Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

[schillingklaus]

Jesus of Phil 2 is a god, not an (arch)angel.

The name above all is the tetragrammaton.

[neilgodfrey]

Jesus of Phil 2 is a god, not an (arch)angel.

The name above all is the tetragrammaton.

No it's not.

(If you don't need an argument, neither do I )

But for others who do prefer to have reasons.... https://vridar.org/tag/moles-jesus-the-healer/

[ABuddhist]

Because I need to do this lest karavan declares me too a Carrier supporter (which I am not by any stretch of the imagination), I must say: I am not a Carrier supporter... or a mythicist. I agree with mythicists on basically most things except that there was a historical Jesus (which is arguably the least consequential or meaningful part of looking at Christian origins, imo). Now I'm just chiming on this one bit here.

3. If one bothers to see that post that I said supplied the scholarly responses on the date, one will find there listed about ten scholars and their various proposals for dates of the different parts of the AscIsa. There is another link to more detailed engagement with the scholarly literature. For some reason I overlooked one of the most significant authorities on the AscIsa in that list, Norelli. Norelli (along with others iirc) argues that the Vision existed before the Martyrdom chapters and is hence earlier.

In other words, my post pointed out that there is scholarly disagreement about the date of the Vision of Isaiah and it is misleading for any scholar to blatantly assert -- without citation or qualification -- that the Vision "is dated to the early second century". Oh, what deceits we can slip in beneath the passive voice!

I have Norelli's commentary (literally in arm's reach) and Neil is entirely correct here. Norelli argues that the Vision predates the Martyrdom section. Litwa does cite Norelli on the authenticity of the long-ending, what Carrier calls the "pocket gospel" in AscIsa, and argues that the long version is a part of the coherent whole of the rest of the Vision. However, the martyrdom he still ascribes to a later author.

To my knowledge, the only person who argues for a complete unity of the entire AscIsa, including the Martyrdom, is Richard Bauckham. Regardless, Norelli's work has been largely taken as the majority position when it comes to issues of text criticism and unity. As far as dating, I have seen dates range anywhere from the late first to the third century CE, and there seems to be little agreement from what I can tell.

So yeah, Neil is completely correct K. You should probably drop it.

Would you be kind enough to confirm that you think that both references to Jesus Christ in Josephus are interpolations and that you attracted condemnation from another user on r/academicbibilcal for making such a claim? I ask because karavan disbelieved my claims to that effect within this topic.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Because I need to do this lest karavan declares me too a Carrier supporter (which I am not by any stretch of the imagination), I must say: I am not a Carrier supporter... or a mythicist. I agree with mythicists on basically most things except that there was a historical Jesus (which is arguably the least consequential or meaningful part of looking at Christian origins, imo). Now I'm just chiming on this one bit here.

3. If one bothers to see that post that I said supplied the scholarly responses on the date, one will find there listed about ten scholars and their various proposals for dates of the different parts of the AscIsa. There is another link to more detailed engagement with the scholarly literature. For some reason I overlooked one of the most significant authorities on the AscIsa in that list, Norelli. Norelli (along with others iirc) argues that the Vision existed before the Martyrdom chapters and is hence earlier.

In other words, my post pointed out that there is scholarly disagreement about the date of the Vision of Isaiah and it is misleading for any scholar to blatantly assert -- without citation or qualification -- that the Vision "is dated to the early second century". Oh, what deceits we can slip in beneath the passive voice!

I have Norelli's commentary (literally in arm's reach) and Neil is entirely correct here. Norelli argues that the Vision predates the Martyrdom section. Litwa does cite Norelli on the authenticity of the long-ending, what Carrier calls the "pocket gospel" in AscIsa, and argues that the long version is a part of the coherent whole of the rest of the Vision. However, the martyrdom he still ascribes to a later author.

To my knowledge, the only person who argues for a complete unity of the entire AscIsa, including the Martyrdom, is Richard Bauckham. Regardless, Norelli's work has been largely taken as the majority position when it comes to issues of text criticism and unity. As far as dating, I have seen dates range anywhere from the late first to the third century CE, and there seems to be little agreement from what I can tell.

So yeah, Neil is completely correct K. You should probably drop it.

Would you be kind enough to confirm that you think that both references to Jesus Christ in Josephus are interpolations and that you attracted condemnation from another user on r/academicbibilcal for making such a claim? I ask because karavan disbelieved my claims to that effect within this topic.

I think both references to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities are wholesale interpolations, with the Testimonium Flavianum likely an invention on the part of Eusebius. And yeah, Tim O'Neill and a few others have all lost their minds on me for daring to take this position.

[Chrissy Hansen]

P.S. Proof that Chris Hansen has been "condemned" for his views on Josephus ANYWHERE? The only people who condemned and literally suppressed Chris Hansen was mythicists, who forced him to revoke himself from some of the public conversation on the subject.

