Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:46 pm
maryhelena wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:58 pmKnocking Carrier is easy work. I, personally, don't see any benefit in doing so. Yep, judge his work, find his interpretations to be unsatisfactory - and move on. It's your time - and it gives you satisfaction - so what can one say - take care that you don't get waylaid from the real task before us. Striving for answers to that 2000 year old story.
There are no answers to that 2000 year old story maryhelena.
That surely is a defeatist attitude - and surely one you can't actually be upholding. Continually attempting to bring down Carrier requires a commitment to finding some relevance to that 2000 year old story. Your arguments against Carrier - suggesting different interpretations of the relevant material - do indicate that the material has some value for you.

Striving for answers to that 2000 year old story is not about offering up yet more interpretations of that story. Interpretations can only become useful once historical evidence, historical facts, are put on the table. ie one needs evidence before one can begin offering interpretations of that evidence.
Perhaps it's time for you to move on from your own theory?
Goodness, didn't expect that from you GDon. I suggested you move on from your continual attempts at knocking down Carrier's mythicist theory. I didn't suggest you move on from your own historicist theory about a nobody gospel Jesus. Your time is your own - but wasting it on Carrier is just that - wasting your time.

As for my own theory - interpretation follows evidence. In this case historical evidence. That's my bottom line. The material we do have - the stories from the time of Alexander Jannaeus to the death of Tiberius - suggest that Hasmonean/Jewish history of this time period is relevant to the stories we have. Striving for answers to the Yeshu/Jesus stories requires that we acknowledge that this historical time frame is relevant to the stories. ie without a historical reference, without a historical linkage, without a historical core - the story writers would be peddling fairy tales. Nothing wrong with writing fairy tales - after all they had their place in our childhood. However, before we close the fairy story book - we should be turning our adult minds to the why of the story. Why was it written - just for enjoyment, to demonstrate the authors intellectual imagination. Or does the story reflect more than pure fantasy? Yep, that age old question - why ? As someone once wrote - will the last word ever spoken be why..

-----------------------
As for my theory - Antigonus is just one element, albeit an important element. An important element that moves my theory away from fairy tales to the reality of the history which provided the stories with their raison d'être. And while Antigonus might seem to be my focus - that is not really so. My focus is, as it has been for very many years, Josephus. My focus has been to put Josephus, as it were, in the dock - and find him to be wanting.....And that GDon is a far more rewarding task than attempting to kick Carrier in the butt.....
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by John T »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:24 pm
John T wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:11 pm Has anyone else noticed that Carrier is picking up from where Acharya left off?
No, that's unfair. Acharya S seems to have cut and pasted from 19th and 20th Century sources uncritically to produce her works. (They are in fact a wonderful resource if you are interested in 19th and 20th Century books speculating about Christ and Christianity's similarities to other religions). She wasn't a scholar.
I never claimed Acharya was a Biblical scholar, dittos for Carrier.

Rather, Carrier seems to be going down the path of 2nd century Gnostics, i.e. Docetism. It is only a matter of time before he picks up where Acharya left off.

..."these Christians literally said that Jesus was an extraterrestrial who descended from the stars and there returned; that while on Earth, he merely wore a mortal human body, like an environment suit he eventually discarded (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; Romans 8; Philippians 2; Galatians 4); and that he now lives in—and communicates telepathically from—what we call outer space, the very place he came from in the first place."...Carrier
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space

The next logical move for him is to complete the circuit of astrotheology and propose which star Jesus from outer space represents. Perhaps, Sirius in the Canis Major constellation?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by ABuddhist »

John T wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:43 am Rather, Carrier seems to be going down the path of 2nd century Gnostics, i.e. Docetism. It is only a matter of time before he picks up where Acharya left off.
Why do you conflate Docetism with mythicism and Gnosticism?

Docetism is the teaching that a person (such as Jesus Christ) did not really have a human body during life but only seemed to. Christian Docetists did not deny that the Gosels recorded historical events, only that Jesus had been human during them.

Mythicism is the claim that a person was not a historical figure, and has been applied to Shakyamuni Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lykourgos, and Muhammad.

Gnosticism is the teaching that the material world is bad or evil and was created by a non-good - if not evil - god.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by nightshadetwine »

John T wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:11 pm Has anyone else noticed that Carrier is picking up from where Acharya left off?

That is; the Bible itself is an astrotheological text.
Does Carrier say this? I think both Carrier and Acharya S get some things right but I'm not a mythicist so I don't agree with everything they say.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by GakuseiDon »

John T wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:43 amIt is only a matter of time before he picks up where Acharya left off.

..."these Christians literally said that Jesus was an extraterrestrial who descended from the stars and there returned; that while on Earth, he merely wore a mortal human body, like an environment suit he eventually discarded (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; Romans 8; Philippians 2; Galatians 4); and that he now lives in—and communicates telepathically from—what we call outer space, the very place he came from in the first place."...Carrier
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space
:lol: Well, I have to admit you got me there. I'm planning to write about his use of "outer space" in terms of ancient beliefs in my Part 12 Conclusion, the importance of keeping "lower heavens" and "higher heavens" separate, and you've just given me something more to add. Thanks! :thumbup:

I've taken his use of "Jesus from Outer Space" as a marketing ploy myself, but looks like he is indeed going full throttle on this. So you may be right after all!
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 pm
John T wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:43 amIt is only a matter of time before he picks up where Acharya left off.

..."these Christians literally said that Jesus was an extraterrestrial who descended from the stars and there returned; that while on Earth, he merely wore a mortal human body, like an environment suit he eventually discarded (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; Romans 8; Philippians 2; Galatians 4); and that he now lives in—and communicates telepathically from—what we call outer space, the very place he came from in the first place."...Carrier
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space
:lol: Well, I have to admit you got me there. I'm planning to write about his use of "outer space" in terms of ancient beliefs in my Part 12 Conclusion, the importance of keeping "lower heavens" and "higher heavens" separate, and you've just given me something more to add. Thanks! :thumbup:

I've taken his use of "Jesus from Outer Space" as a marketing ploy myself, but looks like he is indeed going full throttle on this. So you may be right after all!
It was never a marketing ploy. Once Carrier misused the theory of euhemerism - by turning it on its head - then he was always in danger of going further down that road - and thus to charges of extraterrestrials assuming human form.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=411&hilit=defied

Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

In that thread I posted a link to a comment of mine on Mark Goodacre's blog.

maryhelena said...
Ben, in reply to Mike Ganatt:

“All you are saying is that you give zero weight to the category of explanation being offered even though you engage in none of it specifically, which isn't all that helpful. What have you said that would lead someone else to think so little of it like you do?”

Maybe stop for a bit here. Perhaps it’s not explanation that the JC historicists are seeking but some reasoning, some logic, some plausibility, for the proposition put forward by some ahistoricists/mythicists that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC.

Ben, bottom line here for the JC historicists is not how you, Carrier or Doherty, are able to provide alternative readings, explanations, of Pauline philosophy/theology. Interpretations are anyone’s game - a Sunday morning game for some doorstep preachers. The bottom line is that the proposition upon which your position rests - that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic type JC - is deemed to be untenable. If your proposition is itself questionable - your argumentation, your explanations, to support it is of little interest. Why expect the JC historicists to go to step 2 when they dispute the validity of step 1? Ergo - debate gets sidelined to trading negative vibes.

If you, or any other ahistoricist/mythicists who support the historicizing of the Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure, want the JC historicists to consider your proposition- then, it’s that proposition that has to be argued. Argued not by throwing interpretations of Pauline philosophy/theology around - but by reason, logic and plausibility. Ben, it’s one thing to argue that the probability of the gospel JC being ahistorical is pretty high - it’s a far different ball game - far removed from arguments of probability - to establish plausibility for your proposition dealing with a historicizing of that Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure. That idea, for the JC historicists, is just not plausible. Now, the ahistoricists/mythicists who uphold this proposition, can bang their heads all day in frustration - but what they need to do is leave their ‘oranges’ at home and approach the JC historicists with what they want - ‘apples’. The JC historicists want arguments based on reality, upon history - not arguments based upon speculation on the Pauline writings.

It’s not good enough for the ahistoricist/mythicist argument to turn one mystical idea, Pauline JC, into another mystical idea; a historicized gospel JC that, supposedly, pulled the wool over the eyes of those early Jewish Christians. i.e. they believed the gospel JC story had no relevance for Jewish history. It was all just a means to an end – an aid to understanding the Pauline cosmic JC. Pauline technicality made user friendly via an easier to understand mythical story set in real time.

If some mythicists have understood mythicism to mean the gospel JC story is completely devoid of any historical relevance, that the gospel story is completely and utterly a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC figure – then they will lose out as far as their theories finding some relevance in the HJ/MJ debate and the search for early christian origins. In other words; ,debates over the HJ/MJ question will be deadlocked, check-mated, in their opening move - and it’s just downhill from there - as this present exchange is demonstrating.

Yes, Ben, the JC historicists don’t have a historical leg to stand on - but those ahistoricist/mythicists who propose a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure - don’t have one either...

24 December 2012 at 12:53

Sadly, for the ahistoricst position, Carrier has, by turning the theory of euhemerism upside down, derailed the ahistorcist position. Thereby allowing the Jesus historicists free reign to ridicule that position. Carrier had two choices before him as he attempted to follow on from Doherty - dig deep into history or raise the flag of pure speculation - an outer space extravaganza.

Both Carrier and GDon have taken their respective theories to the end of the road. A nobody Jesus from GDon and an outer space extraterrestrial from Carrier. By highlighting the lack of rationality and logic in their respective theories, perhaps they have both done a service to the search for early christian origins - thereby allowing the rest of us to clear the road and move forward - armed with the knowledge that neither of these two positions is worthy of serious consideration.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by GakuseiDon »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:43 amOnce Carrier misused the theory of euhemerism - by turning it on its head - then he was always in danger of going further down that road - and thus to charges of extraterrestrials assuming human form.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=411&hilit=defied

Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Thanks for the link. Wow, I started that thread nearly 10 years ago! My thumbnail icon doesn't look a day older.

I've mulled over whether to include Carrier's use of euhemerism in Part 12 of my review. I do touch on it a little in Part 5, but only in passing. In the end I probably won't go into details in Part 12. The reason is that even though Carrier is abusing the term, it doesn't affect his point. He defines it as:

A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith litera­ture was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified. (page 222)

If that practice existed, then it doesn't matter whether we call it "euhemerization" or not. Carrier's point stands. If that practice didn't exist, then again it doesn't matter. So I think I'll just leave it alone. (His use of "outer space" though is confusing, so I'll be spending time on it in Part 12.)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2888
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:32 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:43 amOnce Carrier misused the theory of euhemerism - by turning it on its head - then he was always in danger of going further down that road - and thus to charges of extraterrestrials assuming human form.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=411&hilit=defied

Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Thanks for the link. Wow, I started that thread nearly 10 years ago! My thumbnail icon doesn't look a day older.

I've mulled over whether to include Carrier's use of euhemerism in Part 12 of my review. I do touch on it a little in Part 5, but only in passing. In the end I probably won't go into details in Part 12. The reason is that even though Carrier is abusing the term, it doesn't affect his point. He defines it as:

A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith litera­ture was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified. (page 222)

If that practice existed, then it doesn't matter whether we call it "euhemerization" or not. Carrier's point stands. If that practice didn't exist, then again it doesn't matter. So I think I'll just leave it alone. (His use of "outer space" though is confusing, so I'll be spending time on it in Part 12.)
No scholar of euhemerism, as far as I'm aware, is supporting Carriers' interpretation ( misuse) of this theory - it's a weak link in his theory. He would have been far better off just using 'historicized' for his cosmic christ figure shape-shifting into the gospel JC, rather than opening himself up to controversy.

What Is Euhemerism?
https://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/


Image

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Theory ... s+Roubekas
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE

Post by John T »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:22 amNow, knowing how Carrier has a habit of misreading sources, I immediately thought, "I bet a million dollars that Van Voorst didn't contradict himself." And I was not disappointed. Carrier had indeed misread Van Voorst.
Yes, but they both misread the Talmud.
Where does Van Voorst cite an orthodox Rabbi that says Ben Pantera [Yeshu ben Pantira] = Jesus Christ?
I won't hold my breath.

I recommend you take a pause and read: "Partings, How Judiasm and Christianty Became Two". Hershel Shanks, Editor.
Post Reply