Jesus from Outer Space

[maryhelena]

Amazon are now taking pre-orders for the Kindle version of Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space

20th October is the Kindle release date.

So...order placed....


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Outer-Sp ... D&qid=&sr=

[maryhelena]

When Richard Carrier published 'On The Historicity of Jesus' in 2014, a thread on this site ran to 88 pages.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687

A flash back from that thread:

It is one thing to uphold the idea that the gospel figure of Jesus is a literary, mythological, figure - it is another thing altogether to claim that this mythological figure was actually a celestial god given pseudo-human form.

A literary figure, a mythical figure or symbolic figure, can also have been created to reflect historical figures. And, in the case of the gospel Jewish figure of Jesus - the possibility of it being the latter - that this gospel literary figure reflects details from the lives of historical figures - is far more probable, more likely, than that this figure was created to reflect invisible celestial figure/figures. Jewish identity is not just about it's theological ideas - it is also about it's historical identity. Israel was a theocracy. ie a state where religion and politics functioned as one. Take that away from the gospel Jesus story and one is attempting to cut it's Jesus figure from the social/political reality of Jewish life under Roman occupation.

Yes, OT prophecy has been 'spiritualized' by the early christians. But the gospel story is of a Jewish Jesus - with all the political ramifications that are a consequence of that.

Even if the author of Mark was writing with a copy of Paul's writings in front of him - that does not translate into Mark transferring Paul's celestial, spritual, christ figure into a story about a gospel Jesus figure active in the time of Pilate. Mark's Jesus is crucified with a King of the Jews sign above the cross - and Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek! So, 1) Mark is attempting, post Paul, to turn the clock back and create a very Jewish story......or 2) the very Jewish story was ground zero and Paul's ideas are a development on the very Jewish story.

..........one can propose that Mark created a time conditioned Jesus out of Paul's timeless celestial christ figure. Problem is that one can't support this idea with any physical evidence ie it's all imagination. It's purely an idea. As such it's no better than the historicists idea of a flesh and blood gospel, somehow, Jesus. The historicist v ahistoricist debate cannot be settled by ideas. There is going to have to be some element of reality brought into the debate. Historical reality. History. One has to be able to point to something in reality, in history, to support ones gospel interpretation. Interpretation has to be, like prophetic interpretation, connected to what is known, not what is imagined. However, arbitrary such linkage might appear to be - without it interpretation becomes void of any meaningful usage.

I mean really - what use is a Pauline celestial christ figure that becomes a mythical gospel figure? It's imagination, pure and simple. Such a theory does nothing for any attempt to search for early christian origins. It's dug a hole for itself.

The historicist vs mythicist 'war' can't be won by either side. Both sides in this debate have something of value on their side. The historicists cling to a historical relevance for the gospel story. The mythicists (of the Dorothy/Carrier theory) have spirituality i.e. philosophy as a core value. History roots us to time and place. Philosophy drives our need to understand ourselves and our world.

We may well be disappointed with Carrier's new book. However, it might just be what mythicism need - a theory taken to it's logical dead-end. The historicists, of course, are already at their dead-end. They have no historical evidence to support their JC figure. So - while the mythicists need to take a step back - the historicists need to take a sideway step. Wishful thinking perhaps....but it's a strange world we live in right now....

----------------------
Reposted from viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7141#p111424

Just because Paul can be interpreted to be referencing a heavenly, an 'outer space' crucifixion story, does not in any shape or form cancel out the Terra Firma crucifixion of the gospel story. There are two crucifixion stories in the NT. A heavenly 'crucifixion' relates to what we do when we want to get rid of any old idea - we crucify it - we kill it off. That is how our intellect works. That is the power and the value of intellectual evolution: life, death and rebirth of our intellectual capacity.

The gospel crucifixion story on terra firma - a human crucified has no salvation potential. It's just a sad reflection on how inhumane our species can fall. History has it's dark side as well as it's contribution to our existence. But we need to know where we have come from. The woke cancel agenda of some mythicsts leaves much to be desired.

