Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

[Stephan Huller]

Another important line of inquiry - should we really be that surprised that Antigonus and Jesus died indignantly? Is that really a surprising and remarkable parallel? It wouldn't be fair to say that both of them 'died in the same way.' Antigonus's death was far more graphic and involved a beheading and perhaps crucifixion. Is that close enough of a parallel to say that the description of Jesus's death in the gospel 'recalled' that of Antigonus? I really don't think an ancient author would have made that connection (i.e. the parallels here aren't exact enough to make that claim). Moreover Jesus, unlike Antigonus, wasn't of noble birth so I don't think that there was anything surprising in the Roman treatment of Jesus.

Of course the ancient Christians believed that Jesus was of the purest, noblest pedigree (i.e. he was the son of the Most High). But I don't recall Antigonus being described as 'the son of the Father' or anything like that. Again, I don't think the parallels here are strong enough to warrant special attention being paid to them.

In the case of the parody of Agrippa in Alexandria, I have noted the parallels before but at the time I assumed that Philo wasn't reporting the facts correctly - perhaps deliberately. But the idea that the author of the gospel developed a fictitious story about a made up character Jesus who 'represents' Antigonus (again you haven't really explained what you mean here if I am incorrect) out of the 'factual' narrative of what happened to Agrippa while visiting Alexandria seems completely far fetched. Was this really an important enough story to warrant the development of a new religion and why? Why create a fable out of a rather embarrassing incident in the life of a mostly forgotten Jewish king - and what does any of this have to do with Antigonus? As I said I can't see the connecting thread to all of this and you haven't been exactly forthcoming about providing it to us (perhaps because you don't have an answer to this important question).

[Charles Wilson]

Carotta gives dozens or even hundreds of examples of coincidences. But it's also the emplotment, and how the Divus Iulius cult came before Christianity. Also, the Divus Iulius cult predates even Antigonus's execution.

ghost: You are at the doorstep of Joe Atwill here and I believe that Atwill is the more complete Hypothesis. "Were there Caesar Cults that tried to influence Judaea?" Yes. Caligula demanded his statue be placed in the Temple. JC, as stated earlier, liked Aristobulus 2 to the extent of releasing him from prison and giving him 2 Legions for Syria. "What Roman control produced what we see?" Atwill has the better Thesis.

The greater point here, however, is that I believe that Atwill is Incomplete. I could write a thousand pages on that word but I mean generally that if a Specification were written that gave the Outline(s) of How Christianity Arose,the Caesar part of the Specification would not be able to produce what became Christianity. It cannot. It is incomplete.

The Hasmonean elements came via Josephus. What you see by the time of the Flavians is already a composite character, but it doesn't mean he was always a composite.

This is not true. The Hasmoneans existed, seen today by way of coins, other records in other cultures, etc. "Existence" is not a predicate but I believe that the word may be used correctly in regards to the Hasmoneans, the Temple Priesthood as enumerated in 1 Chronicles 24 and with other data. It is interesting that the settlement "Jabnit", populated by members of the Mishmarot Group "Immer" believed that the Hasmoneans came from them. Josephus didn't compose piyyutim about the Hasmoneans in Jabnit as far as I know.

AS for "Jesus" existing as you imply, I cannot go even to the phrase you use,"...by the time of the Flavians..." There was no "He", composite or otherwise. That's what I try to get across over and over concerning "Transvaluation".

How do you account for ghost's argument that Carotta 'proves' (with the same subjective methodology you employ) that both you and maryhelena are wrong in your respective analyses of the same data?

I deny the premise. That is, I deny that the Methodology is the same. I am not Kantian. There are certain aspects of the Process that appear to be similar but it is the human condition to find relata in language. Ghost illustrated this yesterday in asking if the Flavians ever crossed a river and whatnot. The result is not to find P(Event) = Unity and the problem of Carotta and others is seen here. Evidence of Cult Establishment is empirical and the question is not "Can the n+1 datum be made to fit the formula we have derived to describe it?" The datum can be bent to fit Social Symbolic Social System, no doubt. "Is it therefore true?" Not necessarily.

Does the Cult of J. Caesar over Judaea rise to the level of Probabililty? Not yet and this is a Human Knowledge question. It's truth value hasn't risen to the level of High Utility as an explanation yet. Neither has Atwill's. Neither has mine - yet.

