Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Evidence that Neil Godfrey disagrees with Dr. Richard Carrier - part 4 of 6:

In his blog post "The Function of the Term: “Born of a Woman”" [https://vridar.org/2018/01/15/the-funct ... f-a-woman/], Neil reveals that he, unlike Dr. Carrier, who assumes (in agreement with mainstream scholarship!) that "Born of a Woman" was original to Paul, says, "The more I examine the evidence, the more convinced I am that a later editor inserted Galatians 4:4, but that hardly matters for the discussion at hand. Its function remains the same. At the beginning of this post, I asked whether we’ve been making too much of this passage. We have. Historicists, mythicists, and agnostics (like me) have been treating it as a “problem,” as if its authenticity would prove that Paul knew something about Jesus. But doctrinal knowledge is not biographical knowledge. Christians today “know” that Jesus is of one substance with the Father. This is knowledge derived from faith."

Evidence that Neil Godfrey disagrees with Dr. Richard Carrier - part 5 of 6:

In his blog post "Questioning Carrier: Was the Book of Daniel Really a “Key Messianic Text”?" [https://vridar.org/2016/08/01/questioni ... anic-text/], Neil says, "Richard Carrier’s appeal to Peter Flint’s chapter (footnote #46) successfully support his claim that the book of Daniel was a very important text and was even considered to be Scripture at Qumran. No surprise that this should be so when we recollect that like the original audience of Daniel’s prophecies, the Qumran community also saw itself driven out and persecuted and surrounded by apostate Jews. But it does not follow that interest in Daniel focused on messianic ideas. Consider another set of early Christian writings, the New Testament letters attributed to the apostles. A messiah figure dominates those scribblings. There are concerns to establish credentials and beliefs against nonbelievers and mavericks. Yet nowhere is there a hint that anyone thought to consult the calculations from Daniel’s prophecies to prove that Jesus was the real thing. Same with Acts despite all the opportunities to do so in those narrated attempts to prove to unbelieving Jews that Jesus was the messiah despite or rather because of his death? Carrier emphatically asserts that it was Daniel 9 that was the prophecy Josephus claimed was exciting the Jews to keep up their fight against Rome. "As at Qumran, the key inspiring text was the messianic timetable described in the book of Daniel (in Dan. 9.23-27). By various calculations this could be shown to predict, by the very Word of God, that the messiah would come sometime in the early first century CE. (Carrier 2014, p. 84)" But see my previous post for a more nuanced appreciation of the plausibility of this suggestion. Besides, if the calculations really pointed to the early first century then one wonders how they supposedly inspired some form of maniacal violence forty years, a generation or two, later."

Evidence that Neil Godfrey disagrees with Dr. Richard Carrier - part 6 of 6:

In his blog post "Is the Nazareth Question Important? A Response to Richard Carrier" [https://vridar.org/2021/09/29/is-the-na ... d-carrier/], Neil says, "Carrier’s cavalier swipe at the validity of the arguments on the basis that “we simply have not excavated hardly any of the locality now identified as Nazareth and cannot even establish that that is the same town as anciently named” ignores the arguments from the evidence that does exist. Even if the area Jesus happened to have grown up in is under a block of units and for that reason cannot be excavated, archaeologists can see what remains do exist in the surrounding areas and it is clear when nearby settlements were extant and when they were not. Settlements exist with surrounding farm areas, cemeteries, and other markers and it is the fact that we have evidence for these things at the wrong time."

This blog-post, if cited by karavan, would have been excellent ammunition to smear Neil as as man whose theories are too crazy for Dr. Carrier. But karavan is not interested in researching eir opponents' views, it seems; rather, e is interested in insulting people by quoting Tim O'Neill - an approach that even eir fellow antimythicist Chris Hansen apparently disagrees with.

The 6 blog posts that I have cited and quoted from do not represent the entirety of Neil's disagreement with Dr. Carrier, nor are they claimed to - but they are evidence that contra karavan, Neil is not only a follower of Dr. Carrier's views.

That is a MASSIVE number of comments ABuddhist LOL.

