Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am**

Detering wrote:
This leads me to only one conclusion: the author of the Epistle to the Galatians did not see any essential difference between the Christ revelation received by the original apostles and that received by his Paul. In his view, both were recipients of a spiritual message of Christ, however it may have been conveyed, and not eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of a historical Jesus in the sense of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles.
This means that we are still in a very early developmental phase of Christological dogma. There were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of a historical Jesus because a historical Jesus did not yet exist!

No, there were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels when Galatians were written because a Gospel Jesus didn't exist. I see mythicists like RG Price and Doherty conflate those two all the time. Carrier does it also but not so much. If one has concluded that the Gospels were written after the Epistle to the Galatians AND that the Gospels are largely fictional, then that lessens the expectation that Gospel details would be found in the Epistle to the Galatians. There's no reason that the historical Jesus had to be like the Gospel Jesus. Most historical Jesus proponents already accept that. I suspect that some mythicists find it hard to move away from that idea because they are arguing against orthodox Christianity rather than a historical Jesus.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:32 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am
Detering wrote:
This leads me to only one conclusion: the author of the Epistle to the Galatians did not see any essential difference between the Christ revelation received by the original apostles and that received by his Paul. In his view, both were recipients of a spiritual message of Christ, however it may have been conveyed, and not eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of a historical Jesus in the sense of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles.
This means that we are still in a very early developmental phase of Christological dogma. There were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of a historical Jesus because a historical Jesus did not yet exist!

No, there were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels when Galatians were written because a Gospel Jesus didn't exist. I see mythicists like RG Price and Doherty conflate those two all the time. Carrier does it also but not so much. If one has concluded that the Gospels were written after the Epistle to the Galatians AND that the Gospels are largely fictional, then that lessens the expectation that Gospel details would be found in the Epistle to the Galatians. There's no reason that the historical Jesus had to be like the Gospel Jesus. Most historical Jesus proponents already accept that. I suspect that some mythicists find it hard to move away from that idea because they are arguing against orthodox Christianity rather than a historical Jesus.

I think that Detering is wrong here. Paul (in Galatians 2) goes up to Jerusalem to compare his teaching with that of the leaders at Jerusalem because he recognises a prima-facie case that since they had known the earthly Jesus and he had not, their understanding of the Gospel could well be thought preferable to his. Paul is also saying in Galatians that his encounter with the risen Christ grants him just as much authority as the Jerusalem leaders, but there is an underlying perception that this will not be obviously true to his readers.

Andrew Criddle

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:45 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am
No, there were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels when Galatians were written because a Gospel Jesus didn't exist.

While the distinction between a Gospel Jesus and a historical Jesus is enough clear, even so the concept of eyewitnesses is one and the same as to both the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus.

For evidence of this identity of concept only read the following passage (Homily 17:18). It is Peter who talks:

Thus to me also was the Son revealed by the Father. Wherefore I know what is the meaning of revelation, having learned it in my own case. For at the very time when the Lord said, 'Who do they say that I am?' and when I heard one saying one thing of Him, and another another, it came into my heart to say (and I know not, therefore, how I said it), 'You are the Son of the living God.' But He, pronouncing me blessed, pointed out to me that it was the Father who had revealed it to me; and from this time I learned that revelation is knowledge gained without instruction, and without apparition and dreams. And this is indeed the case. For in the soul which has been placed in us by God, there is all the truth; but it is covered and revealed by the hand of God, who works so far as each one through his knowledge deserves. But the declaration of anything by means of apparitions and dreams from without is a proof, not that it comes from revelation, but from wrath. Finally, then, it is written in the law, that God, being angry, said to Aaron and Miriam, 'If a prophet arise from amongst you, I shall make myself known to him through visions and dreams, but not so as to my servant Moses; because I shall speak to him in an outward appearance, and not through dreams, just as one will speak to his own friend.' You see how the statements of wrath are made through visions and dreams, but the statements to a friend are made face to face, in outward appearance, and not through riddles and visions and dreams, as to an enemy.

Rightly, dr Detering points out an enormous difference with Galatians:

It is strange that a group of Judaizers .... competed with the revelation claim of Paul-Simon, while others, those in Galatia, denied any revelation to Paul

(my bold)

The difference is easily explained by assuming that, in whiletime, the concept of a historical Jesus (and relative eyewitnesses) was invented:

in Galatians, without a historical Jesus, Paul could be contrasted only by accusing him of being without revelations at all (or, in alternative, of having revelations by "Satan masked as angel of light")

in Homily 17:18, with a historical Jesus, Paul/Simon could be contrasted also by accusing him of having received only mere revelations, and not the friendship of a historical Jesus.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:56 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am I see mythicists like RG Price and Doherty conflate those two all the time.

[The Mythical Jesus viewpoint is] the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction...

Doherty, Earl (2009). Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Age of Reason Publications. pp. vii–viii. ISBN 978-0-9689259-2-8.

dbz wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 6:24 am
rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 5:40 am For me the question is very simple. Were the Gospel narratives . . . accounts of the ministry teachings of a real person named Jesus?

If the answer is no then "Jesus did not exist."
If yes. Then Jesus, a H. sapien on Earth, is defined as one whose historicity is > 50 percent on a methodologically correct Bayesian approach to the putative valid evidence.

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.

This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.

This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

That all three propositions are true shall be my minimal theory of historicity.
--Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].

Carrier simultaneously accepts the potential HJ and the potential MJ. With the caveat that he doubts the HJ.

