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: 2882
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 3:22 am Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 12: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE


So, we have two hypotheses on the table to explain the references in the Babylonian Talmud:

1. There was some sort of Gospel circulating from an early Christian sect, that narrated a Jesus born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem and executed under Jannaeus. The writers of the Talmud decided to include this information by writing about a Jesus who was a sorcerer and a Mary who cheated on her husband, because they wanted to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

2. Over a thousand year period, texts were subtly rewritten to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

I think the evidence supports the latter hypothesis.
'..jabs at Christians and their Christ story'....with a storyline set in the time of Alexander Jannaeus ??

Actually, the Toledot Yeshu does not have it's Yeshu figure hung on a tree and killed in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. It's Yeshu figure is killed in the time of Queen Helene. Yeshu was born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus ie in the Toledot Yeshu story.

Obviously, Jesus historicists seek to discount any connection between the Toledot Yeshu story and the gospel Jesus story. To assume that the gospel Jesus story was ground zero for the wonder-doer, magic man, story is to assume far too much. The Jesus story is long in the tooth hence all relevant stories need to be put on the examination table. However, ahistoricists should be careful that they don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As regards the Toledot Yeshu and it's Queen Helene - I'll link to an old FRDB thread of mine.

Who is Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu?

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=317642

=========
Toldot Yeshu
http://jewishchristianlit.com//Topics/J ... .html#FIVE
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: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:18 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:22 amSo, we have two hypotheses on the table to explain the references in the Babylonian Talmud:

1. There was some sort of Gospel circulating from an early Christian sect, that narrated a Jesus born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem and executed under Jannaeus. The writers of the Talmud decided to include this information by writing about a Jesus who was a sorcerer and a Mary who cheated on her husband, because they wanted to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

2. Over a thousand year period, texts were subtly rewritten to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

I think the evidence supports the latter hypothesis.
'..jabs at Christians and their Christ story'....with a storyline set in the time of Alexander Jannaeus ??
No, with a storyline set in 70 BCE (Jesus the Nazarene) and also set in Second Century CE (Ben Pandera). Carrier sees this as evidence that the Talmud compilers didn't know when their Jesus lived, suggesting that that Jesus didn't exist in history. Either way, the Jesus portrayed -- sorceror, born of a woman called Mary who had an affair -- seems to be a distortion of the character portrayed in the Gospels, even if the Gospel was about a 70 BCE Jesus.

If Doherty is correct, it seems that texts were modified throughout the centuries, with names (e.g. Manasseh) being replaced to point to Jesus. I suggest that this was opportunistic, and done without concern about the time period.

If Epiphanius had actually written about a sect of Christians who thought that Jesus lived around 70 BCE, Carrier's case would be strengthened. He'd have a witness to his reading of the Babylonian Talmud. But as that is not true, I think he his overall case on this point is weak.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2882
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 2:04 pm
maryhelena wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:18 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:22 amSo, we have two hypotheses on the table to explain the references in the Babylonian Talmud:

1. There was some sort of Gospel circulating from an early Christian sect, that narrated a Jesus born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem and executed under Jannaeus. The writers of the Talmud decided to include this information by writing about a Jesus who was a sorcerer and a Mary who cheated on her husband, because they wanted to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

2. Over a thousand year period, texts were subtly rewritten to take jabs at Christians and their Christ story.

I think the evidence supports the latter hypothesis.
'..jabs at Christians and their Christ story'....with a storyline set in the time of Alexander Jannaeus ??
No, with a storyline set in 70 BCE (Jesus the Nazarene) and also set in Second Century CE (Ben Pandera). Carrier sees this as evidence that the Talmud compilers didn't know when their Jesus lived, suggesting that that Jesus didn't exist in history. Either way, the Jesus portrayed -- sorceror, born of a woman called Mary who had an affair -- seems to be a distortion of the character portrayed in the Gospels, even if the Gospel was about a 70 BCE Jesus.

If Doherty is correct, it seems that texts were modified throughout the centuries, with names (e.g. Manasseh) being replaced to point to Jesus. I suggest that this was opportunistic, and done without concern about the time period.