Don't you see that this underscores the worthlessness of cherry picking passages to support a cherished pre-supposition?

Frustration rears its ugly head here. I have not cherry picked passages and I have not tried to force a meaning. It took 8 years to get to where I am. I've been in reflection mode for a couple of years. What I did do was look at early Mark WITHOUT the presupposition of a later religion. I owe a debt to Hyam Maccoby here. He stated that the Gospels had a political message and I believe he was correct. Go to Mark 3. Try to read this, not as a Transvalued "Jesus" passage but as something else:

"Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"

It took a long time for this one to become clear to me. The Symbolism is deep and yet in the context of the passage, is plain as day. It's not a matter of ,"Oh...It means this or that..." With a nod to Jay Raskin ( who came later in my story...), what is the Plausible Scene? What does "...to save life or to kill?" signify? It's obvious with "Jesus". It's not so obvious if this is about something completely different. This, however, is Datum and there is no Scheme to fit it to yet. There would not be for a long time.

No Hasmoneans. No Mishmarot. Not even a hint of Peter as a possible main character other than the stupid bit player in the Grand Metaphysical Plan.

Hence, the frustration here. The other Stories appeared to speak of an IMMENSE Tragedy that occurred that simply did not make sense when placed in a "Jesus Existed" environment. As Michael Turton stated, "There was no persecution in the 30s...". THEN WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED!?!! That's when I found the Josephus passages and as I began to sense a greater Story, the other ideas began to fall into place. "Why would "Jesus" ask if it was lawful to save life or to kill? What does that mean?"

"It means..." that Jesus knows the Pharisees he is talking to and THEY know what HE is talking about. As Joseph Heller said, "Something Happened". Something happened - an immense tragedy - and this character is reminding the Pharisees about it. Something they did. Something that KILLED, possibly years ago. At every step of the way, I crossed checked with what I could find in the records. I did not try to force meaning. I went to that new Internet thing, the Forum. No one had ever heard of any Priestly Atrocity.

David Christensen, the "Old Believer", left me thunderstruck. I was just putting together some things and he showed that "Immer" was on duty for the Passovers of 4 BCE and 9 CE. Knock me down and call me Charlie. Rod Green thought I was nuts, still probably does. NOTE: Rod Green is important in the History books because he was THERE in Austin when the Wishbone was invented and he knows the story. The Point: At every step, one thing led to another and it always did. Nothing forced. I needed a reason for understanding "Lamb of God" and on the screen appeared 2 Hebrew words and they were identical without the diacriticals. "Immer" and "Immar". Pettinato from Ebla fame gave the explanation, a Semitic explanation.

And on and on and on and on and on and on for years. Not Astrology tables. Not cherry picking. I know empiricism, believe me. I know the Scholarly Way. What I did was not pedestrian scholasticism. If you do not sense a difference between what I have done and Carotta, well, that's OK. Maryhelena is a little different because she does understand the importance of the Hasmoneans but she does not have an overarching Scheme in which to place her thoughts. With her re-Posted chart, her Antigonus proposition is less appealing to me. Unfortunately, she doesn't answer my E-Mails and does not comment on what I Post here anymore so it's back to work for me. I'll have to show that the "30 pieces of silver is the story of Cestius and the 12th Legion" some other day.

CW

[Leucius Charinus]

1. Jesus began as a celestial being in the minds of Christians.
2. This celestial being reveals ‘truths’.
3. This celestial being had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and was crucified by the Devil.
4. Thereby atoning for all of Israel’s sins and Temple no longer mattered.
5. Christians conjour the angelic being’s ‘salvific story’ from a pesher-like reading of scripture.
6. Several decades later – cult members start to “allegorizing the gospel” of this “angelic being” and place him in history as a ‘divine man’.
7. Jesus is “a cosmic savior, later historicized”.

( Carrier's theory in a nutshell
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml)

Nice nutshell maryhelena thanks.

On this theory, Christians did not go looking for proof-texts after their charismatic leader died, but actually conjured this angelic being’s salvific story from a pesher-like reading of scripture, finding clues to the whole thing especially in the conjunction of Daniel 9, Jeremiah 23 & 25, Isaiah 52-53, and Zechariah 3 & 6. Because it solved a major theological and political problem of the time: how the world could be saved when God’s temple (and thus atonement for Israel’s sins) remained in the hands of a corrupt elite “obviously” rejected by God.

