Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:01 am
Carrier ripped off his theories from others who came before him; was proven demonstrably wrong about Philo's comments on Zechariah
When you take from a number of sources, it is called "research".
Yes, Dr Carrier seems to have adopted the heavenly crucified Jesus from Doherty, and the Rank/Raglan idea from previous mythicists. But he attributed the first to Doherty, and the second has been used by quite a few mythicists, so it was hardly fair to call them 'ripped off'. He does seem to have surveyed the mythicist literature and taken from them what he considers were the best arguments, and brought them together. Nothing wrong with that at all.
And not just the mythicist arguments. By far the most interesting thing I found in his theories is that he has used Christian apologetics arguments to support the idea that the NT Jesus was a made-up figure. The idea that Philo's reference to Zechariah
6 suggesting that Jesus was prefigured in the OT is an apologetics
argument. Here are bible study notes on that passage:
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/z ... /6-12.html
... as it is said, "behold the man whose name is the Branch", &c.; Philo the JewF14 interprets this passage of a divine Person, the Son of God, by whom no other than the Messiah is meant,
"we have heard (says he) one of the friends of Moses, i. e. Zechariah, saying thus, behold the man "whose name is the east", or rising sun (so the Greek version renders the words); a new appellation, if you can think it said of one consisting of soul and body; but if of that incorporeal one, bearing the divine image, you will own that the name is fitly given him, the ancient Sun, the Father of beings will cause to arise; whom otherwise he names the first begotten, and who, being begotten, imitates the ways of his Father; and looking at his archetypal exemplars, forms the same.'
This is very clever! Go through all the apologetic arguments -- good or bad -- that 'show' that Jesus was prefigured in the OT, reverse the logic, and then you can claim the NT Jesus was artificially constructed from the OT. (And sometimes that was the case) I suspect that Carrier has gone to apologetic sources to assist his analysis of some of the passages. Similarly other mythicists do the same. Why not, when you have two thousand years of apologists trawling through the OT to 'find' Jesus there?
Twenty years ago the argument was that the NT Jesus was so ill-fitted to what was in the OT that it was obvious that apologists were twisting the passages to show that Jesus was prefigured there. Nowadays it seems the argument is that the NT Jesus fits so well to what was in the OT, that it is obvious that the NT Jesus was constructed from the OT. But both sides of the argument are apologetics. Though that doesn't matter if the argument is good.