1) Relax dude, it was a pretty obvious joke and you're triggered now because I funnily called myself "Dick (The Jesus Buster Duster) Carrier" LOL. 2) I'm not trying to condemn you dude, just don't use the word "historicist" for people who don't call themselves "historicists". Like damn, am I also a "Muhammad" and a "Donald Trump" historicist? 3) Sorry, what "reason" is that? Hansen can have his own way of doing things and I can have mine. If someone has produced a relevant response to O'Neill on a topic I cite him on, they can produce that. But if you're going to be mass posting Godfrey blogs, I sure as hell am gonna post whatever I want. But O'Neill really is particularly relevant, 'cause he ended Carrier's career on an intellectual level. 4) Your "model" doesn't exist in reality, all space spermers are Jesus mythicists LOL. 5) So you DON'T accept Muhammad mythicism, despite cycling a lame old Muhammad mythicist argument that's blatantly false given that there are multiple references to Muhammad in non-Muslim sources within a few years of his death. And you're also wrong about the biography thing dude. MUSLIM biographies are later, but Pseudo-Sebeos has a biography of Muhammad, albeit a short one, about 30 years after Muhammad died that comes from an identifiable earlier source. People who claim that Muhammad had nothing to do with the composition of the Quran are lying to themselves, the Sanaa manuscript is early enough that it proves that the Quran must go to the traditional date of Muhammad's life. And that manuscript of the Quran is independent from the codification (attributed to Uthman usually), which was made around 650 if not earlier. Muhammad mythicists are just as crazy as Jesus mythicists. And there is, without a shadow of doubt, similarities among the cranks on both topics.

"I could claim that you are a closeted mythicist "

LOL go ahead dude.

Anyways, thanks for collecting those posts.

ABuddhist showing not even Godfrey is convinced by the space crucifixion theory and "interpretation" of AoI:
viewtopic.php?p=129328#p129328

But the thing is, this ^^ is a passing comment Godfrey makes with zero actual analysis. Given the enormities of effort Godfrey has put into responding to every little tit and tat of anyone who dares question Carrier, it's worth asking why Godfrey has gone into 0 detail about one of Carrier's main points?

ABuddhist showing not even Godfrey is convinced by Carrier's claims of Messianic expectations:
https://vridar.org/2016/07/29/questioni ... messiah-3/

Godfrey going with a different escape, incredulously claiming that Gal. 1:18-19 and 4:4 are interpolations without actual evidence:
https://vridar.org/2016/01/16/the-funct ... tians-119/
https://vridar.org/2017/12/05/thinking- ... tians-119/
https://vridar.org/series-index/the-bor ... -44-index/
https://vridar.org/2014/01/15/born-of-a ... atians-44/

Godfrey blatantly ignoring the fact that "born of a woman" debunks celestial Jesus in Paul:
https://vridar.org/2018/01/15/the-funct ... f-a-woman/

Godfrey debunking Carrier on Daniel being a messianic text:
https://vridar.org/2016/08/01/questioni ... anic-text/

The one at the end barely counts, it's just Neil following the ridiculous and debunked claims of the pseudo-archaeologist (actually a pianist) Rene Salm, whom O'Neill has annihilated. It's just another one of a mountain of examples that just goes to show that Neil doesn't know how archaeology works,

Anyways, what do these disagreements amount to? It seems that Godfrey may actually not believe in a space Jesus in Paul. That being said, he still performs blatant mental gymnastics around Paul (e.g. claiming 1:18-19 is an interpolation, denying that "the twelve" are obviously the twelve disciples) in order to deny the obvious and maintain his wishy washy mythicism.

karavan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:04 pm denying that "the twelve" are obviously the twelve disciples) in order to deny the obvious and maintain his wishy washy mythicism.

That one is news to me. I didn't know I denied the twelve are the twelve disciples.

"Wishy washy mythicism"? Is that because you can't pin me down as a mythicist?

I'm flattered that you think my presence is worth so much emotional bluster but I really do wonder why. It's only a hobby and, in your own words, restricted to a tiny echo chamber anyway. So what's the big deal? Sheesh, how do you react with people who blog stuff that really matters to the world?

(For the record since it has come up and become something of a big deal in this thread .... I am not addressing k here .... I am not a mythicist. I am not the least interested in arguing a case for the non-existence of Jesus. The historical evidence we have only allows one to postulate a hypothesis on whether he existed or not. My main interest is in exploring the nature and origins of the earliest evidence we have for Christianity. I find that a far more fascinating quest than the boring "did jesus exist or not" debate. If there were a historical Jesus I don't think the evidence as it stands allows us to give him much credit for the religion that has ostensibly claimed him as its point of origin.)

Oh, and back to k .... thanks for the apology for calling me a Carrier fanboy.

karavan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:04 pm That is a MASSIVE number of comments ABuddhist LOL.

