toejam wrote:I thought Horn's point was valid. We don't have direct evidence of any early Christian group claiming that Jesus was exclusively celestial. The closest we get are those saying he was here, only in some apparition form. Instead, Carrier wants us to infer that such a group existed.
Carrier covers this in OHJ from pages 349 to 356. I've reproduced some points raised by Carrier in that section below, though not all points. Starting on page 350:
- And yet we do have hints that some sectarian Christians were indeed gainsaying the new historicist reliance on the exoteric myths as actual histories. A hint of the existence of doubters of Jesus' historicity appears in the character of the Jewish opponent created by Justin Martyr in his fictional Dialogue with Trypho in the mid-second century:
- But the Christ, if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere, is unknown, and doesn't even yet know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him, and make him appear to all. But you, on the basis of groundless hearsay, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are now irresponsibly doomed. 114
This could simply reflect a natural second-century Jewish criticism, not too unlike that found in the pagan critic Celsus of the same period, who argued (in his now-lost anti-Christian treatise that Origen critiques in Against Celsus) that the Gospels were the only evidence of historicity the Christians had, and yet were at best groundless hearsay. Celsus argues from the unproven assumption that they embellish a real story, while Justin's Trypho takes it one step further and suggests they might have been wholly fabricated.
I don't see the hint there personally, and it seems to be a stretch, which Carrier seems to acknowledge.
Also, on page 351:
- This [2 Peter] is a second-century forgery, passed off as written by the apostle Peter, an example of how readily Christians fabricated not only their own history but the documents attesting it (see, again, Element 44). 116 There we see an attack upon certain fellow Christians who were actually teaching that the story of Jesus was (as Justin also denies) a 'cleverly devised myth' [sesophismenois mythois] and who were thereby forged creating a 'destructive heresy'. Similar hints can be found in other Epistles (e.g. I Tim. 1 .3-4; 4.6-7; 2 Tim. 4.3-4; 1 Jn 1.1-3; 4.1-3; 2 Jn 7-1 1 ; etc.). In 2 Peter we also see a related anxiety over the strange celestial Jesus found in Paul's letters-to the extent that now only the properly 'informed' were authorized to interpret them (2 Pet. 3 15-17).
Obviously the forgers of 2 Peter would have to represent these Christians as introducing a novel heresy. But in reality, these may have been Christians still connected to the original mysteries who knew the exoteric myths were only cleverly constructed allegories. The fact that this is all we ever hear of them demonstrates that we cannot expect to have heard more-for here, clearly, 2 Peter is attacking some Christian heresy we know nothing else about and have no documents from. Instead, we get a forged 'eyewitness testimony' cleverly designed to refute the claim that the Gospel was a myth-refuting it, that is, with a fabricated historical report. This letter is therefore a decisive proof-of-concept for the entire transition from the original Christian mysteries to a historicizing sect fabricating its own historical testimonies to 'prove' its claims.
2 Peter 1:
"[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."
Is 2 Peter attacking "some Christian heresy we know nothing about"? He seems to be attacking Christians who denied that Christ was more than a man. Why isn't this "proof-of-concept" of a transition from an early Chrisitianity where Jesus was considered just a man (as per Arnal's view of Q and Justin Martyr's comment that he knew such Christians) to a proto-orthodox one? It doesn't seem prima facie to be attacking Christians who thought Jesus didn't die in outer space.
Also, page 354:
- The Ascension of Isaiah is another example of this: we can tell the original redaction had Jesus die in outer space (it therefore was composed by a Christian sect who clearly adopted what I am calling minimal mythicism), but later, some historicizing Christians inserted a section that had Jesus incongruously die on earth at the hands of Pilate in a summary of their own...
The original redaction does NOT have Jesus "die in outer space." Carrier is simply wrong here.
Also, page 353:
- We have already seen Origen admitting that this tactic [creating a human tradition] had utility in mobilizing the obedience of the vast majority of 'simpletons' in the Christian movement who (he claimed) were not sophisticated enough to grasp allegory but needed to rest their faith on literal truths (see Element 14). So there evidently was 'gainsaying' after all. We just weren't allowed to hear much about it. Hence the objection that we would have more evidence of it does not have merit. Clearly the probability of that is too low to credit; it was all erased or destroyed or left to crumble into dust.
Part of the problem here is that Carrier doesn't really cover Second Century writings. If 2 Peter and Justin Martyr have 'hints' about the celestial Jesus view, then this would suggest that the celestial Jesus sect existed at least until 100-160 CE, and was important enough to address by the proto-orthodox in their epistles at that time.
Also, page 354:
- ... In fact Jesus was said to have been famous all across not just Judea but the whole province of Syria (Mt. 4.24; 9.26, 31; Lk. 4.14). Yet we have no surviving record of anyone from those regions challenging this. Remarks like this create a logical conundrum for the historicist. For it is much easier to invent a man than to invent a famous man, yet Jesus is depicted as incredibly famous in the Gospels. But if he were so famous, then the silence of other writers and historians about him, indeed the lack of any literature about him being generated by any of the thousands of contemporaries impressed or intrigued by his fame (see the survey again in §2), is all but impossible. That is, extremely improbable. The consequent probability of this pervasive and thorough silence on the hypothesis that Jesus actually was that famous (much less that any of the incredibly famous events associated with him in the Gospels actually occurred-and I gave only a select list of examples) is extremely small.
So if the historicist wishes to maintain Jesus was really that famous, then historicity is refuted by the complete silence of all other literate persons of that age and region and of all who wrote about that region or about any famous persons and events like those. The consequent probability of that evidence (of silence) is so small that it guarantees historicity will also have a very small posterior probabil ity, and must therefore be rejected as improbable. Just as for the darkening of the sun, as I have demonstrated before: we can be sure that never happened, because if it did, someone would have mentioned it (other than just the Synoptic Gospels).
[/list]
I suppose that the above is only a concern for those who want to claim the Gospel Jesus. Note that Carrier's argument above is not consistent with his 'minimal historical Jesus.'
I haven't reproduced all his arguments from that section, but the above provides some examples of how Carrier has addressed the topic of the 'missing celestial Jesus cult' writings.
