Historical Jesus

[maximara]

If the field is so hopeless that every other peer reviewed Scolar is wrong, what is so great about peer review when applied to Carrier?

A broken calendar clock eventually is right.

You still haven't commented on GDon's comprehensive demolition of Carrier's central argument about the Ascents of Isaiah. Are you happy to agree with Carrier, even after he has been shown to be lying?

If you go to the piece that inspired GDon's long trip through the rabbit hole, Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah,:

"There is nothing amiss with Carrier’s translation. It conveys the same meaning as that by Charles/Barton.

Carrier is quoting, or rather he is translating, a section from what is known as the “second Latin” or L2 manuscript that varies significantly from the main manuscripts that normally serve as the basis for English translations."

"So what is Carrier saying about that passage in L2? Carrier agrees with those specialist scholars of the Ascension of Isaiah who enumerate reasons for believing that a large portion in our most complete manuscript, a portion that describes Jesus being born to Mary and then being crucified on earth and sending out his twelve disciples after his resurrection (11:2-22), was not part of the original text. "

In the thread you cited there is this:
"GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 am

Carrier...explain that [a likely] gap in L2 and S between 11.2 and the following passage shows that something has been removed from the L2/S texts, for example the fulfilment of the prophecies leading up to the Jesus dying and then rising. In this, he is undoubtedly correct. The question is: what was there originally?"

So GDon's main beef is not in there was meddling with Ascension of Isaiah but what Carrier thinks was there. Interpretation based on other is not "lying".

Heck, even Early Jewish Writings acknowledges that Ascension of Isaiah ranges from Second Century B.C. - Fourth Century A.D. or 200 BCE to 400 CE (because there is no year 0 those are the last years of the relevant centuries) among traditional scholars ie Pro Historical Jesus supporters!

Given that Irenaeus' Against Heresies sets the hard upper limit for the Gospels in a form we would recognize at ~180 CE (and likely far easier then that hence Carriers 120 CE cut off date) this means that about 220 of the some 600 year range is outside to in support range.

While we are on the subject of lying how about the Pro Historical Jesus which has more evidence of lying (via misrepresentation)? The conflation of the evidence for Jesus being on par with that of the Holocast case in point. If the evidence for Jesus was good why make such an irrationally emotional claim...unless those making this comparison know (even if only at an unconscious one) that the evidence is horribly inadequate. Such a comparison is not just disingenuous but downright deranged.

How about claiming passages mention Jesus when in reality the passages in question at best mention Christans or authors try to conflate "Chretus" (the good man) with "Christus" (the messiah)? How about lapses in basic logic?

For example, one of the main reasons Mark is generally viewed as being written after 70 CE is it talks about the destruction of the Temple but then you look at something like 1 Clement which gives the impression of the Temple is still intact but is generally dated 80-140 CE.

"Not in every place, brethren, are sacrifices offered continually, either in answer to prayer, or concerning sin and neglect, but in Jerusalem only; and even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the temple in the court of the altar, after that which is offered has been diligently examined by the high priest and the appointed ministers" - 1 Clement 41:2

In terms of constant use of methodology that is nonsensical and more over 1 Clement better supports a historical Jesus if, as Carrier does, you date it no later then 70 CE. And yet the Pro Historial Jesus side keeps plugging for the 80-140 CE date enough though the earlier date better supports their position - that is how out of touch with basic historical mythology they are.

 

[Brainache]

A broken calendar clock eventually is right.



If you go to the piece that inspired GDon's long trip through the rabbit hole, Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah,:

"There is nothing amiss with Carrier’s translation. It conveys the same meaning as that by Charles/Barton.

Carrier is quoting, or rather he is translating, a section from what is known as the “second Latin” or L2 manuscript that varies significantly from the main manuscripts that normally serve as the basis for English translations."

