The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

You now admit that you added a question mark. You did not write exactly what I wrote.

You have confirmed you are a fiction writer.

Eh? There's more to good fiction writing than question marks. Although it is true that some novels are said to "pose the question" rather than provide answers, none of these has "?" as its total textual content.

A partial exception: when Victor Hugo wanted to know how well one of his novels was selling, he sent a telegram to his publisher containing only "?". The reply was "!". This is celebrated as the shortest telegram conversation on record.

 

[Craig B]

ALL ancient handwritten TEXTS are dated by PALEOGRAPHY.

There is NO OTHER Method.

That's how we know that JULIUS Caesar and Josephus lived in the MIDDLE ages because when we paleographise the earliest manuscripts that's WHAT we find and there's no other way of DATING writings.

 

[dejudge]

That's how we know that JULIUS Caesar and Josephus lived in the MIDDLE ages because when we paleographise the earliest manuscripts that's WHAT we find and there's no other way of DATING writings.

You write absurd fiction.

You can't even admit that there are archaeological evidence and artifacts for many figures of history.

 

[Craig B]

You write absurd fiction.

You can't even admit that there are archaeological evidence and artifacts for many figures of history.

And do you use these to date Caesar's writings? You were saying No, because all ancient handwritten TEXTS are dated by PALAEOGRAPHY. There is NO OTHER method.

Now you've abandoned YOUR only method, and ARE talking about other METHODS e.g. archeology of related ARTEFACTS. So there are other methods, and in the case of Caesar they GIVE results. Because he WAS ruler of Rome. Palaeography of manuscripts gives an absurd estimate OF THE date of his works, doesn't it?

Your mind must have BECOME disturbed. And you are doing things you STATED only a moment ago were impossible.

 

[dejudge]

And do you use these to date Caesar's writings? You were saying No, because all ancient handwritten TEXTS are dated by PALAEOGRAPHY. There is NO OTHER method.

Now you've abandoned YOUR only method, and ARE talking about other METHODS e.g. archeology of related ARTEFACTS. So there are other methods, and in the case of Caesar they GIVE results. Because he WAS ruler of Rome. Palaeography of manuscripts gives an absurd estimate OF THE date of his works, doesn't it?

Your mind must have BECOME disturbed. And you are doing things you STATED only a moment ago were impossible.

You write fiction.

You have no evidence from antiquity of an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father].

The Christian Bible which you openly use for YOUR HJ states he was Born of a Ghost, was God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

In addition, you put forward a most absurd idea that the Pauline Corpus was composed within the ridiculously NARROW time period of 10 years c 50-60 CE since a 4th CENTURY manuscript of a letter claims Paul was in a basket in the time of a governor under King Aretas .

Which King Aretas? Which Governor? Which Paul?

Which Papyri or maunscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated c50-60 CE?

Your arguments don't make much sense!!!

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Pauline Corpus was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father.

Examine "On The Incarnation" of the Lord attributed to Cassian.

You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was.

You cannot say that Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies that God was.

You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not; for an Apostle supports the fact that God was.

There is no way of escape for you.

Whichever of the titles of the Lord you may take, He is God, of whom you speak.

You have nothing to say: nothing to assert: nothing to invent in your wicked falsehood.

You can in impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to deny in the matter of your blasphemy.

The historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] was a KNOWN established wicked falsehood for hundreds of years.

 

[maximara]

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

as could other NT characters - James, Paul, etc

True, but Euhemerism in the time Jesus supposedly lived also said that Zeus (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Osiris and Heracles were flesh and blood people. The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." sums up the issue perfectly.

This is likely what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

The problem is there are plenty of people in the 'might have existed as minor players and were later elevated to great status' category Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, and John Henry are some examples.

Contrast those people with the tall tale versions (the modern euhemerism) with the likes of Johnny Appleseed, Jim Bowie, Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Mike Fink, Calamity Jane, Casey Jones, and Nat Love.

Jesus fits into the formal category rather then the later.

As I have mentioned before we could have a variant of the Malaysian cargo cult situation where a cult latches on the name of someone and proclaims him their leader and founder with the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults as examples.

No one says that Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson didn't exist but they had no actual hand in founding much less leading the cults named after them. Jesus could be in this category and given how common the name he may have not even been a teacher.

It seems strange that no one who supposedly actually knew Jesus either didn't write down anything or the Christians didn't seem fit to preserve it and instead we get anonymous works later credited to some of these followers.

