For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[vridar]

Why do you think that we have to apply an allegorical interpretation that excludes the action of God in the earth by means of an humanized messenger to Paul's thought ? I don't know why we have to do this.

I never knew we "have to" either. I don't know why you think I think we "have to" do that.

 

[vridar]

I had done a critical statement of the mainstream of the experts. It makes no sense to answer in terms of what these experts think.
I have counted not less of five appeals to contradiction in your comment #399 of p. 10 about interpolations in Romans. Since i was claiming that the obsession for coherence is not a feature of the mythical-religious thought your analysis is included in my criticism of anachronism.


ADDED: By the way, I don't see any "mainstream scholars" that think that the specific paragraphs of the Pauline epistles we are discussing are interpolations. See your own http://vridar.org/2014/09/08/list-of-scholars-believing-pauls-letters-were-interpolated/

I suspect you are reading way too much into my comments. I don't know where your critical comments are or even if I was meant to engage with them.

If you think I belong to those who "obsess for coherence" in "mythical-religious thought" I suspect you have misinterpreted something I wrote or I expressed something very carelessly.

ADDED: There was an earlier time I queried something you seemed to be inferring about what I had written -- I thought you were labouring under a serious misinterpretation of what I was arguing. I had asked for a clarification. I'd appreciate engagement and discussion if you believe my arguments are unsound. That's the main reason I came here -- in hope of finding a bit more serious and informed criticism.

 

[Craig B]

Psst. It's "Proposition X" not "euhemerized". Focus. I realize that trying to derail it back to playing dictionary nazi with that word must be more tempting than actually addressing anything of substance, but do try to focus

And I have to wonder how you came to the above conclusion at that. Unless you actually believe that God wrote Genesis, I guess. Otherwise, no, it's the author that pulled a PX, not God.

Quite so, but I'm discussing the use of the expression as it might be applied to the text of Genesis. I don't really believe God or Moses wrote that book, as well you know. You will earn my gratitude also if you omit the continuous grammar or dictionary "nazi" taunting.

I have the impression that you are not minded to continue this discussion pleasantly and respectfully, in which case you are welcome to terminate it. It may be that in this too, you are following the example of Carrier as illustrated in the texts cited by macreal in #652. This whole issue is very dangerous to Carrier's doctrine, so these is little limit to the nastiness which he will heap on it. (Asterisks in the original.)

Euhemerus himself of course did not believe what he claimed...we must not confuse the “-izer” with the audience. The euhemer-IZER is the one faking a story (obviously: the story isn’t real, and never existed before their creating of it, so they definitely know they are making it up) ... Euhemerus was a ********ter. And many scholars like Plutarch knew he was a ********ter.

But his manner of ******** caught on. Lots of ********ters after Euhemerus did what he did. But to be fair, he didn’t really invent this kind of ********. He was just the most famous and identifiable culprit, and the one who made the trend popular again .. Even sincerely attempting to explain a God by postulating a historical man as origin is still the same thing: making up a historical man. It’s just a more honest process. [Than that practiced by Euhemerus, Carrier evidently means.]​

I see you follow him in the use of this intellectually valueless strategy, as you accept his guidance in other things. But this mode of discourse is not fruitful, and may even lead to infringements of the Forum rules, which are to be avoided.

 

[Craig B]

Adam and his rib were euhemerized.

No.

Out of a celestial

Yes.

Garden of Eden.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Quite so, but I'm discussing the use of the expression as it might be applied to the text of Genesis. I don't really believe God or Moses wrote that book, as well you know. You will earn my gratitude also if you omit the continuous grammar or dictionary "nazi" taunting.

It was meant more like a statement of fact: you have been derailing the discussion into whether the use of "euhemerized" is right or wrong for Carrier's proposition for several pages now, instead of addressing his actual proposition.

And even before that, your only contribution in all these threads was making up strawmen, and quite unrepentant at that. Direct quote from one of your messages: "I will respond in whatever way I see fit, to the meaning I attribute to your posts, and if you think I am infringing the rules you may report me to the mods."