"So what is Carrier saying about that passage in L2? Carrier agrees with those specialist scholars of the Ascension of Isaiah who enumerate reasons for believing that a large portion in our most complete manuscript, a portion that describes Jesus being born to Mary and then being crucified on earth and sending out his twelve disciples after his resurrection (11:2-22), was not part of the original text. "

In the thread you cited there is this:
"GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 am

Carrier...explain that [a likely] gap in L2 and S between 11.2 and the following passage shows that something has been removed from the L2/S texts, for example the fulfilment of the prophecies leading up to the Jesus dying and then rising. In this, he is undoubtedly correct. The question is: what was there originally?"

So GDon's main beef is not in there was meddling with Ascension of Isaiah but what Carrier thinks was there. Interpretation based on other is not "lying".

He lies when he says that all manuscripts are similarly effected.

Heck, even Early Jewish Writings acknowledges that Ascension of Isaiah ranges from Second Century B.C. - Fourth Century A.D. or 200 BCE to 400 CE (because there is no year 0 those are the last years of the relevant centuries) among traditional scholars ie Pro Historical Jesus supporters!

...

No it doesn't:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8237-isaiah-ascension-of

From internal evidence, as well as from quotations in writings of the second and following centuries, it is safe to conclude that the three parts of the book were written during the first century C. E.

The original Book of Isaiah might date back to earlier, but the Ascension is from the first or second century.

 

[maximara]

He lies when he says that all manuscripts are similarly effected.

"In fact, Carrier’s discussion informs readers that scholars who study the Ascension of Isaiah are fully aware of variant texts in the different manuscripts and the problematic questions of interpolations and otherwise doctored and omitted passages." - Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah

No it doesn't:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8237-isaiah-ascension-of The original Book of Isaiah might date back to earlier, but the Ascension is from the first or second century.

A 1906 source ("The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia") to refute more recent scholarship. Brilliant. Why not cite the Bible as proof the Earth doesn't orbit the sun while you are at it?

This proves my point of both the Christ myth theory and pro historical Jesus camps pulling horribly out of date material to support their positions while ignoring everything between then and now.

 

[Brainache]

"In fact, Carrier’s discussion informs readers that scholars who study the Ascension of Isaiah are fully aware of variant texts in the different manuscripts and the problematic questions of interpolations and otherwise doctored and omitted passages." - Response #3: Non Sequitur’s Tim O’Neill presentation, The Ascension of Isaiah

Does he inform his readers that no one agrees with him?

A 1906 source ("The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia") to refute more recent scholarship. Brilliant. Why not cite the Bible as proof the Earth doesn't orbit the sun while you are at it?

This proves my point of both the Christ myth theory and pro historical Jesus camps pulling horribly out of date material to support their positions while ignoring everything between then and now.

OK then. I know that you would never use an old definition of Mythical Jesus to muddy the debate. I just went to your link and found the first article about the dating of the Ascent of Isaiah.

Please point me to where it says the AOI dates to the second century BCE.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not sure this is relevant, so I apologise to the mods if it needs to be moved.

I think this recent incident says a lot about Richard Carrier's honesty and integrity. I'm not taking that guy's word for anything, especially while every qualified Historian disagrees with him.

Take it away Rebecca Watson:

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Any chance you could summarize without forcing us to watch a video?

 

[Brainache]

Any chance you could summarize without forcing us to watch a video?

A couple of women accused him of sexual harassment and he responded by suing a whole bunch of people. He submitted some evidence to show how he wasn't a creep, but it actually just shows him being creepy.

He has turned into a litigious ******* and been banned from conferences.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Any chance you could summarize without forcing us to watch a video?

Richard Carrier is a litigious creep who apparently can't even be honest with himself.

 

[maximara]

A couple of women accused him of sexual harassment and he responded by suing a whole bunch of people. He submitted some evidence to show how he wasn't a creep, but it actually just shows him being creepy.

He has turned into a litigious ******* and been banned from conferences.

I know of only one conference ban (related back in 2016)

"Come See Me & Others Speak at the 2020 International eConference on Atheism!" - New flash here a eConference is still a Conference.

Given what happened with Craig Charles (False accusation of rape) and the overly broad definition of sexual harassment (my late mother said if she ever ran a company she wouldn't hire women because she didn't want to deal with the overly broad sexual harassment BS) I have major doubts about the claims against Carrier.