1) Relax dude, it was a pretty obvious joke and you're triggered now because I funnily called myself "Dick (The Jesus Buster Duster) Carrier" LOL. 2) I'm not trying to condemn you dude, just don't use the word "historicist" for people who don't call themselves "historicists". Like damn, am I also a "Muhammad" and a "Donald Trump" historicist? 3) Sorry, what "reason" is that? Hansen can have his own way of doing things and I can have mine. If someone has produced a relevant response to O'Neill on a topic I cite him on, they can produce that. But if you're going to be mass posting Godfrey blogs, I sure as hell am gonna post whatever I want. But O'Neill really is particularly relevant, 'cause he ended Carrier's career on an intellectual level. 4) Your "model" doesn't exist in reality, all space spermers are Jesus mythicists LOL. 5) So you DON'T accept Muhammad mythicism, despite cycling a lame old Muhammad mythicist argument that's blatantly false given that there are multiple references to Muhammad in non-Muslim sources within a few years of his death. And you're also wrong about the biography thing dude. MUSLIM biographies are later, but Pseudo-Sebeos has a biography of Muhammad, albeit a short one, about 30 years after Muhammad died that comes from an identifiable earlier source. People who claim that Muhammad had nothing to do with the composition of the Quran are lying to themselves, the Sanaa manuscript is early enough that it proves that the Quran must go to the traditional date of Muhammad's life. And that manuscript of the Quran is independent from the codification (attributed to Uthman usually), which was made around 650 if not earlier. Muhammad mythicists are just as crazy as Jesus mythicists. And there is, without a shadow of doubt, similarities among the cranks on both topics.

"I could claim that you are a closeted mythicist "

LOL go ahead dude.

Anyways, thanks for collecting those posts.

ABuddhist showing not even Godfrey is convinced by the space crucifixion theory and "interpretation" of AoI:
viewtopic.php?p=129328#p129328

But the thing is, this ^^ is a passing comment Godfrey makes with zero actual analysis. Given the enormities of effort Godfrey has put into responding to every little tit and tat of anyone who dares question Carrier, it's worth asking why Godfrey has gone into 0 detail about one of Carrier's main points?

ABuddhist showing not even Godfrey is convinced by Carrier's claims of Messianic expectations:
https://vridar.org/2016/07/29/questioni ... messiah-3/

Godfrey going with a different escape, incredulously claiming that Gal. 1:18-19 and 4:4 are interpolations without actual evidence:
https://vridar.org/2016/01/16/the-funct ... tians-119/
https://vridar.org/2017/12/05/thinking- ... tians-119/
https://vridar.org/series-index/the-bor ... -44-index/
https://vridar.org/2014/01/15/born-of-a ... atians-44/

Godfrey blatantly ignoring the fact that "born of a woman" debunks celestial Jesus in Paul:
https://vridar.org/2018/01/15/the-funct ... f-a-woman/

Godfrey debunking Carrier on Daniel being a messianic text:
https://vridar.org/2016/08/01/questioni ... anic-text/

The one at the end barely counts, it's just Neil following the ridiculous and debunked claims of the pseudo-archaeologist (actually a pianist) Rene Salm, whom O'Neill has annihilated. It's just another one of a mountain of examples that just goes to show that Neil doesn't know how archaeology works,

Anyways, what do these disagreements amount to? It seems that Godfrey may actually not believe in a space Jesus in Paul. That being said, he still performs blatant mental gymnastics around Paul (e.g. claiming 1:18-19 is an interpolation, denying that "the twelve" are obviously the twelve disciples) in order to deny the obvious and maintain his wishy washy mythicism.

Your continued reliance upon insults and citing O'Neill as if he were the be all and end all for refuting mythicism is the reason why I am ending this discussion having achieved a victory against you that you acknowledge - having refuted your allegation that Dr. Carrier and Neil never disagree.

That having said, I would like to say to you some words that may guide you to be a better participant within this forum whom other people may want to engage with.

1. I was not triggered by your calling yourself "Dick (The Jesus Buster Duster) Carrier", but rather by your claiming, without saying within the same post that it was a joke, that you were Dr. Carrier. Your written laughter could be interpreted as sadistic glee by Dr. Carrier at having caused such strife.

2. It is difficult for me to believe that you are not trying to condemn me when you keep responding so harshly with insults and innuendo against me to my words.

