Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote:
  • Once we see what Mark is doing, we must realize he can supply us with no evidence of an exaltation Christology phase of Christianity, much less a phase that was phased out within his own sect, decades before he wrote. Because he is not writing about how the church originated. ... [Mark] is writing mythology for decades-later Christian life and ideas.

The Markian texts are part of the history of Christianity's development. Do we really know how their genesis relates to the Pauline texts?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote:
maryhelena wrote:Carrier's version of mythicism is lacking because it runs only with an ''incarnation'' christology and does not deal with gMark's ''exaltation'' christology. That there is allegory in gMark is one thing - it is quite another thing to allow allegory to trump the actual story that gMark is telling - a story with an 'exaltation' christology...
Carrier doesn't think that there is much if any history in the Gospels, so he doesn't need to consider an "exaltation" Christology based on any analysis of the Gospels. He discusses this in his review on Ehrman's latest book. Carrier writes (my bolding below):
  • In this case, Ehrman resorts to a literalist reading of Mark, treating the text essentially just as Christian fundamentalists do. But Mark is not writing literal history. He is writing allegory (as I have thoroughly demonstrated, citing both evidence and scholarship on the point, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 10). So reading Mark literally is to get exactly wrong everything he is saying. Mark actually does not say anything about where Jesus came from and never discusses cosmology or theology. Moreover, Mark is defending Pauline Christianity decades after Paul, and yet Paul was already firmly and unapologetically assuming a high incarnation Christology, it was in fact the only Christology known to him, and was so unopposed by any alternative that in his letters it needed no defense. So why would his followers decades later reverse course and depict a low exaltation Christology instead? This makes no sense as an interpretation of what Mark is doing.

    And here is where Ehrman falls off the rails of sound method: as in DJE, despite no longer being a Christian, he is still towing the Christian party line that Mark is a history book and is intending to tell his readers what actually happened, as some straightforward story. But that’s contrary to every sound literary analysis. Mark is fabricating a symbolic allegory. He thus cannot be taken literally at anything. He is not portraying any Christology. He is assembling lessons about Christian life and the gospel, and doing so with myths...

    Once we see what Mark is doing, we must realize he can supply us with no evidence of an exaltation Christology phase of Christianity, much less a phase that was phased out within his own sect decades before he wrote. Because he is not writing about how the church originated. Or about the cosmological foundations of his Christology. And once we drop the insupportable assumption to the contrary, we have no reason left to think there ever was such a phase. Ehrman of course needs there to be, because if there wasn’t, the historicity of Jesus becomes very hard to maintain. He needs historicity. So he needs exaltation Christology. So he needs Mark to be a historian. And so he ends up acting like a Christian fundamentalist, and treats Mark as though he is writing a history of the church’s origins, when in fact he is writing mythology for decades-later Christian life and ideas.

    But on the point that Christianity began with a high incarnation Christology, many scholars concur with Ehrman and me. It was once a fringe view that has now grown to a large and fairly decisive mainstream challenge to the old guard. It is obviously the correct view. As Ehrman points out, the evidence just can’t be denied. Paul knew no other version of Christianity. For Paul, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being whom God used as the agent of creation, and only later sent to assume a body of flesh and thereby die, and thus become an instrument of salvation for the corrupt world order. Ehrman tries to squeeze a few years (or days?) of low exaltation Christology into Christian history before that. But this is just his own conjecture. There is no evidence of it in Paul. And Mark is decades later, is not at odds with Paul, and not writing literal history.
The issue here is not historicity - it is the storyline that gMark is writing. Within that story there is, re the baptism, an 'exaltation christology'. Whether or not one decides the gMark story is referencing history or whether one thinks the whole of gMark is allegory is beside the point. The story contains, re the baptism adoption as 'god's son', an 'exaltation christology'. The story is the same whatever way one chooses to interpret it re historicity or allegory. The gMark story is fundamental regardless of how one goes about interpreting it.....the story precedes any interpretation...

Sure, one can say the storyline means xyz or the storyline means 123 - but interpretation does not negate the storyline - the storyline is what it is.....gMark has an 'exaltation christology'.