Besides this is all ad hominem rather than the merits of Carrier's position.

OK then. I know that you would never use an old definition of Mythical Jesus to muddy the debate.

The definitions I have used are not "old" but ones that have had reiterations.

John Robertson's 1900 definition is reiterated by Ehrman in 2012...hardly "old" by any rational measure. Contrast this with the nonsense from old stuff cites by the Pro Historical Jesus crowd.

"Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priests between these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the "him called Christ" phrase was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone)." - Josephus Rationalwiki

When your best non-Christian source has to involved square pug in round hole slight of hand then something has gone wrong.

Please point me to where it says the AOI dates to the second century BCE.

Already provided:

Heck, even Early Jewish Writings acknowledges that Ascension of Isaiah ranges from Second Century B.C. - Fourth Century A.D. or 200 BCE to 400 CE (because there is no year 0 those are the last years of the relevant centuries) among traditional scholars ie Pro Historical Jesus supporters!

The very title of that page is "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah"

Michael Knibb "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (Second Century B.C.-Fourth Century A. D.)" in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, 1985

"The range given by Michael Knibb stretches from the second century BCE to the fourth century CE (“Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2: Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth [New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985], 143, 149-150)." - Martyred Prophets and Matthean Polemics: Tracing the Reception and Impact of the Matthean Tradition in the Ascension of Isaiah

You know actually following, reading links, and doing research would solve so many problems.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Besides this is all ad hominem rather than the merits of Carrier's position.

I agree. This thread is about the merits of a historical Jesus, not Carrier's position.

And that means Brainache is right to not take the guy's word for anything, just like we shouldn't take anybody's word for anything. We should only be considering facts and logic, nothing else.

 

[maximara]

In the quest to find such an external connection, what we do have so far does not look like it supports the conventional early dates. In fact it points toward everything in the story having happened a few decades later than is usually said.

• Jesus is supposed to have been crucified in 33, but secular sources indicate a period from 4 to 44 with no crucifixions.
• He was included among a group identified as rebels against Rome (often mistranslated as "robbers", which wasn't a crucifying offense like rebellion was), but rebellion against Rome wasn't an early-30s thing.
• His story resembles a couple of guys Josephus wrote about, but their stories happened in the 60s (maybe 50s for one of them).
• Other minor side-points that don't affect the main plot of the story much & don't get noticed much but are in there, such as the civil unrest over a mob attack on a man named Stefanus, also look like equivalent stories that are found in secular sources, but, again, those are dated to decades later than the Biblical counterparts are usually said to have happened.
• I think one New Testament book claims that Paul met Nero, but Nero was such a classic icon of pure evil to Christians for the first few centuries that meeting him is exactly the kind of story that would be added as an embellishment whether the rest of the story it got added to was true or not.
• The New Testament's Jesus story also includes several details about the history & culture of the years 1-33 that are so wildly wrong and unrealistic that they wouldn't have been accepted so soon after the times they were supposed to have happened in. These include, for example, the census (ordered by the wrong Emperor and involving travel which it wouldn't and couldn't have involved based on thousand-year genealogies which nobody had), the behavior of Pilate and the crowd at crucifixion, and the slaughter of Palestine's male babies & toddlers. You couldn't get away with trying to sell such stories for the first few generations after the alleged events because everybody would think "Wait, I've heard my parents/grandparents/great-grandparents who were around at the time talking about life back then, and that's not what they said happened". So the fact that these tales got accepted anyway indicates that they weren't being told that way until a safely long interval afterward, when audiences could think of them as part of a distant past that they had no other contact with and no way to refute.
• The New Testament has Saul persecuting Christians at a time when they weren't really having anything in particular done to them. The earliest historical era in which Roman power came down on them in any form is the Jewish rebellion in the late 60s, which, again, would put everything a few decades later than it's usually said to be.
• Speaking of the Jewish revolt: the New Testament books that are usually said to have been written after it don't react to it at all; the before & after books show no difference as if they'd been written before & after such an upheaval. That makes perfect sense, but only if it didn't need to be referred to as a separate new thing from the Jesus story because it wasn't a separate new thing; it's what they were already talking about in the first place so none were written before it.

