fallacy. There is NO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed BEFORE stories of Jesus were already known and composed.

The 2nd century or later manuscripts we have of P46 were NOT written by "Paul" if it is argued "Paul" died in the 1st century.

gLuke and gJohn are dated the same time period as the Pauline Corpus.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus and the Prophets.

 

[dejudge]

Since Paul makes no references to these stories it seems a safe assumption that Paul predates them. EP2 also shows that idea of preexisting stories being used in our Gospels seems a reasonable assumption.

It is NEVER safe to ASSUME.

You keep promoting the flawed assumptions of "authority" as evidence.


Since Acts of the Apostles makes no reference to the Pauline Corpus and mentions a character called Paul over a hundred times it can be argued that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN when Acts of the Apostles composed.

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity which support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was written NO earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Minucius Felex, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Elder.

You don't remember that it is claimed that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul in "True Discourse" in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

We are interested in the EVIDENCE from Antiquity NOT the flawed opinion of "authority".

You should find out what the WITNESSES of antiquity said.

 

[maximara]

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

This reference supports your opinion. It was written 25 years ago. I wonder if there has been any newer research, that affirms the belief that P46 antedates P45? As far as I am aware, the dating is based solely on palaeography. Can we really specify handwriting with such precision, that two manuscripts can be sorted chronologically?

No. Here is what the wikipedia article on Palaeography says:

However, "paleography is a last resort for dating" and, "for book hands, a period of 50 years is the least acceptable spread of time"[4][5] with it being suggested that "the "rule of thumb" should probably be to avoid dating a hand more precisely than a range of at least seventy or eighty years."[6] In an 2005 e-mail addendum to his 1996 "The Paleographical Dating of P-46" paper Bruce W. Griffin stated "Until more rigorous methodologies are developed, it is difficult to construct a 95% confidence interval for NT manuscripts without allowing a century for an assigned date."[7] William M Schniedewind went even further in the abstract to his 2005 paper "Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions" and stated that "The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity".[8]


4. Turner, Eric G. (1987), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (2d rev. ed.; London: Institute of Classical Studies
5. 6. Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24.

7. Griffin, Bruce W. (1996), "The Paleographical Dating of P-46"

8. Schniedewind, William M. (2005) "Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions" in Thomas Levy, Thomas Higham (ed) (2014) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science Routledge.

---

As I have mentioned before with a minimum 50 year range and a 80 to 100 years being far more realistic paleography is far too crude a dating method for the task it is being used for.

As the shenanigans with P52 show there is this tendency to present the earliest possible date rather then the true midpoint. If we used the midpoint P52 would be c 175 CE not the c 125 that is generally presented. So we can't trust the single dates we are being given are actual medians..

Carrier spends nearly a third of a page (361) referencing examples of editorial 'meddling' with Paul's writings:

Philip Sellew "Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis" Harvard Theological Review. 1994; 87:17-28.

William Walker (2001) Interpolations in the Pauline Letters Sheffield Academic Press,

his own blog at http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html

Rainer Reuter 'Introduction to Synoptic Work on the New Testament Epistles' Journal of Higher Criticism. - (2002) vol.9 1 2 SPR FALL, p.246-258

E. Randolph Richards (2004) Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection pg 99-121

Carrier then gives works regarding such 'meddling' with the Gospels and the other epistles:

Robert B. Stewart (2011) The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue

Bart D. Ehrman (1993) The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Oxford University Press

Bruce Metzger (1992) The Text of the New Testament Oxford University press

With all this editorial meddling hanging a theory on one word (or even a phrase) is not logical. If anything it is reckless. There is no way to say if anything that short was actually Paul and not some copyist mucking around with the text to "improve" it

As I pointed out before each of the seven epistles is composed of two or more letters so some editing occurred. Some scholars think that Marcion of Sinope was this editor. Given his idea that the true God had sent Jesus to save us from the incompetent and-or malicious demiurge that the Jews worshiped I wouldn't put it past Marcion to "improve" what Paul wrote.

I should mention in the Lucan priority (Luke first) school (also known as Jerusalem School Hypothesis) Marcion takes on even greater significance but that line of though depends on the Gospels originally being in Hebrew which makes no sense in that that Greek was the main language of Jews by the 1st century CE with Hebrew on par with how Latin was for Roman Catholics after Vatican II.

 

[Walter Ego]

The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work...

What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism?

I don't read any religious journals or biblical studies journals. So I don't know what papers Carrier and others have published in any such journals.

In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.

 

[Mcreal]

In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.

Carrier's book is peer-reviewed -

"My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well."

freethoughtblogs [dot] com/carrier/archives/4090^*

He has published several peer-reviewed articles in academic journals eg.

Carrier R (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental *Interpolation* in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
vol. 20, no. 4; 
pp. 489-514.

Carrier, R (2014) "The Prospect of a Christian *Interpolation* in Tacitus, Annals 15.44" Vigiliae Christianae, 68:3;

Carrier, R “Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 8 (2011-2012): 185-91.​

More here - richardcarrier[dot]info/pubs.pdf^* (not all peer reviewed)

^* I can't post urls here (as a new poster), so you'll need to put in ht²p:// or wx3 front of those 'links'

 

[dejudge]

Again, we have another strawman to divert attention from the fact that the HJ argument was initiated WITHOUT the supporting historical data.

It is already known that "peer review" is completely irrelevant to determine veracity or the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters.

When we examine the NT Canon it becomes increasingly clear that the Pauline writings about Jesus are always the LATER version of the story.

Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth are figures of fiction based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

 

[Mcreal]

It is already known that "peer review" is completely irrelevant to determine veracity or the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters.

Err, peer-reviewed articles published about 'evidence from antiquity' tend to have more veracity than some waffle, somewhere.

 

[maximara]

In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.

WHAT?!?

Go back and READ post 388. I provided ample evidence that books published by Sheffield Phoenix Press (the scholarly publisher) have to go through peer review and I did NOT use Carrier as my source.

 

[maximara]

Err, peer-reviewed articles published about 'evidence from antiquity' tend to have more veracity than some waffle, somewhere.

Not when the "peer reviewed" article is by somebody like Scientific Research Publishing who is considered little more then a vanity publisher. This is in reference to the article that claims authenticity of James Ossuary which has been declared a fraud by no less then the Israeli Antiquities Authority and was reported by a Archaeological Institute of America (Chartered by the US government 1906) magazine.

Psudojournals (like what Scientific Research Publishing seems to publish) claim "peer review" but it is little more then a rubber stamp, a pained on fig leaf to lend credibility to what is really psudoscience. As I said without an established respected academic publisher (such as Wiley or Sheffield Phoenix Press) backing it peer review doesn't mean anything.