The gMark story is not history - although there might be historical reflections within the storyline. If we are seeking the historical roots of christianity we need a history book open alongside the gospel story. Interpreting the gospel story without a history book open is futile - it amounts to working in the dark...you know - close ones eyes and pin the tail on the donkey.... ;)
This is one area that I'd like to see Ehrman and historicists address. In order to use the Gospels to develop a view of historicity, we need to assume that the Gospels contain material that can be used for historical analysis. But has that assumption been established as reasonable? If not, then we need to stop right there before proceeding.
And to do that - put a history book alongside the gospel story....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Peter Kirby »

maryhelena wrote:The issue here is not historicity - it is the storyline that gMark is writing. Within that story there is, re the baptism, an 'exaltation christology'. Whether or not one decides the gMark story is referencing history or whether one thinks the whole of gMark is allegory is beside the point. The story contains, re the baptism adoption as 'god's son', an 'exaltation christology'. The story is the same whatever way one chooses to interpret it re historicity or allegory. The gMark story is fundamental regardless of how one goes about interpreting it.....the story precedes any interpretation...

Sure, one can say the storyline means xyz or the storyline means 123 - but interpretation does not negate the storyline - the storyline is what it is.....gMark has an 'exaltation christology'.

The gMark story is not history - although there might be historical reflections within the storyline. If we are seeking the historical roots of christianity we need a history book open alongside the gospel story. Interpreting the gospel story without a history book open is futile - it amounts to working in the dark...you know - close ones eyes and pin the tail on the donkey.... ;)
I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing. But of course canonical Matthew and canonical Luke have infancy narratives once again (muting what we are calling "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" views, going back to "incarnational" ones), while canonical John makes a whole great big thing out of it in the prologue, and then "Ignatius" (whoever that is) is huffing and puffing and swearing up and down that "incarnational" views are the correct ones (born of Mary, son of David, etc.) and blast to hell all those who don't acknowledge this.

We have some room to wiggle here, if we do think it's weird enough:

1) Galatians 4:4 and any other verse that supposedly has "incarnational" views in the letters of "Paul" could be later additions. This saves the arc of development (non-"incarnational" Paul -> non-"incarnational" Mark -> incarnational Gospels).

2) Galatians 4:4 is authentic enough, but it's referring to a whole different mythological space; things get retold in the first version that takes place in first century Palestine, in the Gospel of Mark. This gives a different arc of development (heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-adoptionistic Mark -> earthly-incarnational Gospels).

In any event, FWIW, Mark's story of the adoption/exaltation of "Jesus" from Galilee does not tend to incline me against non-historicist hypotheses.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing.
isn't "descending from heaven with a dove and [with?] God's proclamation" incarnation [high] christology?
Peter Kirby wrote:In any event, FWIW, Mark's story of the adoption/exaltation of "Jesus" from Galilee does not tend to incline me against non-historicist hypotheses.
Could you repackage that without the triple negative? ("doesn't ... against ... non-") :?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing.
isn't "descending from heaven with a dove and [with?] God's proclamation" incarnation [high] christology?
To answer this question, we need a working definition of "incarnation" christology.

My working definition is that "incarnation" christology is taken to mean that the "Christ" person popped out of a womb (or otherwise was begat as a baby) while being the Christ person at that time, while any other situation regarding the Christ person (like a spirit wafting down from on high during the Spring Break 30 AD Swimsuit Contest in the Jordan and inhabiting/possessing one of the revelers who happened to be called "Jesus," who was not yet the Christ or Son of God in any way at that point) would get the sticker labeled "non-incarnational" attached to it.

If you don't like the words on these stickers, we can try to find other ones; that's not a big deal. Would you prefer "infantological"? "Natal"?

"High"? I guess I would believe that Jesus inhaled, as he always struck me as the type, so put me down for "high" christology please. (Seriously, though, I can think of nothing more confusing than all this talk about "high" and "low." It's begging for trouble and misunderstanding. Same thing with "early" and "late" dating of anything. Use these words at your own risk!)

Loosely-defined terms have been a great source of consternation in this thread to this point.
MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:In any event, FWIW, Mark's story of the adoption/exaltation of "Jesus" from Galilee does not tend to incline me against non-historicist hypotheses.
Could you repackage that without the triple negative? (doesn't ... against ... non-) :?
Well, that's a challenge.

It's not technically a double or triple negative, if you can't easily reduce it, because these "negatives" are not "cancelling out."

Here goes.

I am unimpressed by the Gospel of Mark's story being called "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" as potential evidence for historicist hypotheses or interpretations. (Might do, in a pinch, if you really hate negatives... but some nuance is lost...)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by MrMacSon »

Cheers Peter.

I had thought it had more to do with originating in heaven, or coming via heaven (as the "re-incarnation"), but it seems it has a slightly different meaning in Christianity because of the proposed human nature of Jesus-as-God.