So, first of all, you don't get to play the victim card after proclaiming on the same board that you're entitled to respond to others as you see fit. Unless you're trying to be a hypocrite, then the rest of us also get to respond to you as we see fit. And assign our meanings. What's good for the goose, and all that...

Briefly: I'm not taking Carrier's example, silly. I'm taking yours.

Second, yeah, there isn't an actual rule against attributing your own meaning to someone else's posts, in whatever way you see fit. There isn't an actual rule against strawmen or the other fallacies. But it's still polluting the discussion with your content-free strawmen.

Of course, I can't stop you from making up your own fantasy meanings about what someone else said. And, sure, the mods can't.

But conversely you can't stop me from thinking that, let's just say, if you just want to address some surreal nonsense that happens only in your head, you don't need to pollute a board with it. You can just go talk to yourself in a corner, like the rest of *ahem* fine people who have to make a whole argument around something that's happening only in their head. Or if it has to be in writing, you don't need more than Notepad to talk to yourself, you know?

But again, it's just a statement of fact. It's not taunting, it's just saying out loud and quite honestly exactly how valuable your "contribution" has been with that attributing your own meanings instead of addressing what was actually said.

If you don't like it, well, feel free to start addressing what was actually said. Any time you're ready. I formally promise that I'll stop calling them strawmen and all the other stuff when they stop being strawmen and all the other stuff. Scout's honor. Cross my heart and all that.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Quite so, but I'm discussing the use of the expression as it might be applied to the text of Genesis.

That said, ok, I've said my piece, now let's get back to what actually matters: I'm not even interested in whether a particular noun is misused or not. The important part is whether the phenomenon he describes was actually happening or not, not whether he used the wrong word or not, in it or for it or in some lecture about it.

That's why I resorted to calling it Proposition X (PX) instead. To reiterate:

PX is that: celestial events and beings at times were given variants or spin-off events and beings on Earth. And the Earth part is really the only big difference. The Earth counterparts of those events may (or may not) have also been miraculous or involved (demi)gods or involved superpowers.

Or as you say in your message #634 on the previous page, "This has nothing to do with euhemerism, I mean stating that one supernatural being is a copy of another." Well, bingo. That's what Proposition X is all about: one supernatural being on Earth was created as a copy of a supernatural being in heavens. That's ALL that that proposition is. That's all that Carrier is claiming there.

Let's forget the actual name, just focus on the proposition itself. Do you agree or not that PX happens? Do you agree that sometimes an author starts from Norse Thor and makes up a Comic-Book Thor? Or that they start from a Sumerian goddess and make up a girl on Earth with a lot of the same attributes?

Yes? No? Maybe?

That is what matters.

 

[Craig B]

It was meant more like a statement of fact: you have been derailing the discussion into whether the use of "euhemerized" is right or wrong for Carrier's proposition for several pages now, instead of addressing his actual proposition.

And even before that, your only contribution in all these threads was making up strawmen, and quite unrepentant at that. Direct quote from one of your messages: "I will respond in whatever way I see fit, to the meaning I attribute to your posts, and if you think I am infringing the rules you may report me to the mods."

So, first of all, you don't get to play the victim card after proclaiming on the same board that you're entitled to respond to others as you see fit. Unless you're trying to be a hypocrite ...

I have not been playing any victim card, merely responding to your uncalled for remarks, which have now gone beyond the point at which I think a response is desirable, as you are now well into "bickering". Have a nice day.

 

[IanS]

I think it does matter, but as I've written here and also in my review, it is a nitpick. Either his theory is right or it isn't, and calling it "euhemerism" or something else doesn't matter.

The problem comes in when Dr Carrier claims that this is "euhemerism", and this type of euhemerism was common in ancient times. It gives his theory de facto plausibility if his theory is consistent (though I now dread using that word!) with one or more (got to put that in there now!) ancient beliefs or practices. Euhemerism was an ancient practice. IMO what Carrier is describing is not euhemerism. It is worth making that nitpick, because the next step is asking whether Carrier's description of "euhemerism" is consistent with ancient practices.


Yep. That's the question.


The point of euhemerism is that the gods were actually mortal men, i.e. the men actually existed.

Was there an ancient practice that did as you described above? Not that I know about. I'd like to see evidence for that.

Well I already covered all those points (and more) in both my last post, and in the more detailed earlier post that explained the same thing.

And by the way it's certainly not clear that "Euhemerism" always means, or always meant, that the figure had to be a real human person. On which point Carrier has replied in a great detail to both your blog and to other similar criticisms that say he used the term "Euhemerism" incorrectly.

And also keep in mind that Carrier introduced that idea of Euhemerism, in what in this subject (bible studies!) apparently counts as a "peer reviewed" work (i.e. OHJ), where (apparently) expert reviewers in the subject of HJ read all that Carrier had written about "Euhemerism" and agreed that what he said should be published (if they thought he was wrong then they had a duty to insist that the passages were removed before publication).

But whether anyone wants to call it Euhemerism or not ; afaik it's a fact that it was at that time common practice amongst all religions to claim that fictional imaginary gods had all sorts of interactions with people and events on Earth. Carrier is simply saying that Jesus was yet another in exactly that same line of hundreds of such "gods" (in fact all of them, all 100% of them!) for whom the faithful told untrue fictional tales of how all those fictitious gods had all sorts of detailed activities on Earth.

 

[Brainache]

Well I already covered all those points (and more) in both my last post, and in the more detailed earlier post that explained the same thing.

And by the way it's certainly not clear that "Euhemerism" always means, or always meant, that the figure had to be a real human person. On which point Carrier has replied in a great detail to both your blog and to other similar criticisms that say he used the term "Euhemerism" incorrectly.

And also keep in mind that Carrier introduced that idea of Euhemerism, in what in this subject (bible studies!) apparently counts as a "peer reviewed" work (i.e. OHJ), where (apparently) expert reviewers in the subject of HJ read all that Carrier had written about "Euhemerism" and agreed that what he said should be published (if they thought he was wrong then they had a duty to insist that the passages were removed before publication).

But whether anyone wants to call it Euhemerism or not ; afaik it's a fact that it was at that time common practice amongst all religions to claim that fictional imaginary gods had all sorts of interactions with people and events on Earth. Carrier is simply saying that Jesus was yet another in exactly that same line of hundreds of such "gods" (in fact all of them, all 100% of them!) for whom the faithful told untrue fictional tales of how all those fictitious gods had all sorts of detailed activities on Earth.

Was OHJ really "Peer Reviewed"? I have my doubts, as does this guy:
http://postflaviana.org/historicity-jesus-yes/

As to ‘peer review’, Carrier’s respect for this process is very selective: he certainly complains clearly enough about the poor results of the process in terms of the reliability of academic “historical Jesus” studies. As for himself, he takes pride in calling his book “peer reviewed” — but the standard academic peer review process is seldom if ever applied to books, but only to journal articles. At his website, Carrier describes the peer review process applied to “On the Historicity of Jesus”: he selected his own reviewers, and sent the book to them. This is not ‘peer review’, at best it’s ‘pal review’, and there’s a difference. For ‘pal review’, I send this post to Rick and Joe. In the journal process, the editor selects articles based on their relevance & expected interest to the journal’s readership, a process rife with opportunities for gatekeeping and suppression of academic disagreements; after getting past the editor’s cut, the articles are sent to the editor’s selection of reviewers, whose identity is kept secret from the author...