That tells me that the writing of the books, like the entire rest of this story, happened a few decades later than the usual consensus. A sound case for the usual standard dating will need to give us more to go on than just "well, it's what they all say". It will need to make the case for why they say that.

Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) 'Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet"' Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting goes into more of these factors.

* Acts has Theudas' death before Judas the Galilean which would put his death before 6 CE; Josephus clearly puts Theudas' death during the time of Fadus or 44 to 46 CE
* The Gospels talk of robbers but Josephus only talks of them for two time periods: 63 BCE to 6 CE and 48-70 CE.
* Mark 15:7 KJV states "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection." But Josephus gives no account of an actual insurrection in the time of Pilate. Instead we are told of two non-violent protests and Pilate's reaction to the Samaritan prophet of 36 CE. In fact, in what little of Tacitus that covers this time period that was preserved we are told “Under Tiberius all was quiet.”
*Outside of the questionable Testimonium Flavianum Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 BCE. and 46 CE
*The Gospels indicate friction between the Jews and Samaritans in the time of Pilate; Josephus records no such friction until well after Pilate, finally resulting in the Galilean-Samaritan War (48-52 CE).
*Acts 6:5–8:2 tells of an attack against a man called Stephanos, a very uncommon name in the area. This is identified as Saint Stephen who was killed 34 CE. The only Stephanos Josephus mentions in his entire work is c. 48 CE and that Stephanos was simply robbed.
*Josephus does record co-reigning high priests but these are Jonathan, son of Annas, and Ananias, son of Nebedaios at 48-52 CE.

The more you look the more things point to many details about Jesus being pulled from a later period ie around 48-52 CE.

I agree. This thread is about the merits of a historical Jesus, not Carrier's position.

And that means Brainache is right to not take the guy's word for anything, just like we shouldn't take anybody's word for anything. We should only be considering facts and logic, nothing else.

And if you go through the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page (and its related daughter pages) logic is out to lunch regarding huge hunks of the Pro Historical Jesus position.

Especially when it comes to the non-christen "Crown Jewel" the Testimonium Flavianum (or as I jokingly call it the Testimonium Piltdownium). There are so many things wrong with it how anyone can claim it as evidence is beyond me.

Cases in point:

*Structurally there is much wrong with the passage. Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs. See Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.

*The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.

*Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains. Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myths — both sets of accounts cannot be true.

I like to point to Minor's deeply sarcastic "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" which turns the then dismissive view given to how and why natives did things and turned then on 1950s United States. He showed that if you believe something odds are it will effect even your observations and result in the outcome you were expecting. The Testimonium Flavianum is that in spades.

 

[GDon]

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but:

In the thread you cited there is this:
"GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:57 am

Carrier...explain that [a likely] gap in L2 and S between 11.2 and the following passage shows that something has been removed from the L2/S texts, for example the fulfilment of the prophecies leading up to the Jesus dying and then rising. In this, he is undoubtedly correct. The question is: what was there originally?"

So GDon's main beef is not in there was meddling with Ascension of Isaiah but what Carrier thinks was there. Interpretation based on other is not "lying".

That's certainly part of it, but it isn't my main beef. My main beef is that Carrier claims that the variant texts don't have Jesus come to earth. In that, he is wrong. Whether he is lying or not isn't relevant. He is simply wrong. ALL variant texts have Jesus come to earth.

On my other beef: There are certainly gaps in the text in the L2 and Slavonic variants. My beef there is that Carrier has reconstructed a version that is based on his imagination. To do so, he has to chop bits out of the text that is already there. So the issue isn't just that he is trying to fill in the gaps, it is he has to rewrite the extant texts to do so. He doesn't really explain that he does that in his book, to the point that he appears deceptive. Again, whether he is being deliberately deceptive or not doesn't matter.