It's confusing ...
Incarnation literally means embodied in flesh or taking on flesh. It refers to the conception and birth of a sentient creature who is the material manifestation of an entity, god or force whose original nature is immaterial. In its religious context the word is used to mean the descent from Heaven of a god, or divine being in human/animal form on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation
Incarnation
[in-kahr-ney-shuh n] noun
  • 1. an incarnate being or form.
    2. a living being embodying a deity or spirit.
    3. assumption of human form or nature.
    4. the Incarnation, (sometimes lowercase) Theology. the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is completely both God and man.
    5. a person or thing regarded as embodying or exhibiting some quality, idea, or the like:
    The leading dancer is the incarnation of grace.
Incarnation
/ˌɪnkɑːˈneɪʃən/ ... noun
  • 1. (Christian theol) the assuming of a human body by the Son of God
    2. (Christianity) the presence of God on Earth in the person of Jesus
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incarnation
The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became flesh" by being conceived in the womb of Mary, also known as the Theotokos (Gk: Birth-giver to God) or "Mater Dei" (Latin: mother of God). The Incarnation, then, Jesus Christ is [supposedly] 100% God and 100% human.

... The Incarnation represents the belief that the Son of God, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote:
maryhelena wrote:The issue here is not historicity - it is the storyline that gMark is writing. Within that story there is, re the baptism, an 'exaltation christology'. Whether or not one decides the gMark story is referencing history or whether one thinks the whole of gMark is allegory is beside the point. The story contains, re the baptism adoption as 'god's son', an 'exaltation christology'. The story is the same whatever way one chooses to interpret it re historicity or allegory. The gMark story is fundamental regardless of how one goes about interpreting it.....the story precedes any interpretation...

Sure, one can say the storyline means xyz or the storyline means 123 - but interpretation does not negate the storyline - the storyline is what it is.....gMark has an 'exaltation christology'.

The gMark story is not history - although there might be historical reflections within the storyline. If we are seeking the historical roots of christianity we need a history book open alongside the gospel story. Interpreting the gospel story without a history book open is futile - it amounts to working in the dark...you know - close ones eyes and pin the tail on the donkey.... ;)
I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing. But of course canonical Matthew and canonical Luke have infancy narratives once again (muting what we are calling "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" views, going back to "incarnational" ones), while canonical John makes a whole great big thing out of it in the prologue, and then "Ignatius" (whoever that is) is huffing and puffing and swearing up and down that "incarnational" views are the correct ones (born of Mary, son of David, etc.) and blast to hell all those who don't acknowledge this.

We have some room to wiggle here, if we do think it's weird enough:

1) Galatians 4:4 and any other verse that supposedly has "incarnational" views in the letters of "Paul" could be later additions. This saves the arc of development (non-"incarnational" Paul -> non-"incarnational" Mark -> incarnational Gospels).

2) Galatians 4:4 is authentic enough, but it's referring to a whole different mythological space; things get retold in the first version that takes place in first century Palestine, in the Gospel of Mark. This gives a different arc of development (heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-adoptionistic Mark -> earthly-incarnational Gospels).

In any event, FWIW, Mark's story of the adoption/exaltation of "Jesus" from Galilee does not tend to incline me against non-historicist hypotheses.

Both approaches, re Ehrman, are the way to go. An 'exaltation christology' and an 'incarnation christology'.

gMark deals with a time slot under Pilate. Regardless of when the story was first written the time slot determines it's 'exaltation christology'. i.e. at a time period pre Paul there was an 'exaltation christology. Thus, the NT storyline development was from an early 'exaltation christology' to gJohn and an 'incarnation christology. Both christologies being reflected in Pauline christology.

Perhaps Ehrman is right that there would most probably be only a short period of time between the two christologies developments.

Acknowledging an 'exaltation christology' in gMark does not equate to the Jesus figure being historical (as in Ehrman's historicity). All such acknowledgement requires is that historical realities, historical figures, not be denied a relevance for the gospel writers in the creation of their story. The NT story is one thing - the historical roots of early christianity something else altogether.

Unfortunately, Carrier is trying to sell a version of the 'incarnation christology' to NT scholars that have long moved away from this approach to the gospel story. It really is the fundamentalist scholars who cling to an 'incarnation christology'. (as in the scholars that wrote the response book to Ehrman - How God Became Jesus'. ) The view of liberal scholars like Ehrman is that Jesus was just a man not a version of god. However, the two different christologies are part of the NT story so both should be addressed - which Ehrman does in his book - addressed as belief systems not tools by which a historical search for early christian origins can proceed.