 

[Mcreal]

Was OHJ really "Peer Reviewed"? I have my doubts, as does this guy:
http://postflaviana.org/historicity-jesus-yes/

At his website, Carrier describes the peer review process applied to “On the Historicity of Jesus”: he selected his own reviewers, and sent the book to them. This is not ‘peer review’, at best it’s ‘pal review’

That is rubbish. Carrier no longer has content at freethoughtblogs, and I can't find it in a search of the content he transferred to his own site, but in that freethoughtblog -post Carrier stated four reviewers were chosen from academia in the fields of biblical or new testament studies (+/1 other fields, maybe history) in conjunction with the publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press. Carrier said at the time of that blog-post, prior to publication, they had got responses from two reviewers and, as is appropriate, he as author was working with the publisher to make changes to the final text to address reviewers concerns and recommendations. He said they would endeavor to address comments from the other two reviewers if they arrived before the proposed publication date.

Sheffield Phoenix Press is highly respected as an academic press "managed by academics for academics" - see http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/about.asp - and I'm pretty sure they peer-review all their publications.

In attempting to besmirch Carrier, Brainache and Jerry Russell are also defaming Sheffield Press and it's academic management.

 

[Craig B]

In attempting to besmirch Carrier, Brainache and Jerry Russell are also defaming Sheffield Press and it's academic management.

These are very strange expressions. Who is "besmirching" or "defaming" anyone here? It is very significant that disagreement with Carrier is perceived by his followers in such a portentous way.

 

[dejudge]

When will the absurd arguments for a heavenly only or a human only Jesus end when it cannot be show that the writers under the name of Paul were heretics??


Why are people today in the 21st century trying to invent their own Pauline Jesus when we have manuscripts which show that it is claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven who was killed by the Jews??

There are multiple writings against so-called heretics and heresies however the character called Paul is not claimed to be an heretic and the letters under the name of Paul are not ever listed as heresies.

1 Corinthians 15:47

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Thessalonians 2.14-15

For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men..

Galatians 2:20

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

It is virtually impossible to present any evidence that a character called Paul was a known heretic and that letters under his name were known as heretical at anytime.

The Pauline Jesus was compatible with the Creed of the Church---Jesus was God of God who was killed by or because of the Jews.

The Pauline Jesus was a fiction character who never ever existed.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Jesus was a fiction character who never ever existed.

What about Paul, dejudge? In your opinion, did Paul exist?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

These are very strange expressions. Who is "besmirching" or "defaming" anyone here? It is very significant that disagreement with Carrier is perceived by his followers in such a portentous way.

Umm... what's your problem, Beavis? Strawman again already? Seriously, I haven't yet seen someone as determined to do strawman after strawman after strawman.

WTH is your problem, anyway? Why are you THAT determined to disrupt any discussion of HJ vs MJ? Afraid that people might actually have an intelligent conversation if you don't break it up? Or WTH?

The topic wasn't even CLOSE to agreeing with Carrier or not. I disagree with him myself. The topic was whether his book was peer reviewed or not. And claiming that something published through Sheffield Phoenix Press isn't peer reviewed, but "pal reviewed", and on par with "For ‘pal review’, I send this post to Rick and Joe." -- because THAT's what Brainache was quoting -- is a direct claim against said publisher.

And yes, claiming that an academic publisher is letting through stuff that's just been run past one's own pals Rick and Joe, IS a very serious claim against said publication. "Besmirching" isn't even strong enough a word. In fact, it's libel. And yes, it IS "besmirching" and "defaming" because it directly attacks their credibility as an academic publisher.

Attacking a publisher is not just not the same as disagreeing with Carrier, it's not even in the same post code as jut disagreeing with Carrier. One can disagree with something or someone by actually addressing his points. I realize that some people are just too... intellectually unequipped to address the actual point, but attacking the publisher just isn't a substitute. But yeah, THAT is what was being discussed, not disagreeing with Carrier.

So, yeah, once again, all that you "contribute" is just yet more trolling with strawmen. Whop-de-do.

 

[Brainache]

Sorry if my skepticism has been seen as an attempt to "besmirch" Richard Carrier or his publisher, but I'm still looking for evidence that OHJ was in fact Peer Reviewed.