Heck, even Early Jewish Writings acknowledges that Ascension of Isaiah ranges from Second Century B.C. - Fourth Century A.D. or 200 BCE to 400 CE (because there is no year 0 those are the last years of the relevant centuries) among traditional scholars ie Pro Historical Jesus supporters!

Maximara, you are confusing two texts here. There is the "Ascension of Isaiah" and there is the "Martyrdom of Isaiah". The completed AoI appears to be a composite text. The earliest layer is the "Martyrdom of Isaiah", which is a Jewish work describing the martyrdom of Isaiah. This may have been written as early as the Second Century BCE. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

That text appears to have been used later by early Christians -- possibly docetists -- to describe how Isaiah had a vision of Christ's descent to earth, with that author writing in the First or Second Century CE. It was then edited a third time by later more orthodox Christians, who fleshed out Jesus's time on earth. One of those authors included details like Nero's persecution of the apostles. The final form of what we see in the Ethiopian text may have been written as late as the Fourth Century CE.

So the date range is reasonable. But it includes the development of the text from its Jewish component to the final form of the Christian version. Different sections were written at different times. No-one thinks that the Christian parts were written pre-First Century CE.

The very title of that page is "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah"

Michael Knibb "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (Second Century B.C.-Fourth Century A. D.)" in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, 1985
...
You know actually following, reading links, and doing research would solve so many problems.

Right back at you. The information is all out there. It should be easy enough for YOU to show that Carrier is wrong on some of his claims about the AoI. At the least, since the AoI keeps coming up as a text that supposedly supports his case, it's important that any arguments on it are based on correct information.

 

[maximara]

So the date range is reasonable. But it includes the development of the text from its Jewish component to the final form of the Christian version. Different sections were written at different times. No-one thinks that the Christian parts were written pre-First Century CE.

Because they are working on the assumption that the "Christian" (based on our oldest copies copies of Acts it is actually Chrestian and yes there is a difference which I will get to) didn't exist pre-First Century CE.

The problem with that is there is evidence of a group called Chrestian that existed in the 1st century BCE and maybe even earlier.

In fact, there is a inscription dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE per Christians own accounts (admittedly in the 4th century but given what the Pro Historical Jesus is using works that recent it's fair game).

In fact, "Chrestian" make far more logical sense for Paul's target groups (especially the Roman ones) then "Christian" when you look at the related words:

*chraomai: consulting an oracle
*chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle."
*Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer"
*chresterios (χρηστήριος): one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"
*theochrestos: "God-declared," or one who is declared by god.
*Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
* Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
*Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
*Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
*Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
*Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
*Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

There is even possible evidence that "Chrestus" was another name for the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis, who had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people. Yes, the evidence is from the supposed Hadrian to Servianus letter from the somewhat questionable Historia Augusta but it still exists. Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca historica (between 60 and 30 BCE) says Sarapis is another name for Osiris, Dionysus, Pluto, Ammon, Zeus, and Pan depending on the sect one is dealing with. This may explain why the more fringe Christ myths keep making the gonzo Osiris connection - they are using works (such as the Hadrian to Servianus letter) confusing Serapis (Chrestus) with followers of Christ.

Then there is the fact that "Chrestus" has been suggested to refer to a would-be messiah unrelated to Jesus (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85)

This all adds another question to the whole did Jesus exist question - Did some followers of Jesus co-op the name Chrestian from a earlier pagan group? It seems they did. And once that question enters into the picture things get real muddy real fast.

 

[GDon]

Just to expand on my two 'beefs': On the first, a correction. Dr Carrier claims that not all the variant texts have Jesus take on the form of a man. In that, he is wrong. ALL variant texts have Jesus take on the form of a man and also dwells on earth. It is only in Carrier's 'reconstruction' that Jesus doesn't dwell on earth. (See below)

Quotes below are taken from Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus":

In line with this, two other key phrases also appear to have been interpolated: 'they will think that he is flesh and a man' (9.13) and he shall 'descend in your form' (8.26) are both missing from the Latin version. Although the Latin text is frequently abbreviated, that is unlikely to explain the coincidental omission of these specific phrases, the only statements outside the pocket gospel that refer to Jesus becoming like a man. (page 42)​

Carrier is wrong there. All texts have the Beloved (as Jesus is called in the texts) taking on the form of a man (Isaiah's form) at 9.13. In the Slavonic and Latin variants, there are gaps in the texts, so it isn't clear where Jesus takes on the form of a man. But the Slavonic and Latin variants have Jesus "dwelling amongst men" as well, so the implication is that this is on earth.

