Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity

[Giuseppe]

From your link, Dr Carrier writes: "Though minimal mythicism predicts nothing as to when the death occurred, except “in the past.” ". That is consistent with how I've seen him frame the debate. And it doesn't support your view that "Carrier conflates correctly an "earthly Jesus considered lived in the recent past" with a 'historical Jesus'", which would be a big concession on Carrier's part, I think.

you are strongly wrong if you think that. If somewhere, in Paul, there is a reference to earth as the place of the crucifixion of Jesus, then Carrier would have given up from the beginning to defend the Doherty's Jesus.

And again, I am talking about 'earthly' here, not 'historical'. Earthly =/= historical.

Listen, if an earthly crucifixion was recent, then it was probably a Roman crucifixion, hence probably Jesus existed.

If the earthly crucifixion was ancient, then it was not Pilate to crucify Jesus, hence probably the Gospel Jesus is not the same Jesus of Paul, therefore the mythicism is correct.

Hence, if you want to talk about Wells's mythicism, then you should talk (possibly, in another thread) about the reasons pro or against an ancient crucifixion in Paul.

But what is your guess, Giuseppe? For all the references to 'made from sperm' in ancient literature, how many relate to celestial beings, and how many to earthly beings?

My personal belief is that it is too much surprising to say, for a historical person, that he is born by woman. I would say that x is a human being (the meaning of: «born by woman») only against someone who denies and/or doubts that x is a human being. I would say that x is a Jew (the meaning of: «born under the Torah») only against someone who denies and/or doubts that x is a Jew.


Hence, if it was not for the «game rules» introduced shortly after by Paul himself (the opposition between two women, allegorizing two Laws) in Galatians 4, I would opt easily for the hypothesis of anti-marcionite interpolation (Marcion being notoriously who denied that Jesus was born and was the Jewish Messiah).


See, GDon, if you believe really that Wells is a more serious threat against the historical Jesus than Doherty, then I would expect by you a criticism against Wells's view (the kind of objections that Ben raises sometimes against a fan of Wells, Robert_J). The fact that you are obsessed by Carrier means, probably, that you are using Wells to sow confusion about who is the best threat against the historicity actually in circulation.

[Giuseppe]

Carrier doesn't think that there was a Q source at all and that Mark wrote a 'euhemerised' (sic! very sic!) version of a celestial Jesus.

I should inform you that, for Carrier, Mark is the euhemerizer of the Paul's Jesus, hence it is correct to say that the gospel of Mark gives an euhemerized Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

eta: What do you mean by "pace Wells" ??

I mean that, if we consider the mythicism phenomenon from Bauer until now, the vast majority of old mythicists would agree with Carrier about the his view of the Paul's Jesus, and not with Wells. This should say something about the praises of Wells by some historicists: I suspect that they praise Wells to eclipse Carrier/Doherty (and only for that).

I am omitting here the differences of views about the dating and paternity of the Gospels, since a lot of mythicists of the past gave more credit than Carrier does to the thesis of Marcionite priority.

What mythicists of the past give [more] credit to the thesis of Marcionite priority?

the following mythicists support Marcionite priority:
Couchoud, Ory, Fau, Las Vergnas, Rylands, all the Soviet scholars, Magne, Wautier.

It's interesting that Carrier does not seem to have commented on his contemporaries' arguments for and views about Marcionite priority.

He goes so far as to say that, if not Mark, then Matthew (sic) was probably the first gospel, and not Marcion's Gospel.

[GakuseiDon]

See, GDon, if you believe really that Wells is a more serious threat against the historical Jesus than Doherty...

No, I'm saying that Wells is a serious threat against Dr Carrier's mythicist theory, and I'm using the odds that Carrier himself provides to show that. We're still on step 1 of the three steps you gave earlier.

Wells writes: https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4)...

What are the odds that Wells is correct in this? According to Carrier himself, the best odds are 4/1. In other words, Wells' reading is four times more likely than Carrier's. That's not my opinion, it is what Carrier and Wells writes. (We still need to look at the rest of the odds for reevaluation, of course)

Do you agree that I am representing Carrier and Wells correctly above?

[Giuseppe]

See, GDon, if you believe really that Wells is a more serious threat against the historical Jesus than Doherty...

No, I'm saying that Wells is a serious threat against Dr Carrier's mythicist theory,

Hence, accordingly, you should conclude that actually Wells is a more serious threat against the historical Jesus than Doherty. But you seem without logical coherence, here.

[Giuseppe]

Wells interprets not allegorically the words "born of a woman under the (Jewish) law " hence he would receive by Carrier the same criticism addressed by the latter against the historicists.

[MrMacSon]

eta: What do you mean by "pace Wells" ??

I mean that, if we consider the mythicism phenomenon from Bauer until now, the vast majority of old mythicists would agree with Carrier's view of Paul's Jesus, and not with Wells. This should say something about the praises of Wells by some historicists: I suspect that they praise Wells to eclipse Carrier/Doherty (and only for that).

Cheers Giuseppe.

And thanks for your second response.

It's interesting that Carrier does not [yet] seem to have commented on his contemporaries' arguments for and views about Marcionite priority.

He goes so far as to say that, if not Mark, then Matthew (sic) was probably the first gospel, and not Marcion's Gospel.

[edited>] Matthew being the first gospel would seem to be problematic, including for Carrier's own propositions and arguments.

[MrMacSon]

Listen, if an earthly crucifixion [had been] recent, then it was probably a Roman crucifixion, hence probably Jesus existed.

If the earthly crucifixion was ancient, then it was not Pilate [who] crucif[ied] Jesus; hence probably the Gospel Jesus is not the same Jesus of Paul, therefore the mythicism is correct.
.

I generally agree with this, though I'm not sure that second sentence coheres and may contain more than one non-sequitur.

Remember Paul does not refer to Pilate so the proximity of Pilate to Paul is largely irrelevant.

References to Pilate is as likely to be - or more likely to be - a literary device of the author of Mark to retrospectively anchor Jesus of Nazareth to the time period, when 'all was [otherwise] quiet.'

[Paul the Uncertain]

Dr Carrier places himself ahead of Dr Price based partly upon disappointment with Price's performance against Professor Ehrman in a 2016 debate.

For example Price, who has much more knowledge of the historiography of Jesus mythicism for example, I have found does not have as complete a knowledge of the entire historicity debate (else he’d not have failed so badly in his debate with Ehrman https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11435; although there were additional reasons for that, it was partly because of that).

That debate can be viewed online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

I think Price did better that night than Carrier estimates. Although the encounter was billed as a debate entitled "Did Jesus exist?" in the event, there was no "resolved" proposition about which the debaters were assigned affirmative and negative roles. According to the announcement made by the moderator, Matt Dillahunty, each participant had a distinct rhetorical objective.

Doctor Price ...will assert the Jesus myth theory viewpoint which holds that there are flaws with the evidence for a historical Jesus and will make the case that he is no more than a mythological figure... Professor Ehrman ... will support the stance that there is strong evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Obviously (this is obvious, right?), there are possible worlds in which Jesus is a mythological figure for whose real existence there is strong but flawed evidence. It is not necessary for Dr Price to "lose" for Professor Ehrman to "win," nor vice versa. Price's stated objectives are disharmonious with Ehrman's, but not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps Carrier's disappointment is not fairly with Price's performance, but with the format of the actual debate, within which Price performed admirably, in my estimation.