Chris Hansen here:

(1) I am on record saying some people, who happened to be mythicists, were really terrible to me. I can also say that just about everything said mythicists did to me, historicists have as well. It is not a problem of mythicism v. historicism but of far bigger sociological issues. Me being harassed for being a transwoman (she/her or they/them), for instance, happened everywhere. In fact, I got far more harassment on those aspects from historicists I've been around.

(2) And yes, I was pretty actively condemned. The AcademicBiblical threads on Reddit are a pretty terrible place, and Tim O'Neill and his pals run rampant on there. Tim O'Neill among others were continuously degrading and insulting to me for taking the position that all the Josephan passages on Jesus were interpolations (yes, I think ALL of them are, and I'm undecided on his passage on John the Baptist; at the very least I think it is partially interpolated). I've also taken flack for advocating ethical citation methods, for my position that Tacitus was not an independent source and likely relied on information garnered from Christians (through Pliny the Younger, imo), for my position that historical Jesus studies are largely functioning under Christian Protectionist doxa, and for my position that the Baptism of Jesus is a complete fiction made up by the author of Mark.

Going to be real, I've recently had infinitely better experiences with mythicists and agnostics, and those outside the scholarly majority, than I do with historicists. Half my problems with mythicists stemmed from my own belligerence, and the other issues (such as being harassed and threatened) were not a result from mythicism but from far deeper issues.

Don't use my life as your weapon against mythicism. It isn't going to play out as you think and I am not on your side here.

[neilgodfrey]

karavan assures us he is not Tim O'Neill but fwiw I was reminded this morning of a 2018 post of mine in which I responded to Tim O'Neill's "modest criticism" of Richard Carrier's take on the Ascension of Isaiah .... everything I said there has relevance to this thread's exchange with k who is "not Tim", including the suggestion that I am a Carrier follower and other details about the AoI itself.

[neilgodfrey]

The AcademicBiblical threads on Reddit are a pretty terrible place, and Tim O'Neill and his pals run rampant on there. Tim O'Neill among others were continuously degrading and insulting to me for taking the position that all the Josephan passages on Jesus were interpolations . . .

This reminds me of my once brief foray into an Australian "atheist forum" (a forum for atheists??? -- what's the point?!) because I had somehow thought there was an interest in discussing some question relating to a gospel question. It was soon obvious that the members there had nothing other than the intention of insulting anyone who dared question what they took to be mainstream academic consensus. None of them as far as I could tell had any independent knowledge of the issues. It was all about "who says what" -- and taking sides on a personal basis, with the point of argument being a mere flag to represent whose side they were on.

How many of those people on the reddit threads have ever done any serious study into what we know of ancient manuscripts and the transmission of ancient texts? I venture to say the answer would be zero. How many have delved into a serious study of the texts and values and thought of Josephus as an author and how it changed and how it was reflected in different parts of his works? Again, I bet zero.

But they all have a strong opinion on who holds what colour flag (the flag colour meaning a particular idea in the argument ) and they cheer their own spokespersons on like a mob cheering their team at a football game. And the more grotesque, bombastic, their spokeperson is in any form of belittling and bullying of the other side, the more they cheer.

Occasionally someone will call in a real academic who has a strong view and cheer as if the umpire decided the illegal tackles and violence in their favour.

It's about identity, not ideas. It's about whose side you are on. It's about being seen to be on the side of "the smarts in the academic institutions" and mocking anyone who they assign to be a lonesome crazy crank.

To even suggest that "the smarts at the universities" can be seriously questioned for some of their ideas is to immediately be kicked aside with "the crazies". Those who do the kicking have only the shallowest knowledge of the issues. The issues are nothing but a token, a flag, to show off whose side they are on and who they are against.

[Ulan]

This reminds me of my once brief foray into an Australian "atheist forum" (a forum for atheists??? -- what's the point?!)...
[...]
It's about identity, not ideas.

I know that's not what you wanted to express, but you gave your own answer here. Given "atheism" is basically defined by the absence of a specific idea in one's life - without theism, the concept wouldn't even exist - there isn't really anything to discuss. It's more about establishing self-worth. In that sense, such forums are a rest stop most people move on from quickly. The hollering is part of the coming-of-age ritual.

Edit: I forgot why I stopped reading this thread at some point. Now I remember.

[andrewcriddle]

Chris Hansen here:
<SNIP>

I've also taken flack ..., for my position that Tacitus was not an independent source and likely relied on information garnered from Christians (through Pliny the Younger, imo),

Apologies for taking this clause out of the context of your whole post, but I was interested by this idea.
It would seem to require that Pliny knew more about Christian origins than is stated in his extant work.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Pliny is connected with/related to certain of the earliest Christian names/figures in Ostia.