On my second beef:

Carrier writes throughout OHJ as though there is an established reconstruction of AoI that actually existed. He doesn't make it clear that it only exists in his imagination:

But like the Ascension of Isaiah, this clearly did not completely hide the fact that the original narrative [of that Gospel] was in accord with the earlier redaction of the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Jesus never dwells on earth, but is born and dies secretly in heaven (page 322)​

Note that ALL variants have Jesus dwelling on earth. Only his 'reconstruction' doesn't. He chops it away to fit his reconstruction.

The Ascension of Isaiah is another example of this: we can tell the original redaction had Jesus die in outer space...(page 351)​

There is no "original redaction" except that which exists in Carrier's imagination.

Likewise that Jesus had a 'body' to sacrifice, from which could pour 'blood', is exactly what minimal mythicism entails: he assumed a body of flesh in the sub lunar firmament so that it could be killed, then returned to the upper heavens from whence he came. Exactly as the Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus did... (page 544)​

Except that no extant version describes that. Only Carrier's 'reconstruction' does.

... as we saw in the Philippians gospel (in §4), in order to die Jesus had to be clothed in a human body, which the Ascension of Isaiah originally placed in outer space. (page 570)​

The 'original AoI' is Carrier's reconstruction, of course.

Now, this may be more a problem with sloppy phrasing than anything else. But I've seen people quoting Carrier on the AoI as though there really was an extant or scholarly reconstructed version of AoI that supports a celestial crucifixion. But it doesn't exist.

 

[GDon]

Because they are working on the assumption that the "Christian" (based on our oldest copies copies of Acts it is actually Chrestian and yes there is a difference which I will get to) didn't exist pre-First Century CE.

No, they aren't. They are working from the assumption that the first part of AoI is a Jewish text that was probably written around the Second Century BCE. That part of the text has nothing to do with Christianity. Even if Christianity had been around then, that part of the text is STILL a Jewish text probably written around the Second Century BCE. That's why the AoI has that as its starting date.

That section of text is from 1.1 thru 3.12. Read it for yourself. Nothing at all to do with Christianity, historical or otherwise.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html

The rest of your post is interesting but I don't want to get dragged back into this thread, as fascinating as I find the topic! I just wanted to clarify the parts about the AoI.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

And if you go through the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page (and its related daughter pages) logic is out to lunch regarding huge hunks of the Pro Historical Jesus position.

Especially when it comes to the non-christen "Crown Jewel" the Testimonium Flavianum (or as I jokingly call it the Testimonium Piltdownium).

This is what I was talking about.

Your derisive attitude indicates that you are just here to boost your ego by showing us how much smarter and wittier you (think you) are. But all it really shows is yet another close-minded wanna-be Alpha male 'skeptic' who 'knows' he is right and will twist any fact or logic to prove it.

Perhaps everything you have presented is correct, but now that I know where you are coming from I can't trust it, and I don't have the time or inclination to check. Have fun strutting around the rest of this tired thread.

 

[GDon]

The problem with that is there is evidence of a group called Chrestian that existed in the 1st century BCE and maybe even earlier.

In fact, there is a inscription dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE per Christians own accounts (admittedly in the 4th century but given what the Pro Historical Jesus is using works that recent it's fair game).

Against my better judgement, I have to ask: So what? Why couldn't there be a group calling themselves "Chrestiani" in 36 BCE? And if CHRISTIANS weren't calling themselves that until 44 CE, why assume a connection between the two groups in the first place?

There have been groups calling themselves "the Way" over the years and in unconnected countries. Doesn't mean there is a connection other than the name. If there is no connection other than the name, so what?