If Epiphanius had actually written about a sect of Christians who thought that Jesus lived around 70 BCE, Carrier's case would be strengthened. He'd have a witness to his reading of the Babylonian Talmud. But as that is not true, I think he his overall case on this point is weak.
The Toledot Yeshu story is what it is - a birth in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and a death in the time of a Queen Helene. Alexander Jannaeus 103 - 76 b.c. Coins establish his historicity. There are no coins for a wife of Alexander Jannaeus named Queen Helene. There is no historical evidence for a Ben Pandera.

The Toledot Yeshu is a story it is not a historical record. The Yeshu birth story is dated to the time of Jannaeus. That is the bare bones of historical data that can be established from the story. The rest is interpretation of a story. Yes, one can, as I have done in the link to an FRDB thread - considerd the history of the years from the time of Alexander Jannaeus to see if an identification of the story's Queen Helene is possible. Coins exist for Queen Cleopatra Selene. Daughter of Mark Antony - the executioner of the last Hasmonean King and High Priest.

Moving Pandera to a second century dating is simply nonsensical. The story is what it is.

GDon, all the wonder-doer, magic man, stories have developed; they have moved to different historical time slots. Indicating that the wonder-doer, magic man, stories are not about a historical figure whatsoever.

1) a birth in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, 103 - 76 b.c. Toledot Yeshu.
2) a birth prior to the 15th year of Herod. Slavonic Josephus.
3) a birth late in the time of Herod, Jesus a young child in time of Archelaus. Gospel of Matthew.
4) a birth in the time of Quirinius. Gospel of Luke.

It is easy to knock Carrier - and it's something you have been engaged in for many years now. However, Carrier does not have the final say on the ahistoricist Jesus position. He has, like many others, contributed to that position. It's obviously an interest of yours to take Carrier to task - and with your proposed series of threads on this forum - you have spent a lot of time and work on your arguments. But surely, the whole idea is not knocking down but to build up - to demonstrate your own historicist position. Knocking 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.
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 »

Has anyone else noticed that Carrier is picking up from where Acharya left off?

That is; the Bible itself is an astrotheological text.

The new scam is the same as the old scam with a new twist, just like three-card Monte.

Just like useful idiots of Trump Derangement Syndrome, the press can always make a quick buck if they are willing to lower ethical/scholarly standards in order to pander to those who want an excuse, any excuse, to justify their hate.

How is it that so-called highly intelligent people, e.g. mythicists can't see they are being used by the likes of Carrier et al.?
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Talmud Jesus would be a good band name.
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 »

John2 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:33 pm Talmud Jesus would be a good band name.
Nah, it would be an oxymoron and anachronistic.

I would suggest...Talmud and the anti-Christ. :tomato:
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

John T wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:55 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:33 pm Talmud Jesus would be a good band name.
Nah, it would be an oxymoron and anachronistic.

But the "jarring" juxtaposition is part of what makes it cool to me (in addition to just sounding cool).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

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.
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:22 amDoherty is a mythicist, so may be biased against finding any kind of historical Jesus in early sources. But I've found that he rarely if ever misreads his sources when referencing modern scholarship.
Sounds about right.
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: 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.

There's a lot of bad things I can say about Carrier, and I've said some of them already so I won't repeat them here, but I regard him as an actual scholar. His contribution of advancing Bayes Theorem as a method of evaluating questions of history will likely outlive his mythicist theory. He also brings up some valid criticisms of the criteria used by modern scholarship which need to be addressed.
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: 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. The historical Jesus is lost in the mists of time. Even if he existed, he may as well not have. And Christian theologians probably thank God for that! Something solidly attributed to Jesus -- an action or saying -- would be their worst nightmare. If they invented a time machine that could take them back in time to meet Jesus, no doubt the first thing they'd do when they got back would be to destroy the time machine.

Carrier's arguments stink to high heaven, and are of a surprisingly consistent stinkiness. But as far as I can see, showing their stinkiness hasn't added one iota to the evidence for historicity. That's probably because the evidence isn't there, except only as hints that may or may not provide input into a Bayes approach. Perhaps it's time for you to move on from your own theory?
Post Reply