I had a look at the publisher's website and see that it is an independent publisher run by two people from the Philosophy department of Sheffield University. It isn't run by the University. I can't see any reference to peer review on their website: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/title.asp

I looked at their Style Guide for Authors and Editors (pdf): http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/covers/sheffieldmanual.pdf and I couldn't see any mention of peer review. I admit I may have missed it, so if anyone can point me to where the peer review process for OHJ has been detailed, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not convinced that Carrier saying: "four reviewers were chosen from academia in the fields of biblical or new testament studies (+/1 other fields, maybe history) in conjunction with the publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press. Carrier said at the time of that blog-post, prior to publication, they had got responses from two reviewers..." counts as peer review. AFAIK peer review requires anonymity for the reviewers to avoid personal issues etc.

 

[Brainache]

I thought I remembered something about this. These posts are from an old thread here about that Atheism Plus business that Carrier was involved with:

I prefer those as well, because reasons. Mostly accessibility.

By the way, kudos on your inquiries into the whole Sheffield Phoenix Press thing.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYHi-g5U0AA5jkQ.jpg:large[/qimg]

Any idea which particular author they might be talking about?

I can't find this in the posting trail above, but I assume that it is Richard Carrier? I can see he writes on his blog here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

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).​

Checking the Sheffield Phoenix website, I found: http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/about.asp

Phoenix has developed a distinctive presence among publishers serving the field of biblical studies. It undertakes

* to be an independent company (not part of a conglomerate)...
...
Sheffield Phoenix Press is located in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Sheffield.​

So it seems to be an independent entity within the UoS. Sounds like an easy misunderstanding to make.

Richard Carrier 'enhances' the status of his publisher

Who publishes your specialist book is a vital element in determining the attention and baseline respect it's accorded by both academics and the public.

There is a general hierarchy of publishers running from top tier Uni Press, other Uni Press, private academic press, commercial main street press and finally vanity press (some subjects will vary this by having specific uniquely placed publishers).

Carrier has consistantly put his publisher (Sheffield Phoenix Press) in the university print house category. He wasn't silly enough to call it Sheffield University Press - but he used that term in lower case.

Typically he would say his book was 'published by the university' or by the print arm of the uni or some such stuff.

This was all picked up by Jan Steen of the Pit.

Sheffield Phoenix Press is a private academic press run by 3 uni staff using Uni facilities. They acknowledge the company is not in any way formally affiliated with or endorsed by the institution.

I had a twitter argument with Carrier over his usage before the sensible option of asking Sheffield University was undertaken - and I received the email response Damion posted above.

Carrier has basically been academically gilding his lilly - whether by intent or thru ignorance. I seriously doubt he doesn't know the distinction between a Uni endorsed publisher and an independant academic press.

His usage below is way beyond any simple confusion with SPP's loose geo-connection with Sheffield.
......................

Examples of his use:

a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK).

http://web.archive.org/web/20150820110826/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090


Ehrman has refused to even address my peer reviewed, Sheffield university press book On the Historicity of Jesus.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794


given that my Historicity book was published by Sheffield University

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6621


will discuss evidence in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (published by Sheffield University)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7943


I have documented it all in my book On the Historicity of Jesus, published by Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing arm of the University of Sheffield.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8761

Richard Carrier & the peer review of "On the historicity of Jesus"

I just had a long conversation with a family member who has formal uni experience from both sides of the fence in classics.

Peer review in the humanities is not really a "thing" like it is in hard science.

In science the review can confirm semi-objective truths - was the methodology sound, do the facts and conclusions follow etc. Is the (typically narrowly focussed journal article) a new plank of best scenario 'hard knowledge''?

In the humanities, reviews are more a test that "peers" consider the topic / paper worthy of being added to the overall literature of "points of view that might influence the discussion". This often occurs before a work is completed ie at the proposal stage. Additional pre publishing reviews are more about obvious gotchas rather than baseline testing of data and hypothisis.