It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

///


We need to ask these questions. Because the old way of looking at the evidence does not fit so well as has been thought. And even among secular scholars this has until now been driven by Christian faith assumptions, rather than a new and genuinely objective look at what the evidence tells us.[10] When we look instead without those assumptions, that Christianity may have been started by a revealed Jesus rather than a historical Jesus is corroborated by at least three things: the sequence of evidence shows precisely that development (from celestial, revealed Jesus in the Epistles, to a historical ministry in the Gospels decades later), all similar savior cults from the period have the same backstory (a cosmic savior, later historicized), and the original Christian Jesus (in the Epistles of Paul) sounds exactly like the Jewish archangel Jesus, who certainly did not exist. So when it comes to a historical Jesus, maybe we no longer need that hypothesis.

Do you happen to know what chronology Carrier suggests for this sequence - specifically 5, 5 and 7?

[Ulan]

I can't even imagine what "faith in fiction" would look like. Can you?

A short glimpse at Mormonism or Wicca might alleviate that lack of imagination.

It's even easier to imagine (i) in a world that doesn't allow for internet or library searches for fact checking and (ii) in a multi-generational context. The first generation may not have believed in everything but just accepted the story because of promised rewards (aka Pascal's Wager), while the next generation received the whole parcel as fact.

[maryhelena]

1. Jesus began as a celestial being in the minds of Christians.
2. This celestial being reveals ‘truths’.
3. This celestial being had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and was crucified by the Devil.
4. Thereby atoning for all of Israel’s sins and Temple no longer mattered.
5. Christians conjour the angelic being’s ‘salvific story’ from a pesher-like reading of scripture.
6. Several decades later – cult members start to “allegorizing the gospel” of this “angelic being” and place him in history as a ‘divine man’.
7. Jesus is “a cosmic savior, later historicized”.

( Carrier's theory in a nutshell
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml)

Nice nutshell maryhelena thanks.

On this theory, Christians did not go looking for proof-texts after their charismatic leader died, but actually conjured this angelic being’s salvific story from a pesher-like reading of scripture, finding clues to the whole thing especially in the conjunction of Daniel 9, Jeremiah 23 & 25, Isaiah 52-53, and Zechariah 3 & 6. Because it solved a major theological and political problem of the time: how the world could be saved when God’s temple (and thus atonement for Israel’s sins) remained in the hands of a corrupt elite “obviously” rejected by God.

It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

///


We need to ask these questions. Because the old way of looking at the evidence does not fit so well as has been thought. And even among secular scholars this has until now been driven by Christian faith assumptions, rather than a new and genuinely objective look at what the evidence tells us.[10] When we look instead without those assumptions, that Christianity may have been started by a revealed Jesus rather than a historical Jesus is corroborated by at least three things: the sequence of evidence shows precisely that development (from celestial, revealed Jesus in the Epistles, to a historical ministry in the Gospels decades later), all similar savior cults from the period have the same backstory (a cosmic savior, later historicized), and the original Christian Jesus (in the Epistles of Paul) sounds exactly like the Jewish archangel Jesus, who certainly did not exist. So when it comes to a historical Jesus, maybe we no longer need that hypothesis.

Do you happen to know what chronology Carrier suggests for this sequence - specifically 5, 5 and 7?

Pete, all I can find, re chronology for the above 'nutshell' is this: (quote taken from the Bible and Interpretation website - link in the OP)

Carrier: It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being by placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.

So..............the gospel JC story is a "commentary on the gospel" of the Pauline celestial christ figure historicized??? The Pauline celestial crucified christ figure has a 'relation to society'? Pity Carrier does not spell out what 'relation to society' the Pauline celestial crucified christ figure has....Of course, thats the big problem for the Carrier-Doherty mythicists: If early christians could get by, for decades, without the "commentary on the gospel" of the Pauline celestial crucified christ figure - why the need for this new historicized version? Especially so when the 'commentary' betrays everything 'Paul' stood for! Neither Jew nor Greek. Multi-culturalism side-lined for a Jewish messiah....

