Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

toejam wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:MrMacSon said:
Saying Jesus had Davidic ancestry seems rather far-fetched: would that be via Jesus paternal lineage or his maternal lineage, or both?

The point is not whether or not he actually was a descendant, or if so, through which line. I'll leave that for the Biblical inerrantists (and maybe James Tabor) to mull over! My guess would be that he wasn't from the Davidic line (or that if he was there was no reliable way to verify). The point is that if Paul and the earliest Christians we know of were claiming Jesus was a descendant of David, it begs the question to say they meant in a "spiritural" or "otherworldly" sense. Paul never qualifies his descendant remarks with "in the heavenly realm" etc.

Yes, and not just as a descendant of David, but also as the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16) and more generally as a descendant of Israelites:

• Rom 9:3: For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites... 5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came]...

As you said, it could be claimed that "oh, this is just part of the myth!" I'm hoping that Carrier has examined these passages and has something more than that though.

For "seed of David", I understand that Carrier suggests that the Jews of the time believed that God has a heavenly sperm bank. Does anyone know how he treats the above passages in his OHJ?

^I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, but yes, that is where the crux of his argument will fall - how he deals with Paul's (to me rather obviously) Earthly Jesus references. Apparently there's some hold up with shipping due to a misprint and some retailers are holding off shipping until new copies arrive... or something to that effect.

I think this is pertinent to that thread, something I wrote for that blog http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2014 ... nk-raglan/
According to Paul's seven deemed authentic epistles:
1) Jesus was a man "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15).
2) He was a Jew (said to be descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), Jesse (Ro 15:12) & David (Ro 1:3).
3) He came from a woman (Gal 4:4).
4) He was a minister to Jews (Ro 15:8).
5) He was poor, in poverty (2 Cor 8:9) and "humble" (Php 2:8).
6) He was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4).
7) This crucifixion happened in the heartland of the Jews. (as explained here: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p22.htm )
8) He had brothers (contemporaries of Paul) (1 Cor 9:5).
9) These brothers were travelling with "a "sister", a wife" (1 Cor 9:5).
10) One of Jesus' brothers was named "James" (Gal 1:19), whom Paul met several times in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
11) James lived for a long time in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19, 2:9).
12) James was also an important member of some Jewish sect based in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2, 9, 12).

Also, I want to add Paul's followers in Corinth had been exposed to a worldly view of Jesus (obviously different of Paul's one) (2 Cor 5:16 http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm )
and
Jesus was determined to be the Son of God through the belief of his resurrection (Ro 1:4) even if before that, he was that Son already (Ro 8:3, Gal 4:4-5) (suggesting Jesus did not give any sign he was divine during the "incarnation", as also in Php 2:7-8a).

Cordially, Bernard

toejam wrote:

Hawthorne said:
... While all of this is explainable on mythicist assumptions...

This is one of my concerns of the "mythicist assumptions"... Like any good Young Earth Creationist street-preaching theist who can "expain" any piece of old Earth evidence away by appealing to the infinite power and wisdom of their God, mythicists have the same inexhaustible and infinitely flexible supernatural realm to appeal to for their assumptions. Where we criticise YECs for their infinite "God of the gaps", is it possible that Carrier and the like a appealing to a "myth of the gaps"?

I know that sounds snarky. But it's just a thought. And I know it kind of cuts both ways. But the concern is that the hypothetical myth being proposed can always be adjusted to explain away the evidence for a historical Jesus. E.g. Paul says Jesus had Davidic ancestry... "Oh no, that was all part of the myth!", Everyone says Jesus was crucified and buried... "Oh no, that was all part of the myth!" etc.

What you say here is inconsequential. Theories are constructed to fit all the evidence. There is no reason that part of a theory could be that a mythical person was thought to be an actual human (Euhemeros believed that Zeus had been a man, for example). Proving that Paul believed Jesus was a man, in other words, a god incarnate, doesn't mean Jesus actually existed in history.

And, yes, what you say cuts both ways. "Jesus isn't mentioned in any contemporary sources, well, that's because, contrary to what our sources actually say, Jesus was inconsequential, unknown." Same filling the gaps, see?