As I said a long time ago it is like the joke near the end of Napoleon Bunny-Part: ""Hey Pierre, here's another Napoleon" Pierre replies, "That's the twelfth one today." The period between 6 BCE - 70 CE seemed to have cranking out at least one major would be messiah a decade with a cluster of them around Herod's Death -census and near the fall of the Temple. It is very easy to see Jesus as an also ran who for what ever reason didn't last long.

The problem is how do you get from obscure nobody that no contemporary thinks is worth mentioning (or if they did the Christians didn't preserve it) to a movement worth worrying about some 80 years later (Tacitus and Suetonius have enough problems that we can't be sure if they weren't talking about Chrestians a group that if a 134 CE Hadrian to Servianus letter is to be trusted worshiped the pagan Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis previously known as Osiris) and some copyist didn't "fix" the text)?

 

[Craig B]

You write fiction.

You have no evidence from antiquity of an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father].

The Christian Bible which you openly use for YOUR HJ states he was Born of a Ghost, was God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

In addition, you put forward a most absurd idea that the Pauline Corpus was composed within the ridiculously NARROW time period of 10 years c 50-60 CE since a 4th CENTURY manuscript of a letter claims Paul was in a basket in the time of a governor under King Aretas .

Which King Aretas? Which Governor? Which Paul?

Which Papyri or maunscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated c50-60 CE?

Your arguments don't make much sense!!!

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Pauline Corpus was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father.

Examine "On The Incarnation" of the Lord attributed to Cassian.



The historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] was a KNOWN established wicked falsehood for hundreds of years.

In what way does any of this, which you have churned out thousands of times, relate to the specific matters I refer to in my post?

 

[dejudge]

True, but Euhemerism in the time Jesus supposedly lived also said that Zeus (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Osiris and Heracles were flesh and blood people. The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." sums up the issue perfectly.

This is likely what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

You write fiction, maximara. You are jumping from hoop to hoop.

People here have access to the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

The writings attributed to Justin do state that his Jesus was NOT born a man of men.

You have forgotten "Dialogue with Trypho".

You have forgotten that in Dilogue with Trypho it is stated that Justin's Jesus was God and then became man.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

Please, maximara. The evidence will NOT magically disappear.

We know what is WRITTEN in writings attributed to Justin.

You MUST TRY to remember what is written in antiquity

Examine another passage in "Dialogue with Trypho".

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy.

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower.

And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men.

And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."

Justin's Jesus was a MONSTROUS myth fable like those of Greek.

According to Trypho when arguing with Justin declared "you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to the Greeks lest you be convicted of talking foolishly."

There is ZERO evidence from antiquity to date any manuscript of the Pauline Corpus to the absurd 10 year range 50-60 CE.

There is ZERO evidence of an historical Jesus, Paul and Satan.

All of them are FICTION.

 

[GDon]

That's pretty much how I viewed it, prior to Carrier's book on the subject. He presents a lot of historical information on the culture and context of the time when Christianity was formed, which seem to make the mythicist position more likely. He presents other examples, both from history, and in relatively modern times, when a religious cult has formed that created it's "savior", and treated him/her as a historical figure, despite them being (in the case of historical myths) clearly recognized as purely mythical, and in more modern examples, clearly provable as purely mythical. (The modern examples are cargo cults)

He also shows that the Jesus story was full of elements commonly circulating in many myths, at the time, and the circumstances of the Jewish people had crucial similarities to situations where more modern people have formed similar purportedly historical "savior" stories.

Further, he's shown (thus far - I'm about half way through as I mentioned) that other figures with the same mythical elements as the Jesus story has, are generally recognized as purely mythical, with no historical figure behind them.

His arguments go a lot deeper that this superficial pick of a couple of salient points. I do recommend picking up the book, and seeing if you find it persuasive.

Hi Swordfishtrombone. I've completed a fairly detailed review of Carrier's book http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html.

I don't think Carrier has a strong case, but if you see anything in his book that you think I should have addressed, please let me know on the thread I started on this forum here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10671030

 

[maximara]

ALL ancient handwritten TEXTS are dated by PALEOGRAPHY.

There is NO OTHER Method.

BZZZZ WRONG.

Palaeography looks at ONLY the forms and processes of writing, not the textual content of documents) The context falls under Historical Criticism NOT Palaeography.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a prime example of dating through Historical Criticism rather then Palaeography. The work mentions works that have a firm date of 325 which means it cannot be any earlier then 325 (the terminus post quem).