Minor publishers may have reviewers who find proposed marginal topics palatable - or the publisher may over rule concerns. Major publishers will have more stringent requirements for proposals and be far more fussy on what they will contribute to the debate. Hence you won't find Oxford or Cambridge pushing mythicists.

The real" test of acceptance is whether or not a published work is noticed and contributes meaningfully to debate - being cited and stocked in libraries.

Carrier's work has been cited externally only 5 times, is stocked by only 50 or so libraries and has not attracted academic attention. This is the real "peer review" of On the Historicity of Jesus

So SPP's review was probably standard within the humanities and for a second tier print house. However that 'peer review' served a different purpose to that commonly assumed when discussing hard science usage. And the (lack of) post publish reception is really the key.

Simply put, to come out and say your history book was "peered reviewed" and stop there should produce a shrug and a cocked eyebrow in the academic audience.


Bottom line:

Carrier's peer review claim does not add meaningful weight to his work's credibility.

Carrier's claim merely accentuates the lack of actual acceptance of his work in continued debate

Carrier is hoping the casual amateur scholar will channel the *hard science meaning* of "peer review".



..............

tl/dr

In short Carrier seeks an (otherwise absent) establishment level kudos by misrepresenting both the implied status of his publisher as well as the importance of the 'peer review' process. It is an open question whether this was done consciously or not.

I guess I'll just disregard any further claims I see of "peer reviewed" in relation to Carrier's book. Unless anyone here can offer something a bit more concrete than Carrier's word on it.

 

[Mcreal]

I said in post #670 above, on this page -

"Carrier said at the time of that blog-post, prior to publication, they had got responses from two reviewers and, as is appropriate, he as author was working with the publisher to make changes to the final text to address reviewers concerns and recommendations. He said they would endeavor to address comments from the other two reviewers if they arrived before the proposed publication date."​

Here is that blog-post of Carrier's -

"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."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4090

and http://web.archive.org/web/20150820110826/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

 

[Brainache]

I said in post #670 above, on this page -

"Carrier said at the time of that blog-post, prior to publication, they had got responses from two reviewers and, as is appropriate, he as author was working with the publisher to make changes to the final text to address reviewers concerns and recommendations. He said they would endeavor to address comments from the other two reviewers if they arrived before the proposed publication date."​

Here is that blog-post of Carrier's -

Yes, I read that. I'd still not call that "peer review" in the sense that it is used in Scientific Publishing. It doesn't add anything to the credibility of Carrier's work to say that he chose a few people to look it over before publication.

He appears to be using the term "peer review" to imply that his work has passed some rigorous test of reliability, but the real test of works like OHJ happens after publication, not before. It isn't like a paper in a physics journal.

You can carry on thinking that "peer review" in this case adds to his credibility if you want, but I don't think I will.

Anyway, back to the topic:

I took a look at a Jewish opinion on "The Messiah" to see if there was anything there consistent with Carrier's ideas and found this:
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10729-messiah

The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called "the Son of Man," and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man's, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, "under the wings of the Lord of spirits." In ch. xlviii. 3, 6, xlix. 2b it is stated that "His name was called before the Lord of spirits before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, and before the stars of heaven weremade"; that "He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will remain in His presence forevermore" (comp. also lxii. 6); and that "His glory will last from eternity unto eternity and his might from generation unto generation"...

At the end of time the Lord will reveal him to the world and will place him on the throne of His glory in order that he may judge all creatures in accordance with the end to which God had chosen him from the beginning. When he rises for the judgment all the world will fall down before him, and adore and extol him, and give praise to the Lord of spirits. The angels in heaven also, and the elect in the Garden of Life, will join in his praise and will glorify the Lord. "He will judge all hidden things, and no one will be able to make vain excuses to him"; he will judge also Azazel, with all his associates and all his hosts. The wicked ones of the earth, especially all kings and potentates, he will give over to damnation, but for the just and chosen ones he will prepare eternal bliss, and he will dwell in their midst for all eternity ...