[Ben C. Smith]

The historicist vs mythicist 'war' can't be won by either side. Both sides in this debate have something of value on their side. The historicists cling to a historical relevance for the gospel story. The mythicists (of the Dorothy/Carrier theory) have spirituality i.e. philosophy as a core value. History roots us to time and place. Philosophy drives our need to understand ourselves and our world.

I have been attracted both to Jesus mythicism and to Jesus historicism over the course of my life, and I cannot say that either spirituality or philosophy has ever had anything to do with my attraction to mythicism (at least no more than is the case for my attraction to historicism). And whatever historical relevance there may or may not be for the gospel story seems like it would fall on the output side, not on the input side, of the investigation.

[maryhelena]

The historicist vs mythicist 'war' can't be won by either side. Both sides in this debate have something of value on their side. The historicists cling to a historical relevance for the gospel story. The mythicists (of the Dorothy/Carrier theory) have spirituality i.e. philosophy as a core value. History roots us to time and place. Philosophy drives our need to understand ourselves and our world.

I have been attracted both to Jesus mythicism and to Jesus historicism over the course of my life, and I cannot say that either spirituality or philosophy has ever had anything to do with my attraction to mythicism (at least no more than is the case for my attraction to historicism). And whatever historical relevance there may or may not be for the gospel story seems like it would fall on the output side, not on the input side, of the investigation.

We all bring our own interests to the NT story. For myself - as soon as I realized the gospel Jesus figure was a literary figure - I reached for a history book. Why? Interpretations of text are two for a penny.....

[davidmartin]

The historicist vs mythicist 'war' can't be won by either side. Both sides in this debate have something of value on their side. The historicists cling to a historical relevance for the gospel story. The mythicists (of the Dorothy/Carrier theory) have spirituality i.e. philosophy as a core value. History roots us to time and place. Philosophy drives our need to understand ourselves and our world

A historical Jesus does nothing to support any theory of what the gospel story means, but what is does do is permit the further exploration of the origins based on historical evidence that can be considered
The mythicists shoot themselves in the foot because they end up denying all association with historical events and many source texts are rejected, pretty much all of them, as if they were there, and as if they knew better
what they are doing is not trying to discover what happened - they are creating new mythology and pretending it is scholarship
Spirituality and philosophy are quite independent of either of these options and there is precious little spirituality in the mythicist book

So it can be won, when it appears obvious that assuming a historical background is more productive and useful than a mythological one and this doesn't preclude later mythology based on historical events but that the mythology is ultimately based on historical events which can be examined

[Ben C. Smith]

The mythicists shoot themselves in the foot because they end up denying all association with historical events and many source texts are rejected, pretty much all of them, as if they were there, and as if they knew better
what they are doing is not trying to discover what happened - they are creating new mythology and pretending it is scholarship.

Are there any mythicist authors who, in your view, are exceptions to this rule and avoid these pitfalls?

[maryhelena]

The historicist vs mythicist 'war' can't be won by either side. Both sides in this debate have something of value on their side. The historicists cling to a historical relevance for the gospel story. The mythicists (of the Dorothy/Carrier theory) have spirituality i.e. philosophy as a core value. History roots us to time and place. Philosophy drives our need to understand ourselves and our world

A historical Jesus does nothing to support any theory of what the gospel story means, but what is does do is permit the further exploration of the origins based on historical evidence that can be considered
The mythicists shoot themselves in the foot because they end up denying all association with historical events and many source texts are rejected, pretty much all of them, as if they were there, and as if they knew better
what they are doing is not trying to discover what happened - they are creating new mythology and pretending it is scholarship
Spirituality and philosophy are quite independent of either of these options and there is precious little spirituality in the mythicist book

So it can be won, when it appears obvious that assuming a historical background is more productive and useful than a mythological one and this doesn't preclude later mythology based on historical events but that the mythology is ultimately based on historical events which can be examined

A conflict, which the historicist vs mythicists is, does not get resolved by one side winning. Conflict resolution, as cultural anthropologist Scott Atran has written about and been involved with such conflict resolutions, needs to keep focused on what he has called 'sacred values'. For either side in the historicist vs mythicist conflict to deny 'sacred values' to the other side is to fuel the conflict not resolve it.