I did notice that you pulled out my quote on "mythicist assumptions" but made no mention that I also used the term "historicist assumptions." We all make assumptions. You aren't dealing with actual evidence, just engaging in naysaying and poisoning the pot.

Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words of teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples. In this regard it is of the greatest significance that when Paul cites ‘sayings of Jesus’, they are never so designated; rather, without a single exception, he attributes such saying to ‘the Lord’.

According to my study, unschooled Jesus was not a teacher. http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p33.htm
His disciples never became Christians. They had no reason to be. http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... stians.htm
'the Lord is Jesus (Paul wrote numerous times Jesus is the Lord, and the only Lord for Christians (1 Cor 8:6).

Is Carrier correct that evidence we have from Paul is not what we would expect if there were an actual historical person whose teachings and crucifixion inspired the origins of Christianity?

Paul's Christianity started despite the crucifixion, which was later glorified and declared a sacrifice. It is very obvious by looking at Paul's epistles.

If there is anything like a ‘knockdown drag-out’ argument for a historical Jesus, it’d have to be Paul’s reference to James, the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.

I think there are more 'knockdown drag-out' arguments for a historical Jesus in Paul's epistles (see my previous posting), plus one in Josephus' Antiquities about James.
About brothers and brother of Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... e_Lord.htm
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... _Jesus.htm
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... e_Lord.htm

Cordially, Bernard

^^Hawthorne, I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I just see Carrier's case as more about trying to dismiss the evidence by an infinite speculation about a myth story that no source fully explains and alternate ways to read the evidence etc. rather than seeing the evidence for what it is: All the sources we know of are claiming an historical Earthy figure, whether they see him as a the instigator of a supestitio, the adopted Son of God (at his birth, baptism or resurrection), or an incarnated pre-existent angel etc... Am I convinced beyond doubt that historical Jesus existed? No. But it seems the most reasonable conclusion. Take it for what it's worth.

... That said... I will try to reserve judgement from here on in until I've read his book... But these are my thoughts from what I know of the thesis...

And, yes, what you say cuts both ways. "Jesus isn't mentioned in any contemporary sources, well, that's because, contrary to what our sources actually say, Jesus was inconsequential, unknown." Same filling the gaps, see?

Why not? According to the very little media in these days, a "small" Jesus had no reason to be recorded and even if it was in some private letters, that would not be kept.

Cordially, Bernard

For "seed of David", I understand that Carrier suggests that the Jews of the time believed that God has a heavenly sperm bank. Does anyone know how he treats the above passages in his OHJ?

I asked that question to Carrier recently and I got no pertinent answer. Just earlier he accused me to be a crank and supplied "proofs".
Unfortunately, as one of his fans remarked, my past questions on his blog were innocent and Carrier's replies to them made him look like an asshole.
I captured part of the exchange here, see towards the end of the post:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p97.htm
I am considering buying his book.

Cordially, Bernard

Hawthorne wrote:

toejam wrote:

Hawthorne said:
... While all of this is explainable on mythicist assumptions...

This is one of my concerns of the "mythicist assumptions"... Like any good Young Earth Creationist street-preaching theist who can "expain" any piece of old Earth evidence away by appealing to the infinite power and wisdom of their God, mythicists have the same inexhaustible and infinitely flexible supernatural realm to appeal to for their assumptions. Where we criticise YECs for their infinite "God of the gaps", is it possible that Carrier and the like a appealing to a "myth of the gaps"?

I know that sounds snarky. But it's just a thought. And I know it kind of cuts both ways. But the concern is that the hypothetical myth being proposed can always be adjusted to explain away the evidence for a historical Jesus. E.g. Paul says Jesus had Davidic ancestry... "Oh no, that was all part of the myth!", Everyone says Jesus was crucified and buried... "Oh no, that was all part of the myth!" etc.

What you say here is inconsequential. Theories are constructed to fit all the evidence. There is no reason that part of a theory could be that a mythical person was thought to be an actual human (Euhemeros believed that Zeus had been a man, for example). Proving that Paul believed Jesus was a man, in other words, a god incarnate, doesn't mean Jesus actually existed in history.

It is possible to argue that Paul believed Jesus was a man upon Earth but Paul was wrong. However, IIUC that is not Richard Carrier's argument.

Andrew Criddle