You wrote "Of the 4 texts considered not written by Mythicists" so I followed your terminology. I had missed the not and edited to add it while you were writing your post -
Yes, I decided to only address 2 Peter on the basis of what you had in your table and what Carrier saidGakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 amHere is what I wrote in my NT analysis thread:
Of the 4 texts considered not written by Mythicists:
- Acts of the Apostles seems to have included Mythicist material, to the extent that Carrier considers that Acts supports mythicism rather than historicity. Best/worst case according to Carrier: 18/25 to 1/5 (e.g. Acts is 5 times more likely to support mythicism than historicity). It contains few statements supporting an 'earthly' Jesus.
- The single 'earthly' statement in 1 Tim may be an interpolation. If that is the case, then 1 Tim would fall into the pattern of 'mythicism' (e.g. no historical details about Jesus, no Gospel details, vague statements not supporting time and place such).
- 2 Peter contains a single 'earthly' statement about being 'eye witnesses' to the glory of Jesus. If that is an interpolation, then 2 Peter would fall into the pattern of 'mythicism' (e.g. no historical details about Jesus, no Gospel details, vague statements not supporting time and place such).
- 1 John contains a single 'earthly' statement 'we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life'. Otherwise, it seems to fall into the pattern of 'mythicism', as above.
I didn't see anywhere where Carrier calls the writers of 2 Peter 'historicists'.
Yes, he says parts of it were.
So why did you have it 'H' ?GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 amyou can see [2 Peter] isn't much different to the other 'mythicists' letters. No teachings, no miracles, no Mary, no Pilate, no cross, no crucifixion, no Jerusalem (though 'the mount' is mentioned), etc.
Think of the implications of this. 'Historicists' writing a fabricated historical report would be free to put in whatever 'historical' details they wanted. Instead there is just a vague statement that "we were eye-witnesses" and "we heard the voice from heaven" and that's about it. The rest of it reads pretty much like any other of the so-called 'mythicist' texts.
I don't think it's about 'setting expectations'.
I think it's more about expectations not being met, as you subsequently seem to indicate .
Yes, many seem to have overlooked the implications, but, from what I've read of On the Historicity of Jesus, I get the impression Carrier hasn't.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:51 am
The implications are that the earliest 'historicists' [Christian authors] either didn't know any Gospel-like details or weren't interested in reporting Gospel details.
As rg price wrote in his OP (my emphasis):
1 Clement doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 2 Peter doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 John doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. 1 Timothy doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. Other texts outside the NT like the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't have those things? Well, that's unexpected. And so on.rgprice wrote:... 1 Clement has multiple opportunities to reflect on the life of Jesus [but] never shows any sign of such knowledge.
At a certain point, it stops being unexpected. Unexplained perhaps, but not unexpected. The implications of that seem to be overlooked.