[W]e must check ourselves against excessive certainty. I do this in OHJ by setting as extreme a boundary against my own conclusions as is reasonably possible, thus producing the a fortiori result of 1 in 3 for Jesus, in contrast to my own unchecked judgment of 1 in 12,000. I believe only the result of 1 in 3 is confidently defensible to critics. The lower bound of 1 in 12,000 is plausible, but not confidently knowable. In effect, I recognize the margin of error is large. The true probability is somewhere in between 1 in 12,000 and 1 in 3 and we cannot know where in between; which means even I cannot claim to know the probability is less than 1 in 3, only that it is not reasonable to say it’s higher than 1 in 3. Historicists need to adopt the same humility in the face of the extremely ambiguous and problematic evidence we are stuck with for Jesus.
--Carrier (29 May 2018). "A Test of Bayesian History: Efraim Wallach on Old Testament Studies". Richard Carrier Blogs.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:26 am**

dbz wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:56 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am I see mythicists like RG Price and Doherty conflate those two all the time.

rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 5:40 am For me the question is very simple. Were the Gospel narratives . . . accounts of the ministry teachings of a real person named Jesus?

If the answer is no then "Jesus did not exist."

Yep. Case in point.

Dr Carrier wrote: [T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.

This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.

This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

That all three propositions are true shall be my minimal theory of historicity.
--Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. p. 34.

That's right. So taking Carrier's three points above into consideration, let's look at how the lack of Mary talking or being talked to in Acts affects the odds for historicity. Should they lead to the odds for mythicism increasing?

Carrier writes in OHJ, page 372:

It's the complete disappearance of Jesus' family that is really hard to explain on minimal historicity. After the report of her being with the congregation in Acts 1.14, mother Mary is never mentioned again. She never says or does anything, is never spoken to or heard of again, and nothing ever happens to her. We aren't even told when or why or where she lived or died. She literally disappears from history-as if she never existed. Though Acts 1 .14 also says Jesus' brothers were present just weeks before the Pentecost announcement recorded in Acts 2, all of his brothers then disappear. They are never mentioned again.

Carrier rates the disappearance of Mary and family as 4/5 for best odds for minimal historicity, and 2/5 for worst odds. But why? Look at Carrier's three points above again. What does Mary have to do with Carrier's minimal historicity theory? Why does her Marcel Marceau appearance in Acts lead to a decrease in the odds for historicity? Does that make sense to you?

But as I said though, Carrier doesn't do that too often. Doherty and RG Price are much more egregious in that respect.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:28 am**

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:32 am Paul is also saying in Galatians that his encounter with the risen Christ grants him just as much authority as the Jerusalem leaders, but there is an underlying perception that this will not be obviously true to his readers.

In Galatians 1:12 the underlying perception seems to be that Paul didn't receive really a revelation by Jesus Christ but he had lied in his claim of a revelation:

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ

A scenario corroborated by Galatians 1:10:

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not.

...and by Galatians 1:11:

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.

...and by Galatians 1:1:

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ

Surely a good way to please the Pillars would be to receive the gospel from them as men who had known a historical Jesus (exactly what the Paul of Acts does). Evidently this is not the case.

Therefore it is more correct to conclude that Paul (in Galatians 2) goes up to Jerusalem to compare his teaching with that of the leaders at Jerusalem because he recognises a prima-facie case that the Pillars had accused him of not having enjoyed any revelation at all.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:34 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:45 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am
No, there were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels when Galatians were written because a Gospel Jesus didn't exist.
While the distinction between a Gospel Jesus and a historical Jesus is enough clear, even so the concept of eyewitnesses is one and the same as to both the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus.

But we are talking about "eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels"? Would that be one and the same for Paul with respect to both the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus?

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:40 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:34 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:45 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 3:10 am
No, there were no eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels when Galatians were written because a Gospel Jesus didn't exist.
While the distinction between a Gospel Jesus and a historical Jesus is enough clear, even so the concept of eyewitnesses is one and the same as to both the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus.
What about "eyewitnesses or earwitnesses in the sense of the Gospels"? Would that be the same for Paul with respect to both the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus?

I don't understand the question since for me an eyewitness "in the sense of the Gospels" is not different from an eyewitness "in the sense of a historical Jesus": the claim is the same, as Homily 17:18 proves.

Possibly you mean this difference:

eyewitness in the sense of the Gospels: I saw Jesus while he ... (place a Gospel episode here)

eyewitness in the sense of a historical Jesus: I saw Jesus face to face.

But I have pointed out in cubital characters exactly the expression 'face to face' found in Homily 17:18.

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:57 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:40 amI don't understand the question since for me an eyewitness "in the sense of the Gospels" is not different from an eyewitness "in the sense of a historical Jesus": the claim is the same, as Homily 17:18 proves.

The Gospel Jesus is a fictionalized version of a purportedly historical person. That version didn't exist until after Paul's letters were written, according to conventional thinking. Paul could not have had access to such a person so there could be no eyewitness "in the sense of the Gospels" for Paul.

The historical Jesus is the actual person who existed in history. Paul could have had access to such a person either directly or indirectly through others. So what did that historical Jesus do or say such that Paul should have mentioned him? And how do you know?

Posted: **Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:04 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:57 am
The Gospel Jesus is a fictionalized version of a purportedly historical person. That version didn't exist until after Paul's letters were written, according to conventional thinking. Paul could not have had access to such a person so there could be no eyewitness "in the sense of the Gospels" for Paul.

Homily 17:18 proves that, when we limit the discussion to eyewitnesses, the claim to have seen Jesus 'face to face' is 100% identical, beyond if one is talking about a witnesses of the Gospel Jesus or if he/she is talking about a witnesses of the historical Jesus. The my point is that in Galatians a such claim is entirely absent by the Paul's opponents, not found even as a "prima facie-case" (for the reasons shown here).

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo

Re: A wonderful Mythicist book: I am talking about “Christ before Jesus” by M. Britt and J. Wingo