3. My point was that maybe you should consider a more temperate discussion style when refuting mythicism.

4. I never claimed that my model existed in reality - I merely offered it as a hypothetical in order to refute what I saw as your claim that there must be an automatic correlation between mythicism and "space spermism".

5. I thank you for your provision of references about Early Muslim history, which is not an area which I have researched much. But I must make the following comments.

a. "People who claim that Muhammad had nothing to do with the composition of the Quran are lying to themselves": With all due respect, you are misrepresenting the position that I was discussing, in which Muhammad had something to do with the Qu'ran's creation but not as its author - rather, he would have been a figure head to whom the authors of the Qu'ran (his associates) would have presented their efforts for him to present as Allah's words.

b. The fact that a manuscript of the Qu'ran exists from Muhammad's lifetime and approximate location is not evidence that the Qu'ran was written by Muhammad - although it eliminates various models in which Muhammad was more distant from the Qu'ran (such as the proposal that the Qu'ran was written c. 100 years after Muhammad's death).

6. The claim that Judea during the first century CE was filled with messaniac expectations (and related apocalyptic prophets such as Jesus Christ) is, as far as I am aware, not limited to Dr. Carrier but is to the contrary part of mainstream biblical scholarship. For this reason, the historian Steve Mason, in his book “A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66-74” (2016), had to argue against such a mainstream view, as you may read here: “Examining the Evidence for Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet” [ https://vridar.org/2018/12/23/examining ... c-prophet/ ] . Furthermore, the blogpost in question condemns O’Neill for not engaging with Mason (and other scholars) in their arguments that Judea during the first century CE was not filled with messaniac expectations (and related apocalyptic prophets such as Jesus Christ). Note that such an assertion says nothing about whether Jesus was a myth, because there are many other models of the historical Jesus (albeit less popular currently) in which he was not an apocalyptic prophet.

7. Dhammapada 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Dhammapada 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

Dhammapada 5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

So maybe you should be more peaceful and calm here, eh?

karavan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:47 pm
That's not a credible position at all @Giuseppe.

"We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus' being clearly the ''name above all names'' that is given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud)."

This is a total red herring — Jesus wasn't an angel for Paul.

There is no reference to angel in

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:36 am "We know from the Hymn to Philippians that at least the same Christians were giving to a divine being the name 'Jesus' ('Jesus' being clearly the ''name above all names'' that is given to a suffering hero, per Couchoud)."

Which 'position' of Guiseppe's are you referring to? the OP? or the one I quote below?

----------------

karavan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:47 pm So it makes literally zero difference that Paul thought Jesus was God. The question is not whether Paul thought Jesus was God (he did), but if he thought he was an angel. Good luck convincing someone on that, given the total absence of evidence.

"But for Ehrman (see my post above), an angel is precisely"

But the thing is, for *Paul*, Jesus was not an angel. It doesn't matter what Ehrman defines an angel as, if it blatantly contradicts what Paul defined an angel as. We're discussing if PAUL thought Jesus was an angel, correct? The obvious dichotomy between Jesus and angels in Romans 8 should be enough to settle that. Angels belong to the created realm.

So (1) how do you, karavan, think Paul 'defined an angel' ?

(2) On what basis do you say, "for *Paul*, Jesus was not an angel" ??

We have Erhman on Paul -

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:32 am
So Ehrman insists that Jesus is an Angel for Paul, contra Hurtado:

.
Christ as an Angel in Paul

This will be my final set of comments on the evaluation of 'How Jesus Became God' by Larry Hurtado, on his blog. His review consisted of a set of positive comments, of things that he appreciated (for which I’m grateful); several misreadings of my positions, in which Larry indicates that my book was asserting a view that, in fact, it was not (he corrected those after our back and forth in a subsequent post); one assertion that I was motivated by an anti-Christian agenda and wanted to convince readers that Jesus’ followers had hallucinations (I dealt with that assertion yesterday; I do not think that it is a generous reading of my discussion – especially since I explicitly stated on repeated occasions that I was *not* arguing for a non-Christian or anti-Christian view); and, well, this one point that I’ll discuss here, on which we have a genuine disagreement. The point has to do with whether the apostle Paul understood Christ, in his pre-existent state, to have been an angelic being. Larry devotes two paragraphs to the issue; the second one I find more problematic than the first, although I disagree with the first as well (but not as strongly):

As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord). That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus. As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.” But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks. Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as 'only' a distinct “possibility.” And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works. The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.

