Mythicism: Two Theories

[ficino]

Wm. Lane Craig is very hardhitting, as usual.

I note that he uses the words "exegesis" and "exegete" correctly.

I don't really care about Carrier one way or the other except to repeat that he's published some responsible stuff in refereed journals - whether or not one accepts his conclusions.

[MrMacSon]

does Hanges give an alternative proposal for the foundation of the Sarapis/Serapis cult?

No. He is only interested in the spread of the cult. I don't know if evidence exists that would enable us to know how it started (assuming it was not created by Ptolemy Soter).

I think how the cult of Serapis started is a minor issue: its ongoing spread in the Roman Empire in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD/CE, and archaeological evidence of that, is more significant.

See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =40#p27909

[John T]

Wm. Lane Craig is very hardhitting, as usual.

I note that he uses the words "exegesis" and "exegete" correctly.

I don't really care about Carrier one way or the other except to repeat that he's published some responsible stuff in refereed journals - whether or not one accepts his conclusions.

What do you mean by refereed journals? You mean like those referees at the WWE or those tabloid journals at the check-out isle?
Please cite (link if you can) where his "responsible" stuff got published.
Sorry, but citing his own books and blog don't count.

Thanks in advance,

John T

[ficino]

These references have been posted on this site in various places. Of the two articles I've read, one is in Vigiliae Christianae. Peter posted a link to it in the Tacitus thread he just started:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238#p27389

The other article, on Josephus AJ 20.200, is in Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (2012) 489-514. I don't have a link to that paper. Here's a citation of it:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?type=summary& ... arrier.pdf

[MrMacSon]

What do you mean by refereed journals? You mean like those referees at the WWE or those tabloid journals at the check-out isle?
Please cite (link if you can) where his "responsible" stuff got published.
Sorry, but citing his own books and blog don't count.

Thanks in advance, John T

See - http://www.richardcarrier.info/pubs.pdf


Note that Dr Carrier's most recent book - On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield-Phoenix 2014) - was published by an academic publisher "serving the field of biblical studies" after being reviewed by major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity

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://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

More notable peer-reviewed journal articles by Dr Carrier include

• “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
  Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012): 489-514.
  
  “The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44,” Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014): 264-83
  - see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238#p27389
  
  “Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity & Judaism 8 (2011-2012): 185-91.
  
  “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?”
  The Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [online periodical: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml]
  
  “Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity.” Journal of Higher Criticism 11.1 (Spr 2005): 22-34.

[neilgodfrey]

Fascinatingly, I wonder if the character Jesus is actually modelled on Achilles? Troy as Jerusalem? The wedding of Thetis and Peleus as the wedding of Cana? . . .

http://mythagora.com/bios/achilles.html

Yes, I agree that there are many similarities between Achilles and Jesus just as there are between Socrates and Achilles. We know the Greeks looked to Achilles as an epitome of classical ideals so such modelling is to be expected.

I've collected the ideas based on other scholarly works to make the case for the similarities between Jesus and Achilles, too:

The subtext of Jesus’ family relationships — (1)

The subtext of Jesus’ family relationships — (2)

Christianity won over paganism by epitomizing pagan ideals

I have also wondered, like you, of associations relating Troy and Jerusalem, but from another perspective. Marianne Bonz has attempted to make the case that Acts is inspired by Virgil's Aeneid or at least the myth of Aeneas and his journey to found a new Troy in Rome. There are similarities of larger theme: the adventures through hostile opposition and travels to found a new headquarters for god's chosen people to find a new base to replace the old (doomed) city. It is actually Troy from where Paul sets out to begin the final stage of his career that will take him to Rome -- via Jerusalem. Recall Aeneas via Carthage and the near destruction of his purpose experienced there. So far I think these are mostly speculative, though, and no clinching case has yet been made.

[neilgodfrey]

What do you mean by refereed journals? You mean like those referees at the WWE or those tabloid journals at the check-out isle?
Please cite (link if you can) where his "responsible" stuff got published.
Sorry, but citing his own books and blog don't count.

Thanks in advance, John T

See - http://www.richardcarrier.info/pubs.pdf


Note that Dr Carrier's most recent book - On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield-Phoenix 2014) - was published by an academic publisher "serving the field of biblical studies" after being reviewed by major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity

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://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

More notable peer-reviewed journal articles by Dr Carrier include

• “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
  Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012): 489-514.
  
  “The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44,” Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014): 264-83
  - see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238#p27389
  
  “Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity & Judaism 8 (2011-2012): 185-91.
  
  “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?”
  The Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [online periodical: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml]
  
  “Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity.” Journal of Higher Criticism 11.1 (Spr 2005): 22-34.

Two other peer-reviewed journals that have published Richard Carrier's work:

The History Teacher (journal of The Society for History Education), "The Function of the Historian in Society" -- THT 35.4 (August 2002: 519-26)

and

German Studies Review 26.3 (October 2003) -- "Hitler's 'Table Talk': Troubling Finds".

I don't know if The Skeptical Inquirer in which Richard has been published is a peer reviewed journal.

[John T]

These references have been posted on this site in various places. Of the two articles I've read, one is in Vigiliae Christianae. Peter posted a link to it in the Tacitus thread he just started:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238#p27389

The other article, on Josephus AJ 20.200, is in Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (2012) 489-514. I don't have a link to that paper. Here's a citation of it:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?type=summary& ... arrier.pdf

1. I can't follow the trail on Peter's post.
2. Although, the Carrier article in Project Muse is something I would consider, I can't pull it up without paying for it first. So, based on his (free) lectures and blog, I can guess his comments about interpolation of Josephus, (Jewish Antiquities 20.200) is nothing more than reckless speculation rather than serious scholarly work.

So, if you don't mind, please try again.

Thanks in advance.

John T

[neilgodfrey]

2. Although, the Carrier article in Project Muse is something I would consider. . . I can guess his comments about interpolation of Josephus, (Jewish Antiquities 20.200) is nothing more than reckless speculation rather than serious scholarly work.

You don't seem to have respect for the peer-review process.

[MrMacSon]

These references have been posted on this site in various places. Of the two articles I've read, one is in Vigiliae Christianae. Peter posted a link to it in the Tacitus thread he just started:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1238#p27389

The other article, on Josephus AJ 20.200, is in Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (2012) 489-514. I don't have a link to that paper. Here's a citation of it:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?type=summary& ... arrier.pdf

1. I can't follow the trail on Peter's post.
2. Although, the Carrier article in Project Muse is something I would consider, I can't pull it up without paying for it first. So, based on his (free) lectures and blog, I can guess his comments about interpolation of Josephus, (Jewish Antiquities 20.200) is nothing more than reckless speculation rather than serious scholarly work.

So, if you don't mind, please try again.

Thanks in advance.

John T

None of us can read it - you will have to go to a library. But here's the abstract -

Abstract:

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?type=summary& ... arrier.pdf

I don't agree that (i) the Jesus who was called Christ passage necessarily refers to Jesus ben Damneus, or that (ii) Jesus ben Damneus was that James' brother, but the analysis is pretty good.