toejam wrote:^Sure it's possible. Ancient history is not about certainty. But such "possibilities" cut both ways - could you acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that what was edited/interpolated out of the Pauline corpus were more direct references to Jesus' family and specific earthly times and places that contradicted orthodox doctrine? Or that it's POSSIBLE that your proposed interpolations were really minimal, most being the result of the occasional disgruntled scribe as opposed to orthodox conspiracy? Are those not also POSSIBLE? Do you think that Paul thought Jesus was an exclusively heavenly being?
Good, thank you for expressing your thoughts in clear terms.
I agree that all those things are POSSIBLE.
But see, here is where a bit of maths kicks in.
This is where, indeed, Carrier's overall Bayesian approach should be utterly self-evident as a methodology.
For starters, reflect: does your thesis require that a very specific 1% of verses not be interpolations?
toejam wrote:What are you thoughts on Paul? Did he exist? What do you think he thought about Jesus?
Answering a question with a question ... well-played
Here are my thoughts: if it turns out that Paul's letters are not indeed 'early' (i.e., not '1st century'), then I would drastically re-evaluate Mythicism as an explanation of the available evidence. However, my (negative) assessment of Historicism would not change. At all.
How does Eisenman differ from Richard Rubenstein's; "When Jesus Became God" or James Tabor's; "The Jesus Dynasty"?
Both saw Jesus as a Jewish man claiming to be of royal blood and priesthood who was murdered for being suspected of plotting a overthrow of the corrupt Herodian priesthood.
It was another 300 years before the Nicene council ruled on the actual essence of Jesus. That is Homoiousian vs. Homoousian.
As far as Paul, he had no doubt that God raised Jesus from the dead for both Jew and Gentile alike.
Romans 10:9&12.
Respectfully,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
^Eisenman? Do you mean Ehrman? Eisenman doesn't conclude much about the historical Jesus from memory, but implies strongly that he was likely much like his brother James - something of a strict observer of the Torah and somewhat zealot-like. I don't think he goes as far as SGF Brandon in claiming Jesus was a revolutionary, but he comes very close. For Eisenman, Pauline theology completely whitewashed the evidence so it's hard to know with any confidence what Jesus and James were like.
Ehrman's picture of Jesus is fairly stock - has him as something of an apocalyptic prophet who was preaching that God was soon going to intervene, that the Son of Man was soon to arrive to reverse the injustices of this world, so you'd better repent or else. He was arrested and crucified for having Messianic pretensions. Ehrman's Jesus is fairly similar to Tabor's, only Tabor fleshes his Jesus out a bit more (and is far too speculative IMO). Ehrman is a little more conservative in his conclusions - though still heavily criticised on this board for concluding too much. I suppose one major difference is that Tabor sees the rivalry between James and Paul as being much more bitter than Ehrman.
I haven't read Rubenstein so can't comment on him.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
I liked Ehrman's book; "Misquoting Jesus". Also, he is a good debater, who is not afraid to go into the lions den to open the eyes of the fundamentalists.
However, I would be surprised if his new book added much to the work of Tabor.
As far as Rubenstein's; "When Jesus Became God", it is the best book I ever read that details how the church (Constantine) determined the divinity of Jesus in order to settle the Arius vs. Athanasius debate in a vain hope of uniting his empire under one hybrid religion.
Because of the works of Tabor and Rubenstein, I now see Jesus as an Essene warning of the "end of days" and the coming of the Son of Man.
Does Ehrman in his book consider/weigh the facts that Jesus or John the Baptist could be an Essene?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
^Ehrman doesn't think Jesus and John the Baptist were necessarily Essenes, only Essene-like.
The book we're discussing here isn't about the Historical Jesus, it's more about the beliefs about him from Paul's time to Nicaea. There is a brief section on the Historical Jesus, but if you're interested in his full views, then you'd best read his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (c.late 1990s). Like I said, in essence Tabor and Ehrman's Jesus are pretty similar, only Ehrman holds back a lot more on what he thinks we can say about him, whereas Tabor seems to accept a lot more that I find a bit too speculative at times (not that I don't think Ehrman is guilt-free in this regard, but less so).
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
I listen to a lot of Great Courses. I'm listening to a really good one now from Robert Garland, called The Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World. Schiffman's series on the DSS isn't bad either (but kind of short).
toejam wrote:^Sure it's possible. Ancient history is not about certainty. But such "possibilities" cut both ways - could you acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that what was edited/interpolated out of the Pauline corpus were more direct references to Jesus' family and specific earthly times and places that contradicted orthodox doctrine? Or that it's POSSIBLE that your proposed interpolations were really minimal, most being the result of the occasional disgruntled scribe as opposed to orthodox conspiracy? Are those not also POSSIBLE? Do you think that Paul thought Jesus was an exclusively heavenly being?
When confronted with contradictory possibilities[\i], you have to weight their relative likelihoods, considering the background context.
H1: Direct references to Jesus' family and earthly sojourn were deleted from Paul's letters in the interests of orthodox doctrine.
So we have to consider, does the evidence we have resembles what we would expect if this were true? Well, it is true that most such references are not to be found in Paul's letter. However, there are a few famous examples, in particular, in the letter to the Galatians. So we would have to add corollaries to the theory that while orthodox censors were generally successful, they somehow missed direct references to Jesus' family (his mother in Gal 4:4 and his brother in Gal 1:19). So an explanation is needed that must by its nature be ad hoc to explain how it happens that these direct references escaped the censors. (NOTE: It might just be unintentional, but while you describe an alternative hypothesis as being an "orthodox conspiracy," no one is describing as thorough or intentional conspiracy as you have here proposed, which reveals your own held bias).
The null hypothesis to your theory would be that we would find references to Jesus' family and we do, in Galatians 1:19. In fact, Gal 1:19 poses much the same problem for your theory here proposed as it does for the mythicist case.
H2: Interpolations are minimal, result of disgruntled scribes.
I am not sure what is meant by "minimal" or which alleged interpolations you might be referring to. The interpolation that I feel is on relatively solid ground is the 1 Thess 2:14-16. We have evidence that Paul's writings were tampered with and that competing versions existed. Ancient evidence attests that deliberate deletions were made to the text and we know, from an antagonistic viewpoint, that Marcion believed the letters of Paul had been altered. It seems clear from this ancient dialogue concerning the letters, that intentional changes were made to the letters, but we do not know what the original form of the letters had been. So while this hypothesis is possible, there is abundant evidence that contradicts it. It could be that Marcion and Tertullian were both wrong and there were only minimal changes made by disgruntled scribes.
H3: Paul thought of Jesus as an exclusively heavenly being?
That question is loaded. For example, I do think that Paul thought of Jesus as a celestial being, but one that descended to earth in vague, mythical past (not mythical to Paul). Does that qualify as exclusively celestial?