The Fourth Book of Ezra (about 100 C.E.) presents both the pre-existent and the earthly Messiah. The latter is seen in ch. vii. 28, xi. 37-46, xii. 31-34, where the Messiah is represented as the Lion "who will spring from the seed of David," will destroy the fourth (i.e., the Roman) world-monarchy, will rule 400 years till the end of the Messianic interim, and then will die, together with all men. The former appears in the vision of the man rising from the sea (ch. xiii.). Here, as in the Messiological section, the Messiah is described as "one resembling a man" and is called "ille homo" or "ipse homo" (verses 3, 12). The statement is made also (under the influence of Dan. vii. 13) that he "flew with the clouds of heaven." Other points of contact with the Messiological Book are: the statement that "he is the one whom the Most High has reserved for many ages to deliver creation" (verse 26); the reference to his being hidden with God (verse 52)—"Even as no one can fathom nor learn what is in the depths of the sea, so none of the inhabitants of earth can see My son nor his escort [i.e., the host of angels who will accompany him when he appears upon earth], unless it be at the appointed hour"; and, finally, the obvious reference to his preexistence in heaven, where the promise is given to Ezra, "Thou wilt be taken from among men [to heaven] and wilt dwell with My son and with thy comrades until the end of time" (xiv. 9)

I can see the idea of a pre-existent heavenly Messiah who will at some future time arrive on earth to judge everyone, but I can't see the concept of him being crucified either in heaven, or on Earth.

Most of the references for "Messiah" on that page concern an Earthly descendant of David and or Joseph who would rise up as a great King and reestablish the temple and conquer the enemies of Israel etc.

 

[dejudge]

What about Paul, dejudge? In your opinion, did Paul exist?

Scholars have already admitted Paul was a creature of fiction. Skeptics of antiquity have already admitted or implied that no known writer mentioned Paul and Jesus since at least the 4th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_criticism

The Dutch school of radical criticism started in 1878 with a publication by Allard Pierson, who denied Pauline authorship of Galatians.

He was fiercely attacked by his colleague A. D. Loman, but two years later also Loman abandoned the historicity of Paul.

Similarly, W.C. van Manen, who had written a doctoral thesis defending the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, wrote in 1889 that he had come to the same conclusions as Loman. Also the philosopher G. J. P. J. Bolland was a part of this movement.

No modern scholar or any scholar at any time has ever presented a single shred of historical evidence to show that the character called Paul in the fiction called the NT ever existed.



http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

"Against the Galileans"

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 letters under the name of Paul were fabricated in an attempt to induce "men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth".


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

"Against the Galileans"

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

No-one can or will ever be able to show historical evidence that Jesus or Paul was a contemporary of Tiberius or Claudius.

Jesus and Paul are 2nd century or later fiction characters.

 

[Mcreal]

Yes, I read that. I'd still not call that "peer review" in the sense that it is used in Scientific Publishing. It doesn't add anything to the credibility of Carrier's work to say that he chose a few people to look it over before publication.

He appears to be using the term "peer review" to imply that his work has passed some rigorous test of reliability, but the real test of works like OHJ happens after publication, not before. It isn't like a paper in a physics journal.

You're misrepresenting a number of aspects of this. Peer review is a reasonably 'rigorous test' for a journal paper, particularly a scientific paper, but would be less so for any book on 'New Testament or Early Christianity'. "peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity" still represents a degree of quality control, especially when compared to no such reports.

You can carry on thinking that "peer review" in this case adds to his credibility if you want, but I don't think I will.

That is a complete strawman. My issue is not that peer review might add to Carrier's credibility or the credibility of his ideas, but that you are using many misrepresentations to muddy the waters.

You're highly disingenuous. You're seeking to make ad hominem attacks, despite whining when they are made against you because of the nonsense you smear these pages with.