The gloss notes regarding various Church fathers shows it cannot be any later then 360 (the terminus ad quem)

Much the same is true of our earliest written account regarding Muhammad; based on the other things the monk put in the text we have c 636 CE as to when the added these personal notes to the Gospels he was copying.

Historical Criticism is our other dating method and claiming I am writing fiction doesn't cut it. You are behaving like a poor man's Joseph Goebbels as if repeating the same thing over and over again will somehow make it true.

 

[GDon]

True, but Euhemerism in the time Jesus supposedly lived also said that Zeus (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Osiris and Heracles were flesh and blood people. The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." sums up the issue perfectly.

I think a more accurate description of Euhemerism would be:
"Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they were later (erroneously) thought of as gods."

Remember, Euhemerus was later called an atheist, since he disparaged the gods as just mortal men. Had he been born after the Gospels were written, Euhemerus would have claimed that the Gospels were really just the exaggerated accounts of a mortal man.

 

[GDon]

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

Nitpick: You've given the correct definition of Euhemerism, but the NT Jesus character is not the result of Euhemerism. That is, if Jesus was just a man, the NT accounts are a result of apotheosis -- the deification of a man into a god. IOW, the man is really a god. I.e. man --> god.

Euhemerism is the other way around: it is the claim that the gods were really just men, i.e. god --> man. But later the man was thought to be a god (through apotheosis). So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis. But an Euhemeristic approach to the NT Jesus would be that Jesus was just a man.

I'm not sure if you are using a definition of Euhemerism by Carrier, but if so, I recommend not to! Carrier has screwed it up.

 

[maximara]

Hi Swordfishtrombone. I've completed a fairly detailed review of Carrier's book http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html.

I don't think Carrier has a strong case, but if you see anything in his book that you think I should have addressed, please let me know on the thread I started on this forum here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10671030

"Since Carrier is wrong about there being evidence for the idea of incarnated beings being killed in 'outer space' in ancient times, his version of the 'minimal Jesus myth theory' is, to my mind, refuted." Anybody who played D&D back in the day and read the actual myths that were used as a idea bucket for Deities and Demigods (1984) knows this is garbage.

For example, in Mesopotamian Religion Marduk killed his mother Tiamat and used her dead body to form the heavens (ie sky) and the Earth. If Tiamat was NOT killed in 'outer space' then WHERE in WHAT freaking part of reality WAS she killed in?!?

Another example is out of Greek mythology where Phaëton tries to drive his father Helios' sun chariot and as his father warned the horses get out of control and the Earth suffers blistering heat and cold as the chariot runs wild until Zeus destroys it with a thunderbolt killing Phaëton.

If you read the warning Helios gives in Metamorphoses of the journey he normally take he describes the constellations (you know those things in outer space? ) as if they are living beings. So odds are Phaëton was in 'outer space' when Zeus ended his wild ride.

If you are going to criticize Carrier on mythology have some idea on what the sam hill you are talking about! It kind of pathetic that a RPG supplement of 40 years that played fast and loose with the mythology it borrowed from did a far better just then you!

On a more comedic note looks like we have a pro-Kratos in the form of Ma Yuan (Killer of the God) who supposedly took out 10 minor deities in that book.

There are other mythicist theories that don't rely on a celestial Jesus element, in particular GA Wells' theory that Paul's Jesus lived and died on earth in Paul's remote past

As I have pointed out MANY times what has been called "mythicist" is all over the map including definitions that most people would qualify as part of the "historical" category:

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth." - The Times 1910


"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" - Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." - Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree. Ie ISBE's definition would include an obscure preacher named Jesus per J. M. Robertson's 1900 definition of "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"! But that is for all practical purposes the current historical Jesus!


More over Carrier has expressly stated that he does NOT consider GA. Wells position as mythical:

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" - handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?

This is something I have pointed out several times as well; between Carrier's two stated categories: the Ahistorical Jesus theory.

Carrier give a lot of leeway with his criteria but there are a lot of ways one can fail the minimal historical Jesus criteria and still have a flesh and blood Jesus:

* John Robertson's 1900 idea that the Gospel Jesus was a composite character or that a person inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, tried to preach his own version of Paul's teachings, and got killed for his troubles fails the criteria.

* The idea expressed by Remsberg that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

* G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" (This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical')

* Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria as Baker's first century personality need not be named "Jesus" or if he did his movement was not identifiable until much later.