In fact, "Chrestian" make far more logical sense for Paul's target groups (especially the Roman ones) then "Christian" when you look at the related words:

*chraomai: consulting an oracle
*chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle."
*Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer"
*chresterios (χρηστήριος): one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"
*theochrestos: "God-declared," or one who is declared by god.
*Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
* Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
*Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
*Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
*Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
*Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
*Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

There is even possible evidence that "Chrestus" was another name for the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis, who had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people. Yes, the evidence is from the supposed Hadrian to Servianus letter from the somewhat questionable Historia Augusta but it still exists. Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca historica (between 60 and 30 BCE) says Sarapis is another name for Osiris, Dionysus, Pluto, Ammon, Zeus, and Pan depending on the sect one is dealing with. This may explain why the more fringe Christ myths keep making the gonzo Osiris connection - they are using works (such as the Hadrian to Servianus letter) confusing Serapis (Chrestus) with followers of Christ.

Then there is the fact that "Chrestus" has been suggested to refer to a would-be messiah unrelated to Jesus (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85)

Okay. So there were other groups called "Chrestians". Did they have the same beliefs as the later Christians? If not, why does it matter? What exactly are you claiming?

This all adds another question to the whole did Jesus exist question - Did some followers of Jesus co-op the name Chrestian from a earlier pagan group? It seems they did. And once that question enters into the picture things get real muddy real fast.

How? Haven't you answered your own question about pre-Christian Chrestians? I mean, if there is any evidence of a pre-First Century group called "Chrestians", then can't pro-HJers just explain it away by saying "they are one of the OTHER groups"?

 

[maximara]

Okay. So there were other groups called "Chrestians". Did they have the same beliefs as the later Christians? If not, why does it matter? What exactly are you claiming?

Well the Hadrian to Servianus letter is used by many apologists to show how widespread Christianity was and given how wide the belief of Christians was c 180 in Against Heresies what defined a Christian was all over the place.

Heck, even Paul warns, in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (53 to 57 CE), of minds being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted" but it is not clear if Paul meant there were others using the name "Jesus" (or "Yeshua", etc.) preaching their own gospel or if there were variant teachings in general. So the schisming of the movement happened nearly from the beginning if we take the Jesus as founder route - which we really don't see outside movements that really didn't have a "real" founder. Compare Mormanism to John Frum cult and you see the issue.

Serapis (Sarapis), the Composite God is a long piece regarding Serapis and Christians.

The letter as it commonly appears:

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle.

The letter is generally cut off at this point] eliminating the following passage:

Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt.

--

Interestingly Drews in his 1912 "The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus" gives a different rendition of the letter:

Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt. (pg 52)

 

[GDon]

Well the Hadrian to Servianus letter is used by many apologists to show how widespread Christianity was and given how wide the belief of Christians was c 180 in Against Heresies what defined a Christian was all over the place.

I'm not a Christian so I don't care what apologists claim. If you think there is evidence to link pre-First Century CE Chrestians to post-First Century Christians outside of the names, I'd love to see it. Do you have evidence?

 

[dejudge]

I'm not a Christian so I don't care what apologists claim. If you think there is evidence to link pre-First Century CE Chrestians to post-First Century Christians outside of the names, I'd love to see it. Do you have evidence?

Whether or not there were post-first century Chrestians there is still no historical evidence for the supposed Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his apostles and Paul as claimed in the Bible.

All we have are fiction, forgeries, false attribution and anonymous sources of unknown date of authorship.

It is a myth that people called Christians in the 1st century could have only been believers in or followers of the character called Jesus of Nazareth

Writings of antiquity stated that there were people called Christians since at least 41-54 CE who were followers of or believed in Simon Magus as God, Menander, Basilides, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcus and others.

None of the NT books are historical accounts of the supposed Jesus, his family, the apostles and Paul.

There is not a single mention of a single Jew who was a Christian and worshiped a man called Jesus as a God in any accepted historical writings of the 1st century.


Jesus, his family, the apostles and Paul are all 2nd century inventions.