[MrMacSon]

Gnosticism, BTW, didn’t exist. It’s a modern construct that actually had no ancient correlate

This isn't a very honest statement, and is clearly intended to add support to his dismissal of gnostic myths shedding any light on things
While it is true...that 'Gnosticism' is a modern construct [and everyone [that gets past a cursory examination] knows it] - it's a construct designed to contain various streams of attested ancient belief and groups that did exist

I fully agree, though rather than calling Gnosticism a [relatively] modern 'construct' - the word 'Gnosticism' was, after all, coined in the 17th century - I'd call it a perception or perhaps a categorisation, a boxing, if you like, rather than a construct (a word which, to me at least, implies application to it's time even if by way or commentary in or shortly after its time - Irenaeus's 'Against Heresies' was after all titled 'On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis').

So, yes, -

The idea is these groups shared some basic material in common to place them in the category with debate ongoing over whether such and such a group should be within it or not and what the construct even means... we know all that 100 years ago! To quibble over the term isn't honest

Some of the 'gnostic' myths can be dated to at least the early 2nd century before disappearing into the mists of time but even then there's fragments of earlier stuff. The situation isn't much worse than for orthodox writings, so to casually dismiss 'gnostic' writings is very presumptuous and lazy

But don't tar mythicism like this b/c of Carrier's inadequacies -

The mythicists just are doing that same thing orthodox apologists are doing!

I declare war on mythicists - they're dishonest and their time is past. At some point the source material was too confusing for them so they decided to make things up and come up with their own new myth. How Gnostic!* What makes it more absurd is they dismiss the very same ancient mythologists in whose footsteps they follow. What a load of tosh. Move over idiots you are getting far more of the limelight than you deserve!

* or use Gnostics as a pejorative.

[Ben C. Smith]

And following very close behind in Psalm 2 is a clear allusion commonly applied to Christ ---

The Lord said to me, you are my son, today I engendered you. Ask from me and I will give to you nations for your inheritance; and for your possession the ends of the earth. (Psalm 2:7-9)

I think Paul’s use of Psalm 2 here is clearly well within the range of his exegetical norms and I think provides the most likely solution for 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.

nota bene: By way of acknowledgement, GakuseiDon provided on this forum a good analysis of the interrelationships between Psalm 2 and Corinthians 2:7-8 two or 3 years ago.

For once I agree with you, Robert. "On this day in history...."

I think that GDon made his case very well (as have you above), and I have come to agree with it: 1 Corinthians 2.7-8 consciously recalls Psalm 2.1-2.

I would add that another allusion which has been adduced for these verses is from one of the so called deuterocanonical books:

Wisdom of Solomon 2.1-24: 1 For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, “Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. 2 Because we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been; because the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts. 3 When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. 4 Our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will remember our works; our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun and overcome by its heat. 5 For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow, and there is no return from our death, because it is sealed up and no one turns back. 6 Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist, and make use of the creation to the full as in youth. 7 Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass by us. 8 Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither. 9 Let none of us fail to share in our revelry, everywhere let us leave signs of enjoyment, because this is our portion, and this our lot. 10 Let us oppress the just poor man; let us not spare the widow nor regard the gray hairs of the aged. 11 But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless. 12 Let us lie in wait for the just man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the just happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the just man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the mysteries of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

1 Corinthians 2.6-9: 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory; 9 but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

The wicked in Wisdom of Solomon give the just man a shameful death because they do not know the mysteries of God. The rulers in 1 Corinthians crucify the Lord of Glory because they did not understand the wisdom of God, which is spoken in a mystery.

ETA: Also of interest for the Psalm 2.1-2 connection:

4Q174, fragment 1, column 1, lines 18-19: 18 [«Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots? The kings of the earth t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together against Yahweh and against 19 [his anointed one» (= Psalm 2.1). Inter]pretation of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch idle plots against] the elect ones of Israel in the last days.

"In the last days," indeed.

[Ken Olson]

Jesus from Outer Space: The Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAZ_KJfZfBQ

(I actually have used this clip several times when teaching about Johannine Christology).