You will also see these examples ALSO fail Carrier's five criteria for a minimal mythical Jesus so if they are neither mythical or historical as Carrier sets for that leaves a THIRD option-the Ahistorical Jesus.


All you have demonstrated with your review is you have NO idea on just how broad the Christ Myth theory really is...which is why Carrier limited in the way he did!

 

[GDon]

"Since Carrier is wrong about there being evidence for the idea of incarnated beings being killed in 'outer space' in ancient times, his version of the 'minimal Jesus myth theory' is, to my mind, refuted." Anybody who played D&D back in the day and read the actual myths that were used as a idea bucket for Deities and Demigods (1984) knows this is garbage.

For example, in Mesopotamian Religion Marduk killed his mother Tiamat and used her dead body to form the heavens (ie sky) and the Earth. If Tiamat was NOT killed in 'outer space' then WHERE in WHAT freaking part of reality WAS she killed in?!?

Another example is out of Greek mythology where Phaëton tries to drive his father Helios' sun chariot and as his father warned the horses get out of control and the Earth suffers blistering heat and cold as the chariot runs wild until Zeus destroys it with a thunderbolt killing Phaëton.

If you read the warning Helios gives in Metamorphoses of the journey he normally take he describes the constellations (you know those things in outer space? ) as if they are living beings. So odds are Phaëton was in 'outer space' when Zeus ended his wild ride.

If you are going to criticize Carrier on mythology have some idea on what the sam hill you are talking about! It kind of pathetic that a RPG supplement of 40 years that played fast and loose with the mythology it borrowed from did a far better just then you!

Note that I wrote "incarnated beings killed in outer space". It's probably why Carrier himself didn't use your examples: they don't fit the model of what he is proposing. Which of your examples has the being incarnating (taking on flesh) in the sky and then dying there?

And it seems strange that you use examples that Carrier didn't use in his book. At the least, can we agree then that the examples that Carrier did use are not appropriate?

As I have pointed out MANY times what has been called "mythicist" is all over the map including definitions that most people would qualify as part of the "historical" category:

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth." - The Times 1910


"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" - Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." - Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree. Ie ISBE's definition would include an obscure preacher named Jesus per J. M. Robertson's 1900 definition of "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"! But that is for all practical purposes the current historical Jesus!


More over Carrier has expressly stated that he does NOT consider GA. Wells position as mythical:

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" - handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?

This is something I have pointed out several times as well; between Carrier's two stated categories: the Ahistorical Jesus theory.

Carrier give a lot of leeway with his criteria but there are a lot of ways one can fail the minimal historical Jesus criteria and still have a flesh and blood Jesus:

* John Robertson's 1900 idea that the Gospel Jesus was a composite character or that a person inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, tried to preach his own version of Paul's teachings, and got killed for his troubles fails the criteria.

* The idea expressed by Remsberg that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got a hold of it also fails Carrier's criteria: "Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

* G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" (This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical')

* Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria as Baker's first century personality need not be named "Jesus" or if he did his movement was not identifiable until much later.

You will also see these examples ALSO fail Carrier's five criteria for a minimal mythical Jesus so if they are neither mythical or historical as Carrier sets for that leaves a THIRD option-the Ahistorical Jesus.


All you have demonstrated with your review is you have NO idea on just how broad the Christ Myth theory really is...which is why Carrier limited in the way he did!

All your above actually agrees with my criticism of Carrier's position in my review: that Carrier throws all other mythicist theories under the bus in order to reach what is a false dilemma: minimal historicity and 'celestial Jesus' mythicism. (Go to my review and search for 'under the bus' if you want to confirm that I agree with you there.)

Is there a more plausible theory than 'minimal historicity' and Carrier's 'celestial Jesus' mythicism, in your opinion? If you say "yes", then Carrier's theory must be rejected (though some of his reasoning might still be valid to build a case for another mythicist or historicist theory.)

 

[Craig B]

Hi Swordfishtrombone. I've completed a fairly detailed review of Carrier's book http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html.

I don't think Carrier has a strong case, but if you see anything in his book that you think I should have addressed, please let me know on the thread I started on this forum here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10671030

May I express strong agreement on one point. During this long conversation I have argued that there are two "mythicist" positions, a strong one and a weak one. They are different in principle, and contradictory too. They must not be confused or conflated into a single "mythicist" approach.

