The key is based on Dr Carrier's conclusions as much as possible. I use M? and H? because Carrier is sometimes unsure himself. I'm happy to correct the chart if I've misread Carrier anywhere, as Giuseppe pointed out I did earlier in this thread.FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:20 pmI believe your M/H key is too rough (or is it Carrier’s or Doherty’s key you use?), in two ways:
The whole point of the OP is to consider the texts as a whole. That to me is important, just as looking at smaller units is important.FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:20 pm1. It considers texts as a whole, while we should look at smaller units.
Oh I agree, but those are questions for another time. I agree that there are all sorts of different ways to analyse the texts. My one here is specific to looking at the texts as a whole, to examine how 'H' texts differ from 'M' texts with regards to vagueness of language around the early church and beliefs.FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:20 pmIn the discussion about historicity or mythicism, IMO opinion we should at least distinguish between the following types of text:
I thought of adding texts that almost became canon, like Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. Since from memory Carrier doesn't really analyse those, I'd use Doherty who did. But I thought I'd start with the NT canon, which presumably was selected by H Christians.FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:20 pmAs apocalyptic writings provide historical information, I suggest you add the Didache to your list, especially the apocalyptic last (16th) chapter, which gives encrypted historical information in line with Revelation and the synoptic Apocalypse.
(ETA) Let me include them anyway. You'll see that they fit the same pattern as Carrier's NT texts.
Doherty's thoughts on those books in his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":
Didache:
At several points we encounter a silence in the Didache about an historical Jesus... In fact, the Didache as a whole has nothing to say about a death and resurrection... The Didache community had, like the early stages of Q, no human founder or source for its teachings. (p 685)
1 Clement:
While chapter 5 is often appealed to as early evidence of those apostles' martyrdoms in Rome, the text actually does anything but tell us that. Verse 4, for example, is frustratingly vague...
The writer of 1 Clement also deals with the theme of jealousy, but to his list of Old Testament figures who suffered at the hands of jealous men, he fails to add Jesus himself, betrayed by the perfidious apostle in his own company...
A dozen years earlier than Pliny writes, Clement's community in Rome seems to have had no historical figure in its background.
Shepherd of Hermas:
For all its length, the names of Jesus and Christ are never used... The writer refers to a "Son of God" who is a highly mystical figure devoid of human features. Sometimes the Son is equated with the Holy Spirit or the Jewish Law. There is no sense of a Son with a distinct personality, biography or role separate from longstanding ways of thinking about God's dealings with the world.
Barnabas:
Thus Barnabas' concept of Jesus as a teacher would seem to be a theoretical one, not grounded in actual historical memory or a record of sayings...
So:
Didache = M?
1 Clement = H?, but includes "woolly language" and is "frustratingly vague" in parts.
Shepherd of Hermas = M
Barnabas = H, but "little to say on the incarnation" and "fails to itemize any of Jesus's teachings or miracles".
So the H texts fit the same pattern as the NT: vague statements around historicity, and removing just a couple of passages would more than likely turn them into M or M? texts.