For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Regarding "the thinking of the time" - what time? The first century?

The thinking of people at any time during which belief in a heavenly temple was extant.

 

[Mcreal]

[*]There are many questions around the suitability of using Bayes's Theorem for historical questions generally

What are these questions (about using Bayes for historical studies)?

and Carrier's use of it specifically.

Perhaps, but the "reviews of Carrier's use of BT ...by mathematicians and others" seem to have been selected b/c they are "overwhelmingly negative".

You said at the start of your post:

It gives readers an opportunity to inspect each element that Carrier uses to generate his probabilities for his final Bayes Theorem calculation. Carrier invites discussion on these points, encouraging readers to go over his evidence and calculate their own probabilities.

Have any reviewers done that?

[*]I don't see any evidence in Paul or other early writings, either Christian or pagan, for the idea of a celestial being getting incarnated ('into flesh') and killed above the earth.

Perhaps the proposed celestial being wasn't initially 'incarnated into flesh'?

[*]I don't see any evidence in Paul or other early writings, either Christian or pagan, for the idea of a celestial being getting incarnated ('into flesh') and killed above the earth. Carrier does see such evidence in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Hebrews and in Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris', but as I explain below, Carrier is simply wrong.

You said at the start of your post"

On the positive side, Carrier outlines his case carefully, and generally backs each part up with references to primary sources.

The sections where Carrier provides 'Background Information' on early Christianity ...is comprehensive, and Carrier refers back to these sections often throughout his book.

Is there a disconnect between Carrier's provision of comprehensive 'Background Information' on early Christianity and how he outlines his case?

 

[Mcreal]

The thinking of people at any time during which belief in a heavenly temple was extant.

Would belief in a 'heavenly Temple' be more prevalent after the real Temple had been destroyed?

 

[Craig B]

Would belief in a 'heavenly Temple' be more prevalent after the real Temple had been destroyed?

Belief in the existence of the real Temple would certainly be less prevalent. As to its celestial equivalent; I don't think it matters to the point raised. People who don't believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto don't believe that Jesus was executed there.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Would belief in a 'heavenly Temple' be more prevalent after the real Temple had been destroyed?

There's actually not all that much before Xianity. There is some indication in Philo that there is a heavenly temple, but then again he doesn't mention one in his ascent into heavens part. Then again, his ascent into heavens is really an allegory for the temple in Jerusalem. So it's a bit hard to tell.

You have to understand that, as Carrier too repeatedly says, pre-70's CE Judaism was really different from modern rabinical Judaism when it came to the temple. The temple in Jerusalem was a very central part of Judaism and of Jewish nationalism at the time.

And I think we can see it reflected in early Xian views too. The whole Mark trying to explain the destruction of the earthly temple or even Paul's having to explain the whole Jerusalem abovee thing, wouldn't really be needed if the temple in Jerusalem had been already obsoleted by the REAL temple of God in heavens. IMHO.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Belief in the existence of the real Temple would certainly be less prevalent. As to its celestial equivalent; I don't think it matters to the point raised. People who don't believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto don't believe that Jesus was executed there.

But again, nobody said that Jesus was executed in the 7'th heaven or in a temple. Even the HJ version doesn't have Jesus crucified in the temple.

 

[Mcreal]

People who don't believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto don't believe that Jesus was executed there.

Sure, but perhaps People who do believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto might believe that a celestial being was executed in the heavens.

Could Jesus' execution be a metaphor for lose of the real Second Temple?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sure, but perhaps People who do believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto might believe that Jesus was executed in the heavens.

Could Jesus' execution be a metaphor for lose of the real Second Temple?

Sort of. More like explaining why God or the Messiah didn't prevent the destruction of the second temple, and how that still counts as fulfilling the prophecy. It's actually quite explicit at times in the gospels. E.g., John 2:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”

21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

John 2:21-22 is quite point blank about how the messiah actually rebuilt the temple, except natch, actually Jesus IS the new rebuilt temple. John isn't very subtle, generally, but this is as point blank as it gets.

Edit: the problem remains, of course, that Paul, unlike the gospels, is generally dated before the destruction of the temple, so obviously Jesus's death and resurrection didn't start as a way to explain the destruction of the temple. Seein' as, you know, it hadn't happened yet.

 

[Mcreal]

From James Tabor:

Ascent to Heaven in Antiquity

The motif of the journey to heaven is a vitally important phenomenon of [now] ancient Mediterranean religions. There are five figures in the Bible who, according to standard Jewish and Christian interpretation, are reported to have ascended to heaven: Enoch (Gen 5:24); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1-12); Jesus (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9); Paul (2 Cor 12:2-4); and John (Rev 4:1). There are also four related accounts in which individuals behold the throne, or heavenly court, of Yahweh: Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel (Exod 24:9-11); Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19-23); Isaiah (Isa 6:1-13); and Ezekiel (Ezk 1, 10). Finally, there is the scene in which an otherwise unidentified “son of man” comes before the throne of God in an apocalyptic vision of Daniel (Dan 7:11-14). This notion, that mortals enter into, or behold, the realm of the immortal God (or gods) undergoes various complicated developments from the Ancient Near Eastern into the Hellenistic period. It is closely related to a number of other topics such as the descent or journey to the underworld of the dead, the heavenly destiny of the immortal soul, the apotheosis or divinization of selected mortals (rulers, philosophers, divine men), and aspects of Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian mysticism. Sorting through this complex conceptual web, and trying to understand these Biblical texts with their contexts and complicated traditional development, has occupied historians of ancient religions for the past 150 years (Bousset 1901; Segal 1980).

The motif of the heavenly journey can be divided into four basic types or categories, based upon the fundamental purpose or outcome of the ascent as reported in a given text. Generally speaking, the first two categories are more characteristic of the Ancient Near Eastern, or archaic period, which would include most texts of the Hebrew Bible (OT). The latter two categories are more typical of the Hellenistic period, which reflects the perspective of the NT.

1. Ascent as an invasion of heaven.
2. Ascent to receive revelation.
3. Ascent to immortal heavenly life.
4. Ascent as a foretaste of the heavenly world.

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-t...ion-philosophy/ascent-to-heaven-in-antiquity/

 

[Mcreal]

Paul, unlike the gospels, is generally dated before the destruction of the temple, so obviously Jesus's death and resurrection didn't start as a way to explain the destruction of the temple. Seein' as, you know, it hadn't happened yet.

Perhaps the texts were edited or even really written after the destruction of the Temple?

 

[Craig B]

Sure, but perhaps People who do believe in a heavenly temple ipso facto might believe that a celestial being was executed in the heavens.

Could Jesus' execution be a metaphor for lose of the real Second Temple?

Then there would be no belief that Jesus was "really" executed in outer space. It would be a metaphor, not a reality.

 

[Mcreal]

There is some indication in Philo that there is a heavenly temple, but then again he doesn't mention one in his ascent into heavens part. Then again, his ascent into heavens is really an allegory for the temple in Jerusalem. So it's a bit hard to tell.

For Philo of Alexandria, seeing God represents the pinnacle of human experience:

Abstract
For Philo of Alexandria, seeing God represents the pinnacle of human experience. This essay examines three important aspects of that experience: the effectual means of the vision, the methods employed in evoking it, and the function and influence of Philo’s mysticism in the experience. While in some contexts Philo emphasizes the singular role of God in empowering the contemplative ascent and affording the vision, many others highlight the part played by human effort. Philo’s accounts of the practices that evoke the ascent and vision of God are also varied. Tough Platonic philosophical contemplation and the practice of virtue are occasionally implicated, in most cases exegetical text work is instrumental. Finally, while some have attempted to divorce Philo’s mystical praxis from the vision of God, contending that “seeing” is simply a metaphor for “knowing” (i.e., “achieving a rational awareness of God’s existence”), a number of factors indicate the importance of Philo’s mysticism in the experience and suggest that an actual, mystical visual encounter underlies and informs these textual representations.
https://www.academia.edu/1551360/_S...al_for_the_Study_of_Judaism_43.2_2012_147_179

 

[Mcreal]

Then there would be no belief that Jesus was "really" executed in outer space. It would be a metaphor, not a reality.

Sure, but isn't that the point? i.e. Belief that Jesus was executed in outer space began as a metaphor, and then that metaphor came to be told and transmitted as reality.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Pretty much, although I'd caution against the generalization of "ancient Mediterranean religions" without further qualifiers. In fact, before the 1st millennium BCE or so, there wasn't really much of a heavens to go to as a human.

Both Egypt and Mesopotamia really had your afterlife down below, in a netherworld. The difference is that in Egypt the gods too were there for a while (well, until the Ba kind of soul entered the equation, and even then only for the Pharaoh at first), and where your dead relatives could petition them. In Sumer and then Akkad the gods were in heavens (well, those who didn't rule over the underworld or anything), but humans went to the netherworld. In fact, any human actually entering heavens would have been destroyed.

Hell even half-way into the first millennium BCE, the Greeks or the Jews weren't really believing that dead humans go to heavens. Well, unless you were a demigod or becoming a god, anyway, in the Greeks' case. Though spiritual ascents or visions were more common.

Basically things changed about as much as you'd expect over the course of 3000 years and of some massive upheavals at times. So it helps if we are more specific about exactly WHEN in that ancient Mediterranean any particular concept is all the rage. By roughly the time of the hellenistic period, which really is the relevant time for this discussion, sure, Tabor is right. But, just to nitpick, go back in time long enough and it becomes somewhat less accurate.

 

[Mcreal]

James Tarbor's Ph.D. dissertation (at the University of Chicago, on “Paul’s Ascent to Paradise” under Jonathan Z. Smith, Robert M. Grant, and Bernard McGinn) focused on the celebrated passage where Paul reports his extraordinary experience, as a “man in Christ” who was taken to the “third heaven,” and then into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).

Paul is not the only one in antiquity reported to have experienced such a “heavenly journey.” In his book, Paul and Jesus, Tarbor discuss the implications of these claims of Paul to extraordinary revelations and how they created both conflict and controversy in what he calls the “battle of the apostles.” What few readers of the New Testament might not realize is that the phenomenon of the “heavenly journey” was a rather common one in Paul’s time, and stretching back several hundreds years before him.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-ascend-to-heaven…paul’s-journey-to-paradise/

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Perhaps the texts were edited or even really written after the destruction of the Temple?

Well, there was a lot of interpolation, to be sure. Was Jesus originally not crucified in Paul? Hmm. I suppose it's possible, though it would be strange why so many sects, including some heavily gnostic ones, not just the ones that would become the RCC, seem to have had a crucifixion too. Either that kinda thing started very early, or I suppose the destruction of the temple COULD have been THAT traumatic for all the sects.

Personally I'd go with the crucifixion being there all along, but of course MY personal disbelief isn't exactly a sound argument either.

For Philo of Alexandria, seeing God represents the pinnacle of human experience:

Well, sorta, kinda. Remember he's also the guy who made a big deal of the Logos because God is too much for mere humans to deal with, and too different for us to really be in the image of. So I'd at least wonder which god he's really contacting there: the Father or the Logos?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

James Tarbor's Ph.D. dissertation (at the University of Chicago, on “Paul’s Ascent to Paradise” under Jonathan Z. Smith, Robert M. Grant, and Bernard McGinn) focused on the celebrated passage where Paul reports his extraordinary experience, as a “man in Christ” who was taken to the “third heaven,” and then into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).

Paul is not the only one in antiquity reported to have experienced such a “heavenly journey.” In his book, Paul and Jesus, Tarbor discuss the implications of these claims of Paul to extraordinary revelations and how they created both conflict and controversy in what he calls the “battle of the apostles.” What few readers of the New Testament might not realize is that the phenomenon of the “heavenly journey” was a rather common one in Paul’s time, and stretching back several hundreds years before him.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-ascend-to-heaven…paul’s-journey-to-paradise/

Well, I didn't say it began with Paul or even in Paul's time. You'll notice that I too was putting the whole thing several hundreds of years before Paul, so we're in agreement there. My nitpicking was just that saying "ancient Mediterranean" may create the impression that that spans the whole 3000 years of written history there by the time of Paul, instead of hundreds.

Of course, that nitpick doesn't change the fact that it was old news by the time of Paul either way.

Edit: oh crap, I had written "1st millennium CE" instead of "1st millennium BCE". Awful typo there. Fixed now, but sorry about that.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sure, but isn't that the point? i.e. Belief that Jesus was executed in outer space began as a metaphor, and then that metaphor came to be told and transmitted as reality.

Well, it depends on which MJ hypothesis we're talking about, I guess. The Doherty/Carrier hypothesis is that Paul literally believed that Jesus was crucified in outer space. Well, what WE'd call outer space, anyway. It was a much less empty place for the middle-platonics.

Jesus being a metaphor, well, that's a different MJ hypothesis altogether. Not really unbelievable, either, given how heavy the gospels are into metaphors, mind you. Could that have been actually started by Paul? I guess it's possible.

As I was saying, I'm not particularly married to Carrier's hypothesis, so I'm ok with the latter too.

 

[Craig B]

But again, nobody said that Jesus was executed in the 7'th heaven or in a temple. Even the HJ version doesn't have Jesus crucified in the temple.

I have made the point before. Jesus is treated as a sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice which makes the imperfect sacrifices of animals performed by earthly priests superfluous thereafter. If it is imagined to have happened in the celestial realm, and to have been perfect, it must have been made in the celestial temple. Recall that at the moment it was made on Earth, the curtain of the earthly temple was rent. The purpose of the place had come to an end. It is not to be supposed that the heavenly temple underwent the same indignity on account of Jesus' sacrifice. Therefore it must have happened there. It was perfect, final. So if it happened in the heavens, it wasn't in some "sublunary" dump.

But it couldn't have happened in the highest heaven, for the reasons GDon gives. Therefore the idea that Jesus was executed anywhere "up there", and not on Earth, could not have been what Paul or the writers of Gospels had in mind. They said he was put to death down here by the Romans. They meant, he was put to death down here by the Romans. And if supernatural powers were involved, the Romans were these powers' agents.

Statements like this by Paul, moreover, can really be understood only on the assumption that a physical earthly crucifixion was being alluded to.

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles​

That must refer to a common and degrading execution, to extol which in preaching seemed like unreason or impropriety to people on the receiving end of the message.

 

[Craig B]

Sure, but isn't that the point? i.e. Belief that Jesus was executed in outer space began as a metaphor, and then that metaphor came to be told and transmitted as reality.

Yes, but the "reality" that was then believed, if we accept this view of things, was that Jesus was executed on Earth by evil human beings.