Weak mythicism is simple. We have very little, if any, historical evidence for Jesus, so perhaps he never existed. That makes him a "myth" in a loose sense of the term. I am sympathetic towards this. On the whole I incline to the view that he did exist, but perhaps not.

Carrier is saying something very different. Here is a reviewer on the Amazon site, describing Carrier's proposed schema.

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspi*ration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

My problem is that this prior existence of a celestial Jesus myth as the belief of a religious movement is less plausible than a historical Jesus. Carrier and his followers reject something because there isn't enough evidence; but they replace it with something which has even less evidence to sustain it.

So I very much agree with what you state here.

I don't see that there is any evidence in Paul or other early writings for a celestial being getting incarnated and killed above the earth, in either Christian or pagan writings. Carrier does see such evidence in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Hebrews and in Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris', but ... Carrier is simply wrong.

 

[GDon]

May I express strong agreement on one point. During this long conversation I have argued that there are two "mythicist" positions, a strong one and a weak one. They are different in principle, and contradictory too. They must not be confused or conflated into a single "mythicist" approach.

Weak mythicism is simple. We have very little, if any, historical evidence for Jesus, so perhaps he never existed. That makes him a "myth" in a loose sense of the term. I am sympathetic towards this. On the whole I incline to the view that he did exist, but perhaps not.

Carrier is saying something very different. Here is a reviewer on the Amazon site, describing Carrier's proposed schema. My problem is that this prior existence of a celestial Jesus myth as the belief of a religious movement is less plausible than a historical Jesus. Carrier and his followers reject something because there isn't enough evidence; but they replace it with something which has even less evidence to sustain it.

So I very much agree with what you state here.

Thanks Craig B. You get to the heart of the problem: there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, such that it is valid to question his existence. But that doesn't mean that Carrier's 'celestial Jesus' is more plausible than a 'minimal historical Jesus'. Carrier grabs at a lot of evidence that may be relevant to a non-historical Jesus, but then attributes the result to a 'celestial Jesus'. And this is just not logical. There may be more going on than just those two options.

 

[maximara]

All your above actually agrees with my criticism of Carrier's position in my review: that Carrier throws all other mythicist theories under the bus in order to reach what is a false dilemma: minimal historicity and 'celestial Jesus' mythicism. (Go to my review and search for 'under the bus' if you want to confirm that I agree with you there.)

Carrier doesn't "throws all other mythicist theories under the bus" and if you read carefully enough (something you have to do is you ever read Binford ) he doesn't "reach what is a false dilemma" either.

First mythicist has been thrown around to the point it has no meaning.

Second if see how he defines his minimal historical Jesus he clearly states "If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

Now compare that to Ehrman's definition: "The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

Now what is Carrier's first criteria? "An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death".

But earlier Carrier states "Despite countless variations (including a still-rampant obsession with indemonstrable astrological theories of Gospel interpretations that you won't find much sympathy for here), the basic thesis of every competent mythologist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized, just as many other gods where..."

Ok now look at George Walsh (The Role of Religion in History, New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998, p. 58) definition: "[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory."

Now here is where it gets FUN. Let's take part of Carrier's minimal mythical position and tack on the minimal historical position:

1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

A young man inspired by this story (or Paul's teachings) takes up the name "Jesus" and preaches his own form of Christianity and

A) acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

B) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

The original myth and the actions of this inspired man get conflated until

C) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

Now, here is the sting in the tail. Because "Jesus was originally a myth" even though we have met all of Carrier's minimal historical criteria by Walsh's criteria WE STILL HAVE A CHRIST MYTH THEORY!!

A long time ago I did a similar mix and max with Carrier's two criteria using a variant of John M. Robertson so show an Ahistorical Jesus and have come up with an even more interesting take on it:

1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Paul has his vision which can be as early as 31 and starts getting all the various fragmented Christ cults under the Jesus "brand"

A young man inspired by Paul's teaching takes up the name Jesus and teaches his own brand of Christianity and is either killed or fades into obscurity but his followers keep this version alive. (ala what happened with followers John Frum)

2) The followers of both Paul and the inspired "Jesus" die or fade of into their own obscurity by 70 CE.

3) A third sect still following the Jesus Christ the celestial deity takes Paul's writings and stories of other messiahs (including the inspired Jesus) to form a biography putting their messiah firmly on Earth. One particular version (later called Mark) become the go to version and all others are destroyed through neglect.

Now exactly where does THIS fit in Carrier's framework?

