Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Peter Kirby »

Larry's best points were
But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
and
there is abundant confirmation that for Paul Jesus real historical existence was even crucial.
Understandably, since the second point does a kind of end-run around the voluminous literature on the point, by not discussing what has been written on the subject, the response to Larry doesn't dwell on it. But the first point was a bit interesting and doesn't seem much discussed.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the either/or historic man vs celestial being was the stupidity of mythicists. The narrative could have been a myth about a historical man. It could have been a historical narrative about the appearance of a god. The facts are that mythicists tended to use "myth" as part of an anti-religious agenda. We didn't start with questions; an end was established for the lines of inquiry to support.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:49 pm \We didn't start with questions; an end was established for the lines of inquiry to support.
All too often, I'm afraid.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:40 pm Larry's best points were
But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
A insignificant trajectory between the Gospels, in comparison to the greater difference between Paul and the Gospels. Without even the mention of the possibility that Marcion's Gospel was the Earliest Gospel.


there is abundant confirmation that for Paul Jesus real historical existence was even crucial.


Another not so important point. Also the seers of Medjugorje insist that the Virgin was a concrete being walking there.

What strikes me is rather this.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:49 pm I think the either/or historic man vs celestial being was the stupidity of mythicists.
The stupidity has been either
  1. making it about a 'celestial being' simply becoming the 'historical being' ie. Jesus; or
  2. people thinking that's what it's about.
It would have happened over 2-4 generations ie. over 50-100 yrs.

The narrative could have been a myth about a historical man. It could have been a historical narrative about the appearance of a god.
It seems highly likely (to me, at least) those scenarios would have been part of the process.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

We might also think about the debaters' weaker points. In the comments, Hurtado says:
I’m told that CArrier was allowed to select those who reviewed the work. So he would naturally have chosen people already supportive of his view. Who they were? Only the publisher and CArrier know.
It is routine for authors to suggest referees for their work. Many editors solicit such nominations from authors, and nothing prevents an author from simply volunteering some names. Accepting or declining such suggestions is the editors' prerogative, as is supplementing or replacing the list of referees with the editors' own picks. The anonymity of the actual referees is also routine (not universal, but a very usual thing).

A better response, in my view, was all but invited by the question that had been posed to Hurtado,
I’m curios about Carrier’s “refereed” book. Is this the same as peer review? Do we know who refereed it for him – experts in the field? I know peer review is more data fact checking and correcting/checking for strawmen and not affirming a thesis as true, but if he is so wildly off (which I agree he is) then how did his book make it through to such an academic publisher?
Academic book publishers typically practice a form of peer review. Peer review is, in the first instance, a warrant of potential interestingness and of the absence of shallow technical flaws. Individual reviewers, even among those of equal expertise, vary greatly in the depth of their comments and how they view their roles as "gate keepers."

Surviving peer review simply isn't a waranty of quality or reliability. Peer review is a filter. Material rejected in one place remains eligible for submission elsewhere. Editorial focus varies among publishers; material rejected in one place should remain eligible for submission elsewhere.

That Carrier found an ordinary academic publisher is a fact. The emphasis he and others place on this homely datum probably reflects his base constituency's oft-expressed reverence for "peer review." The peer review that "counts," however, occurs after publication, when the work does or doesn't influence practitioners in the field.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Joseph D. L. »

But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
Is not this precisely what the author of John is attempting to accomplish in his opening prologue? Maintaining that Logos was preeminent and preexisting long before becaming incarnate on the historical scene. That alone shows that, even if an isolated occurrence, such a trajectory DID take place.

Philo also shows a similar understanding, in interpreting Genesis 1 as a set of Platonic forms, and Genesis 2 being its historical/earthly reflection, he differentiated Adam Kadmon from Adam Ha-Rishon. The former is made of heavenly material, while the latter is made from the dust and clay of the earth. Such an understanding crops up in 1 Cor:15.

So even for Philo, the "celestial being" preceded its "historicized" man.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by MrMacSon »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:26 am
Surviving peer review simply isn't a warranty of quality or reliability. Peer review is a filter.

... The peer review that "counts," however, occurs after publication ...
.
Yep.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:26 am The peer review that "counts," however, occurs after publication, when the work does or doesn't influence practitioners in the field.
Except in a case like Carrier's OHJ - 'the field' is, atypically, extremely hostile ...
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:33 am
Philo also shows a similar understanding, in interpreting Genesis 1 as a set of Platonic forms, and Genesis 2 being its historical/earthly reflection, he differentiated Adam Kadmon from Adam Ha-Rishon. The former is made of heavenly material, while the latter is made from the dust and clay of the earth. Such an understanding crops up in 1 Cor:15.

1 So even for Philo, the "celestial being" preceded its "historicized" man1.
Carrier argues this, referring to Zechariah -

.
Element 40 of On the Historicity of Jesus, pp 200-3: -

..some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus... Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such a way. This is the prophecy about a high priest crowned king in heaven named 'Jesus Rising', God's 'servant', who will 'rise' from below and be given godly authority and somehow be involved in cleansing the world of sin.

As discussed in Element 6 [pp. 81-2], in Zechariah 6 we have a man named Jesus being crowned king, 'rising' from his place below, and building up God's house, which is a feasible description of our Jesus; and this same Jesus appearing in Zechariah 6 also appears in Zechariah 3, where he is given supreme authority over God's domain (just as our Jesus was), and somehow ends all sins in a single day just as our Jesus does), and this same Jesus is in both passages called a high priest (as was our Jesus).

Discussing this Jesus figure in Zechariah, Philo argues: "'Behold, the man named Rising!' is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and souI. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who is none other than the divine image, you will then agree that the name of 'Rising' has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the Universe has caused him to rise up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitates the ways of his father."
.

Post Reply