The NT story works from a gospel Jewish messiah figure to the Pauline neither Jew nor Greek theology/philosophy. Turn that around, as the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory does - and one has been hoist upon ones own petard....

[Ulan]

Of course, thats the big problem for the Carrier-Doherty mythicists: If early christians could get by, for decades, without the "commentary on the gospel" of the Pauline celestial crucified christ figure - why the need for this new historicized version? Especially so when the 'commentary' betrays everything 'Paul' stood for!

I'm not sure how to take comments like this. This line of thought implicitly assumes that all people think exactly the same - which is a somewhat surprising way of thinking, given what we see on this forum - and that time doesn't matter. New generations of people have new questions and give new answers. And given that Paul's gospel wasn't "taken as gospel" (in the idiomatic sense), as the only "scripture" in existence was the LXX, I don't see why stories wouldn't shift. The wealth of different apocrypha written about Jesus should at least show that much.

And I write this as someone who still thinks a historical Jesus would be the easiest assumption to work with. That doesn't mean the alternative is excluded.

[maryhelena]

Of course, thats the big problem for the Carrier-Doherty mythicists: If early christians could get by, for decades, without the "commentary on the gospel" of the Pauline celestial crucified christ figure - why the need for this new historicized version? Especially so when the 'commentary' betrays everything 'Paul' stood for!

I'm not sure how to take comments like this. This line of thought implicitly assumes that all people think exactly the same - which is a somewhat surprising way of thinking,

The comment is dealing with the Carrier article on the Bible and Interpretation website. As such the comment relates to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory - and the 'nutshell' summary of that position as quoted above. That there are other theories out there I'm certainty not denying....

given what we see on this forum - and that time doesn't matter. New generations of people have new questions and give new answers. And given that Paul's gospel wasn't "taken as gospel" (in the idiomatic sense), as the only "scripture" in existence was the LXX, I don't see why stories wouldn't shift. The wealth of different apocrypha written about Jesus should at least show that much.

And I write this as someone who still thinks a historical Jesus would be the easiest assumption to work with. That doesn't mean the alternative is excluded.

Good, hold on to there being a historical core to the gospel Jesus story. The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory is not an alternative to the gospel story as that theory has no historical core whatsoever. What is needed is an alternative historical theory not imaginary Pauline celestial crucified christ stories historicized. That the Pauline celestial crucified christ theory has value I don't doubt. What it does not have is value as an alternative to the gospel Jesus story. Context matters - and just as flesh and blood does not morph into invisible spirit form - so also - invisible spirits, however imagined, do not morph into flesh and blood human form. History is one thing - theology and philosophy something else. Both are part of the NT story - but both retain their differentiation, their own identity, their own context. i.e. trying to place a square peg into a round hole does not work.....

[Ulan]

The comment is dealing with the Carrier article on the Bible and Interpretation website. As such the comment relates to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory - and the 'nutshell' summary of that position as quoted above. That there are other theories out there I'm certainty not denying....

I understood what your comment was about. My comment was about your comment ( ). I don't think your assumption that you need a historical core for a belief to form holds any water, especially in an environment that has limited means to distinguish between reality and fiction. Which means, such an assumption has no value in determining the historicity of Jesus or the gospel story.

The setup was even ideal for historicizing fiction, as the stage had been destroyed and most witnesses were dead.

[maryhelena]

The comment is dealing with the Carrier article on the Bible and Interpretation website. As such the comment relates to the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory - and the 'nutshell' summary of that position as quoted above. That there are other theories out there I'm certainty not denying....

I understood what your comment was about. My comment was about your comment ( ). I don't think your assumption that you need a historical core for a belief to form holds any water, especially in an environment that has limited means to distinguish between reality and fiction.

And I never said it did! i.e. that one "needs a historical core for a belief to form".

The issue before us is the gospel Jesus story. The issue is about the gospel story - not whether it's possible or not to have beliefs without any historical or rational core. Of course, people have weird ideas. That not the issue here.

[Ulan]

The issue before us is the gospel Jesus story. The issue is about the gospel story - not whether it's possible or not to have beliefs without any historical or rational core. Of course, people have weird ideas. That not the issue here.

So, just tell me what possible means a listener in Ephesos of, let's say, 100 CE had to verify a story about some unknown man from a destroyed city.