 

[maximara]

Nitpick: You've given the correct definition of Euhemerism, but the NT Jesus character is not the result of Euhemerism. That is, if Jesus was just a man, the NT accounts are a result of apotheosis -- the deification of a man into a god. IOW, the man is really a god. I.e. man --> god.

Euhemerism is the other way around: it is the claim that the gods were really just men, i.e. god --> man. But later the man was thought to be a god (through apotheosis). So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis. But an Euhemeristic approach to the NT Jesus would be that Jesus was just a man.

I'm not sure if you are using a definition of Euhemerism by Carrier, but if so, I recommend not to! Carrier has screwed it up.

Actually, if anyone screwed it up it is the people who wrote up the wikipedia article on it:

"Euhemerism is an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages "

"Euhemerus' views were rooted in the deification of men, usually kings, into gods through apotheosis. In numerous cultures, kings were exalted or venerated into the status of divine beings and worshipped after their death, or sometimes even while they ruled. Dion, the tyrant ruler of Syracuse was deified while he was alive and modern scholars consider his apotheosis to have influenced Euhemerus' views on the origin of all gods. (Euhemerus in Context, Franco De Angelis De Angelis and Benjamin Garstad, Classical Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2006, pp. 211-242.)"

Add to that Oxford Reference: "From Euhemerus (c.320 bce), who argued that the gods developed out of elaborated legends concerned originally with historical people."

And Merriam-Webster as well while we are at it: Euhemerism: interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events


Tell us, do you do any actual research before making these comments?

 

[GDon]

Actually, if anyone screwed it up it is the people who wrote up the wikipedia article on it:

"Euhemerism is an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages "

"Euhemerus' views were rooted in the deification of men, usually kings, into gods through apotheosis. In numerous cultures, kings were exalted or venerated into the status of divine beings and worshipped after their death, or sometimes even while they ruled. Dion, the tyrant ruler of Syracuse was deified while he was alive and modern scholars consider his apotheosis to have influenced Euhemerus' views on the origin of all gods. (Euhemerus in Context, Franco De Angelis De Angelis and Benjamin Garstad, Classical Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2006, pp. 211-242.)"

Add to that Oxford Reference: "From Euhemerus (c.320 bce), who argued that the gods developed out of elaborated legends concerned originally with historical people."

And Merriam-Webster as well while we are at it: Euhemerism: interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events


Tell us, do you do any actual research before making these comments?

I do, and I'm afraid to say that I have no idea what you are talking about. All that seems to agree with what I wrote.

Can you explain where my comments are wrong please? Just quote me, and then write: "This is wrong, because..." Thanks.

 

[GDon]

Now here is where it gets FUN. Let's take part of Carrier's minimal mythical position and tack on the minimal historical position:

1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

A young man inspired by this story (or Paul's teachings) takes up the name "Jesus" and preaches his own form of Christianity and

A) acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

B) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

The original myth and the actions of this inspired man get conflated until

C) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

Now, here is the sting in the tail. Because "Jesus was originally a myth" even though we have met all of Carrier's minimal historical criteria by Walsh's criteria WE STILL HAVE A CHRIST MYTH THEORY!!

A long time ago I did a similar mix and max with Carrier's two criteria using a variant of John M. Robertson so show an Ahistorical Jesus and have come up with an even more interesting take on it:

1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Paul has his vision which can be as early as 31 and starts getting all the various fragmented Christ cults under the Jesus "brand"

A young man inspired by Paul's teaching takes up the name Jesus and teaches his own brand of Christianity and is either killed or fades into obscurity but his followers keep this version alive. (ala what happened with followers John Frum)

2) The followers of both Paul and the inspired "Jesus" die or fade of into their own obscurity by 70 CE.

3) A third sect still following the Jesus Christ the celestial deity takes Paul's writings and stories of other messiahs (including the inspired Jesus) to form a biography putting their messiah firmly on Earth. One particular version (later called Mark) become the go to version and all others are destroyed through neglect.

Now exactly where does THIS fit in Carrier's framework?

??? Are you saying Carrier's framework is inadequate, such that there is something missing from his theory? Otherwise I have no idea what you are arguing for, I'm sorry.

To be clear: that Carrier's theory fails doesn't mean that Jesus was historical. It just means that some other theory (either mythicist or historicist) is more plausible than Carrier's. Let's recognise that first; then we can talk about what is more plausible.

Please answer this question: In your view, is there a better theory for Christianity's origin than Carrier's? If so, why?