I did indeed find Gieschen’s argument that Paul understood Jesus as an angel prior to becoming human extremely provocative and convincing. His arguments are supported and advanced in a very interesting discussion of Susan R. Garrett in her book, 'No Ordinary Angel'.

When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27). He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel. That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.

... https://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-2/
.

Unfortunately, I can't read the rest. But I am tempted to read it...

Have you read Susan R. Garrett's book, 'No Ordinary Angel' ? Have you read Gieschen ?

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:42 pm
(For the record since it has come up and become something of a big deal in this thread .... I am not addressing k here .... I am not a mythicist. I am not the least interested in arguing a case for the non-existence of Jesus. The historical evidence we have only allows one to postulate a hypothesis on whether he existed or not. My main interest is in exploring the nature and origins of the earliest evidence we have for Christianity. I find that a far more fascinating quest than the boring "did jesus exist or not" debate. If there were a historical Jesus I don't think the evidence as it stands allows us to give him much credit for the religion that has ostensibly claimed him as its point of origin.)

Oh, and back to k .... thanks for the apology for calling me a Carrier fanboy.

karavan would probably accuse you of lying, if his past behaviour be any indication.

The way I see it, Jesus mythicism is a dead end for many reasons, of which I will list 2 here.

1. If Jesus were not real, then Christianity would be reduced to a religion based upon non-material gods. But the same can be said about other religions, and has no bearing upon whether the religions are true (cf., the cult of Amitabha Buddha, a heavenly saviour Buddha - whom I reject due to centring my faith upon the Pali Canon in which he is not mentioned).

2. Jesus's deeds as a person seem fundamentally irrelevant to reconstructing Christian beliefs because beliefs may be based upon facts (within the gospels and related traditions), but they could also be based upon errors, lies, deceptions, or delusions (within those same gospels and traditions). Furthermore, the refusal by the gospels' authors to describe their methods in detail (or at all, as with GMark and GMatthew), name their sources, or even identify themselves by name means that we have very little evidence upon which we can conclude that the texts were accurate. The irrelevancy of the Historical Jesus to reconstructing early Christian belief, in my mind, can be argued based upon three grounds:

a. the Authenticated writings of Paul, which reveal no interest in Jesus as person; rather, Jesus is primarily used as doer of salvific deed (death and resurrection) and source of authority (revealer of truths through visions to Paul). The historical data that Paul provides are either so vague as to be applicable to gods and people (born of a woman under the law) or so poorly explained that they might as well be unmentioned, for all the use they are put to (James the Brother of the Lord).

b. The multiplicity of contradictory accounts of Jesus. The 4 gospels contradict each other in many facts and accounts of sayings and deeds. Moreover, in the Gnostic gospels engage in even stranger divergences (Jesus teaching true wisdom after death, etc.). All of these accounts seem to be derived ultimately from Mark and Q. Yet the fact that so many people were willing to take these sources and distort them in so many ways suggests that recording real events was not their priority - conveying polemical or spiritual truths was.

c. The debates that are recorded within early Christianity (the epistles) have almost nothing to do with Jesus as person. People do not allege "Jesus said X, not Y, meaning that we should do Z." Rather, the disputes were about how to interpret Jesus's death and its soteriological consequences. The closest thing that comes to historicity is whether he had come in the flesh and been raised in the flesh, but that type of narrative could be applied to any person who is alleged to have died and been reborn. Other debates were about what defined salvation and upright conduct, but Jesus's words were not appealed to from an Earthly life. Rather, Paul, John of Patmos, and probably others (since if this type of revelation had been abnormal, one would think that they would try to justify the authority of their revelations over the authority of words preached by Jesus to disciples) derived their authority from Jesus as heavenly revealer figure.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:16 pm

Have you read Susan R. Garrett's book, 'No Ordinary Angel' ? Have you read Gieschen ?

Happily both books are freely accessible at archive.org:

No Ordinary Angel

Angelomophic Christology

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:27 pm
karavan would probably accuse you of lying, if his past behaviour be any indication.

The way I see it, Jesus mythicism is a dead end for many reasons, of which I will list 2 here.

I believe you have summed it all up completely. With all of that as our starting point I find myself focusing on the question of the relevance of the wars of 70 and 135 and how to make sense of what we find when we catch up with the church fathers in the second century. I'll be very pissed if they discover some new cache of scrolls that explains it all just after I die.

(Yeh, well O'Neill did flatly respond by accusing me of lying when I pointed out to him what I have said publicly all along so I know how it goes and that's why I inserted my "not for k" notice in the comment.)