MattMorales wrote:
We might have some examples of catastrophic messianism prior to the birth of Christianity, but I still find it highly unlikely that anyone who knew Jewish scripture that well would have chosen for their savior to die on a cross, instantly alienating potential Jewish converts. Paul's explanation, to me, comes off as more of a desperate rationalization for an event he acknowledges is hard for his fellow Jews to swallow. Better Jesus to have been stoned or thrown off a cliff than hung on a tree and cursed by Yahweh.
Agreed. This is a fundamental flaw in the Carrier-Doherty theory. Being hung on a tree, crucified, was viewed as a curse by god - and that is a literal tree not a celestial 'tree'.
Similarly, this is why I do not buy Carrier's argument that somehow Christianity is proof that someone could have concocted a celestial crucified messiah out of sheer imagination.
Well, I suppose anyone can concoct imaginary scenarios...the question is did the NT Paul do so. I don't think that is the case.
The NT Paul found value, salvation value, in a crucifixion. That, automatically, rules out a flesh and blood crucifixion. A flesh and blood crucifixion has no value whatsoever - on earth or in 'heaven'. However, a flesh and blood crucifixion can, because of it's non-value, be the catalyst for new thinking about how and where a 'crucifixion' could have value. In other words: Paul could simply be saying; OK, while the flesh and blood crucifixion was valueless we can learn from it. The Jerusalem above can reflect the crucifixion in the Jerusalem below
but with opposite outcomes: Placing a crucifixion in a celestial heavenly context transforms it; transforms it by a process of intellectual philosophical/theological thinking, into a 'crucifixion' of salvation value. The NT Paul could have done this while simultaneously upholding a flesh and blood crucifixion as a historical event. Consequently, this debate over flesh and blood crucifixion vs celestial crucifixion - as though one had to choose between them - is nonsense.
<snip> The other scenario entails somebody opting for the method of execution least likely to convert their fellow Jews, even granting prior examples of catastrophic messianism (which, it should be noted, are all seemingly based on real people who got killed).
Real people that got killed.......indeed. Whether that real person was a nobody or a somebody, a flesh and blood crucifixion was a necessity for Paul's celestial 'crucifixion' theology/philosophy. However, the Carrier-Doherty theory runs with a historicized Pauline celestial christ figure crucified in the gospel story. i.e. it has two figurative non flesh and blood crucifixion stories. And yet Doherty wrote, years ago on his website:
"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary
So...even a literary figure of Jesus, even a literary figure made up re the Carrier-Doherty theory of a historicized Pauline celestial christ figure, could well be reflecting elements of a real flesh and blood crucifixion. Which means, of course, that the gospel literal figure of Jesus can be created without having first to go through the Carrier-Doherty Pauline scenario...
Carrier has himself said, in his book (don't have the quote to hand right now) that a political scenario suited the gospel story well. i.e. a political scenario could reflect a historical crucifixion. Carrier's problem seems to be the dating of manuscripts of the Pauline epistles as being earlier than the gospel manuscripts. However, if there was a flesh and blood crucifixion this flesh and blood crucifixion proceeded the writings of the Pauline epistles. Thereby calling into question the claims of the Carrier-Doherty theory regarding a historicizing of a Pauline celestial christ figure into the literary gospel Jesus figure.
The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory, a theory that reads it's interpretation of the Pauline epistles into the gospel story, is just as questionable as the historicists position that reads its interpretation of the gospel story into the Pauline epistles.
Seemingly, the statement of the NT Paul that the crucifixion was a stumbling block for Jews - is even now, in the 21st century - a stumbling block for the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. Placing everything in a Pauline basket (and denying a flesh and blood component to the gospel story) not only undercuts the NT story - it has driven the ahistoricist position into a cul-de-sac.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats