Interesting question from Neil to Carrier (if the transcript is accurate...)
1) Carrier needs to drop the Euhemerizing idea and stick to historicized for his mythicist theory...27:24 Neil Godfrey "Does the Christ myth idea have to be completely a celestial Christ?"
27:50 Carrier's response: (paraphrased) there was no precedent for anything else. "Whereas I did find lots of precedence for cosmic deities being Euhemerized/Evemerized ... being historicized ... a lot of background evidence supporting the idea of crucifixions being a conceivable concept in heaven ...
2) Perhaps Neil might care to consider a point I made to Doherty some time ago.
Earl Doherty
The entire teaching, miracle-working and prophetic content of the Gospels is derived not from Paul, whose celestial Christ had nothing to do with such things, but from an imagined founder of the Q movement (that he was imagined and inserted into the evolving Q tradition at a later date I have fully argued). Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence. It could even be an allegorical aspect of the beliefs of the Q/Markan sect that believers themselves, though suffering death, were fated for exaltation/resurrection, owing little to the Christ cult which operated separately on the first and early second century scene.
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... stcount=33
Where did the crucified Jesus come from, if not from Q which had no crucifixion story? Simple. He came from scripture. Just where the epistles tell us it came from. Everything about the epistles' Jesus came from scripture, which is the only source they ever refer to in making any statements about him, whether personal characteristics, words he 'spoke', the 'events' of his death and rising, even his relationship to David or his connection with Abraham. I have amply demonstrated that in all my books, but they are plain to see on the textual page.
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... stcount=48
maryhelena
If this is your position, Earl, that the crucified gospel JC came from an interpretation of scripture (OT), then the gospel JC story stands apart from the Pauline epistles; regardless of what dating is ascribed to either the gospel JC story or the Pauline cosmic JC. Dating of manuscripts is irrelevant here.
In other words: the gospel crucified JC story cannot be interpreted through the Pauline epistles. One cannot view the gospel JC story via a Pauline lens. One cannot read ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles into the gospel story. So, Earl, two unrelated JC crucifixion stories. Two crucifixion JC stories that, as it were, stand on their own two feet. Independent from one another. One JC crucifixion story set in a historical time frame. The other JC crucifixion story set in a timeless context. Now, Earl, you can interpret the Pauline cosmic JC crucifixion any which way - but this any which way - has no relevance to the gospel JC crucifixion story. They are two separate stories.
gMark, as you wrote above, added the “death and rising dimension” to the Q Jesus imaginary founder figure. gMark goes further: “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Thus, within gMark is a storyline that does not need any input from the Pauline epistles. The JC figure of gMark is a ‘salvation’ figure. i.e. your imaginary Q founder figure, an imaginary flesh and blood figure, is deemed to hold ‘salvation’ potential.
What then, Earl, would be achieved by this Q community were it to fuse with a Pauline cosmic JC community? It already has it’s heavenly, resurrected, ‘salvation’ figure. Paul has nothing to offer such a community. They have a straightforward life, death and rebirth/resurrection story. Why would such a community seek to negate the basis of it’s theological ideas and run with Paul’s cosmic crucified JC - as though the crucifixion sacrifice of their imaginary Q founder had no salvation value - and salvation value was only to be found in Paul’s cosmic crucified JC figure? Or was it, Earl, a case of being able to accommodate two JC crucified figures, one, according to your theory, the imaginary Q founder, and the other the crucified Pauline cosmic JC.
Logically, it’s the two crucifixion stories that held sway. In other words; an accommodation rather than a fusing of their two crucified JC figures would provide a forward movement for the two communities. That way would enable both communities to keep their respective ‘salvation’ figures. One salvation figure with relevance for flesh and blood in a historical context(albeit in your theory - imaginary flesh and blood). The other salvation figure with relevance for a timeless intellectual, or spiritual, context. A win win situation for both communities.
Bottom line in all of this: a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC figure (a theory advanced by some mythicists) is not only illogical it is also unnecessary. ‘Paul’, whoever he was, had nothing to do with the creation of the gospel JC figure. Whether that gospel crucified JC figure was developed from your imaginary Q founder figure - with OT scriptural interpretations - or was developed from scripture and reflections of historical figures - the created gospel JC figure needs no Pauline input.
Thus the idea, held by some JC historicists that the mythicist position is one of a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic crucified JC figure needs to be corrected. The HJ/MJ debate is not over a historicizing of a Pauline crucified JC figure. The HJ/MJ debate is over the gospel crucified JC figure. Whether that figure was historical or whether that figure was ahistorical. The continual use of Pauline interpretations, by some mythicists, to debate this issue is futile. Pauline interpretations have no relevance to this debate. The gospel crucified JC story is not a historicizing of a Pauline crucified cosmic JC - and as such - using Pauline interpretations against the JC historicists is like aiming blank ammunition to knock out the approaching hungry lion.
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... stcount=50
Earl Doherty: "I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary