Re: GDon's Historical Jesus Theory (updated for Carrier OHJ review)
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 6:34 am
No, I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. Carrier uses the story of the UFO crash at Roswell, which I think is a good analogy. Best to try to understand what happened there from the sources we have at the time, rather than the stories we got 50 years later, which are quite different and legendary, and influenced by all the other UFO stories that developed during that time. The Roswell incident of 1947, as seen in 1997, was the accumulation of all the UFO legends of the previous fifty years.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:54 amWhich one is better? That would be which one is reflected in the gospel story. I think it's a mistake to avoid the gospel story. It's that story that 'sells' - it's that story that is central to Christianity - it's that story for which we need answers.
There is too much legendary development in the Gospels that make it a poor source indeed for information about historicity. Thus my own Historical Jesus Theory doesn't use them, or tries not to. You wrote that "It's that story that is central to Christianity" - but so what? I feel your argument is more with Christianity than with history.
Fair point... but I honestly don't care. Given the marginal nature of historical data, any theory about history is going to be based on assumptions. As long as the assumptions are explicitly stated, we can proceed. It's one of the things I love about Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem. That approach makes one spell out their assumptions.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:54 amIt's the cross that hangs around a Christian neck, it's the cross that stands proud on everything to do with Christianity. Texts that pre-date the written Gospels ? That's an argument that, as far as I'm aware, has not been settled conclusively by NT scholars.
There is as much evidence for Simeon ben Gamliel as there is for Jesus Christ, for what that's worth.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:54 amI have not suggested that Antigonus is the historical Jesus. I view the literary gospel Jesus figure as a composite of historical figures that had relevance for the gospel writers. I have named names. I suggested Antigonus as a model for the gospel crucifixion story of a literary figure. It seems to me you want to use Simeon ben Gamliel as a model for a type of historical Jesus i.e. as argument that a historical Jesus could be like the historical Simeon ben Gamliel. Could be - but no historical evidence that such a Simeon ben Gamliel look-a-like historical Jesus existed.
But that isn't a problem for me.I respect where you are coming from maryhelena, even if I disagree. The different views here are what I like about this forum.maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:54 amGDon, we agree that flesh and blood is important to the gospel writers. Flesh and blood denotes physical reality. In the case of the dated gospel story - historical reality. The question becomes - what historical reality was relevant to the gospel writers ? Consequently, history, Hasmonean history, has to be put on the investigation table. We need to be aware of what historical framework the gospel writers were working from when they created their literary Jesus story.