Stories about gods coming down to earth are not part of the 21st century mindset. It's reality that drives the intellectual world in which we now live - from reality TV shows to reality instant news. The interest in christian origins has more to do with history - was Jesus a zealot - was Jesus married - was Jesus the Jewish messiah - was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet etc. It's the man, the human element, that drives the books and the movies. Incarnation christology is long past it's sell-by date. It's a theological curiosity - nothing more.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Ulan »

Peter Kirby wrote:I am unimpressed by the Gospel of Mark's story being called "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" as potential evidence for historicist hypotheses or interpretations.
And you should be. There is nothing to this that has any bearing on the HJ/MJ question.

You can read gMark as fully compatible with Paul's christology if you, just for a moment, forget about the other gospels and all the baggage that comes from there.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote:I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing. But of course canonical Matthew and canonical Luke have infancy narratives once again (muting what we are calling "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" views, going back to "incarnational" ones), while canonical John makes a whole great big thing out of it in the prologue, and then "Ignatius" (whoever that is) is huffing and puffing and swearing up and down that "incarnational" views are the correct ones (born of Mary, son of David, etc.) and blast to hell all those who don't acknowledge this.
IIUC, isn't Ehrman's "incarnation" view that 'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Interestingly, according to the following reviewer, Ehrman sees in Paul both "exaltation" and "incarnation" Christologies: http://cruxsolablog.com/2014/05/05/ehrm ... pt4-gupta/
  • Ehrman begins his chapter by noting that we don’t know what Christianity was like until Paul started writing in the middle of the century. So, we have no actual documents from that earliest period (33-48). But Ehrman believes that we can unearth some early Christian beliefs by discovering and examining “pre-literary traditions” in the New Testament. Using his go-go-gadget tradition finder, he points to texts like 1 Cor 15:3-5, Rom 1:3-4, and Acts 13:32-33. Looking esp at the latter two, he suggests that these earliest hymns/traditions point to an “exaltation” Christology – Jesus was exalted (only, primarily) after his death (see 224).

The reviewer is not overly convinced by Ehrman.
Peter Kirby wrote:We have some room to wiggle here, if we do think it's weird enough:

1) Galatians 4:4 and any other verse that supposedly has "incarnational" views in the letters of "Paul" could be later additions. This saves the arc of development (non-"incarnational" Paul -> non-"incarnational" Mark -> incarnational Gospels).

2) Galatians 4:4 is authentic enough, but it's referring to a whole different mythological space; things get retold in the first version that takes place in first century Palestine, in the Gospel of Mark. This gives a different arc of development (heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-adoptionistic Mark -> earthly-incarnational Gospels).
"Born of a woman" could apply to either of Ehrman's "incarnation" and "exaltation" Christologies, AFAICS.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing. But of course canonical Matthew and canonical Luke have infancy narratives once again (muting what we are calling "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" views, going back to "incarnational" ones), while canonical John makes a whole great big thing out of it in the prologue, and then "Ignatius" (whoever that is) is huffing and puffing and swearing up and down that "incarnational" views are the correct ones (born of Mary, son of David, etc.) and blast to hell all those who don't acknowledge this.
IIUC, isn't Ehrman's "incarnation" view that 'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Interestingly, according to the following reviewer, Ehrman sees in Paul both "exaltation" and "incarnation" Christologies: http://cruxsolablog.com/2014/05/05/ehrm ... pt4-gupta/
  • Ehrman begins his chapter by noting that we don’t know what Christianity was like until Paul started writing in the middle of the century. So, we have no actual documents from that earliest period (33-48). But Ehrman believes that we can unearth some early Christian beliefs by discovering and examining “pre-literary traditions” in the New Testament. Using his go-go-gadget tradition finder, he points to texts like 1 Cor 15:3-5, Rom 1:3-4, and Acts 13:32-33. Looking esp at the latter two, he suggests that these earliest hymns/traditions point to an “exaltation” Christology – Jesus was exalted (only, primarily) after his death (see 224).

The reviewer is not overly convinced by Ehrman.
Peter Kirby wrote:We have some room to wiggle here, if we do think it's weird enough:

1) Galatians 4:4 and any other verse that supposedly has "incarnational" views in the letters of "Paul" could be later additions. This saves the arc of development (non-"incarnational" Paul -> non-"incarnational" Mark -> incarnational Gospels).

2) Galatians 4:4 is authentic enough, but it's referring to a whole different mythological space; things get retold in the first version that takes place in first century Palestine, in the Gospel of Mark. This gives a different arc of development (heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-adoptionistic Mark -> earthly-incarnational Gospels).
"Born of a woman" could apply to either of Ehrman's "incarnation" and "exaltation" Christologies, AFAICS.
I don't know what Ehrman says and can't say I really care too much. Once again we're getting away from the underlying subject. I'd appreciate it if you could frame some kind of comment (whatever it is supposed to be) in a way that does not require reference to Ehrman, if that is possible.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply