Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Maryhelena, what you say only makes sense if people actually knew that a person they heard or read about was not a real person or based on a real person.

neilgodfrey wrote:Maryhelena, what you say only makes sense if people actually knew that a person they heard or read about was not a real person or based on a real person.

Neil, before any gospel writer put pen to 'paper' Jewish history was known. Anyone reading the gospel Jesus story and knew Jewish history would be able to identify the history that is reflected in that gospel story. In time, yes, when Jewish history faded from memory, then the gospel story would begin to be read literally. And that was the way for a very long time. However, once historical research into early christian origins began - then Jewish history had to be put on the table. Obviously, it was not done - resulting in the present day historicist verse mythicist debate.

Bottom line in all this - Hasmonean/Jewish history has to be considered - especially since the DSS opened up avenues into Jewish thought prior to the lst century. It's acceptable DSS practice to attempt to identity the literary figures in the DSS as representing historical figures. The same method needs to be used with the gospel Jesus story.

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Maryhelena, what you say only makes sense if people actually knew that a person they heard or read about was not a real person or based on a real person.

Neil, before any gospel writer put pen to 'paper' Jewish history was known. Anyone reading the gospel Jesus story and knew Jewish history would be able to identify the history that is reflected in that gospel story. In time, yes, when Jewish history faded from memory, then the gospel story would begin to be read literally. And that was the way for a very long time. However, once historical research into early christian origins began - then Jewish history had to be put on the table. Obviously, it was not done - resulting in the present day historicist verse mythicist debate.

Bottom line in all this - Hasmonean/Jewish history has to be considered - especially since the DSS opened up avenues into Jewish thought prior to the lst century. It's acceptable DSS practice to attempt to identity the literary figures in the DSS as representing historical figures. The same method needs to be used with the gospel Jesus story.

Your bottom line is really part of the circle. Your argument is entirely circular.

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Maryhelena, what you say only makes sense if people actually knew that a person they heard or read about was not a real person or based on a real person.

Neil, before any gospel writer put pen to 'paper' Jewish history was known. Anyone reading the gospel Jesus story and knew Jewish history would be able to identify the history that is reflected in that gospel story. In time, yes, when Jewish history faded from memory, then the gospel story would begin to be read literally. And that was the way for a very long time. However, once historical research into early christian origins began - then Jewish history had to be put on the table. Obviously, it was not done - resulting in the present day historicist verse mythicist debate.

Bottom line in all this - Hasmonean/Jewish history has to be considered - especially since the DSS opened up avenues into Jewish thought prior to the lst century. It's acceptable DSS practice to attempt to identity the literary figures in the DSS as representing historical figures. The same method needs to be used with the gospel Jesus story.

Your bottom line is really part of the circle. Your argument is entirely circular.

And what would you call a theory that starts with a celestial god and then becomes a pseudo-human figure and then becomes a celestial god again......circular - haha Neil, the laugh is on the Carrier/Doherty mythicists.

You know what - it is truly fascination to see how readily Hasmonean/Jewish history is denied a place in the historicist verse mythicist debate.

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: Your bottom line is really part of the circle. Your argument is entirely circular.

And what would you call a theory that starts with a celestial god and then becomes a pseudo-human figure and then becomes a celestial god again......circular - haha Neil, the laugh is on the Carrier/Doherty mythicists.

You know what - it is truly fascination to see how readily Hasmonean/Jewish history is denied a place in the historicist verse mythicist debate.

You evidently don't understand the concept of circular logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

(As for the circular process of celestial powers descending to earth in the appearance of humans and returning again to the heavens, well, that's as common as the hills in Jewish ideas of the first century ce.)

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: Your bottom line is really part of the circle. Your argument is entirely circular.

And what would you call a theory that starts with a celestial god and then becomes a pseudo-human figure and then becomes a celestial god again......circular - haha Neil, the laugh is on the Carrier/Doherty mythicists.

You know what - it is truly fascination to see how readily Hasmonean/Jewish history is denied a place in the historicist verse mythicist debate.

You evidently don't understand the concept of circular logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

(As for the circular process of celestial powers descending to earth in the appearance of humans and returning again to the heavens, well, that's as common as the hills in Jewish ideas of the first century ce.)

So now it's a lesson in logic?

Neil, why not deal with what I write? Hasmonean/Jewish history is reflected in the gospel Jesus story. That premise is a premise that even the quote, above, from Doherty, would not be able to deny. Doherty says, in that quote, that "I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus.

And you want to tell me that Doherty's position in that quote is 'entirely circular'?

Bottom line, Neil, again, is that Hasmonean/Jewish history is reflected in the gospel Jesus story.

The Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory is circular in that - it starts with a celestial god and then becomes a pseudo-human figure and then becomes a celestial god again..ie this theory runs in a circle - it's on a loop. It can continue spinning forever but it can't answer historical questions related to the gospel Jesus story. It's a nonsense answer to the Jesus historicists.

maryhelena wrote:
So now it's a lesson in logic?

Neil, why not deal with what I write?

If you can't address the logical circularity of an argument, and hence its invalidity, then we have no basis for discussion.

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote:
So now it's a lesson in logic?

Neil, why not deal with what I write?

If you can't address the logical circularity of an argument, and hence its invalidity, then we have no basis for discussion.

On one thing you are correct - there is no basis for any discussion on the gospel Jesus story once one does not put Hasmonean/Jewish history on the table. Imaginative interpretations of the NT story, interpretations that fail to consider the reality of Hasmonean/Jewish history are futile. All such discussions accomplish is the same any door-step preacher accomplishes any Sunday morning. My interpretation is better than your interpretation. Oh, well, lets see how far Carrier gets with his celestial god, pseudo-human Jesus, celestial god circular mythicist theory.

It's one thing, which I'm sure Carrier will do with his book, to cast doubts upon the historicity of the gospel figure of Jesus. It is altogether another thing to propose that the Carrier/Doherty circular mythicist theory can resolve the historicists verse mythicist debate in favor of the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory. That theory did not succeed with Doherty - thus casting doubts on it's reincarnation as a Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory.

Kapyong, thanks so much for posting up those excepts from Carrier's latest book.
I can't comment on them, except to acknowledge I have a lot of reading to do this summer.

As for the discussions that will most certainly ensue from Carrier's views, I think we need a new Smilie.
While the popcorn-munching Smiley is applicable, wouldn't a grape-munching one be much more satisfying?

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote:
So now it's a lesson in logic?

Neil, why not deal with what I write?

If you can't address the logical circularity of an argument, and hence its invalidity, then we have no basis for discussion.

On one thing you are correct - there is no basis for any discussion on the gospel Jesus story once one does not put Hasmonean/Jewish history on the table. Imaginative interpretations of the NT story, interpretations that fail to consider the reality of Hasmonean/Jewish history are futile. All such discussions accomplish is the same any door-step preacher accomplishes any Sunday morning. My interpretation is better than your interpretation. Oh, well, lets see how far Carrier gets with his celestial god, pseudo-human Jesus, celestial god circular mythicist theory.

It's one thing, which I'm sure Carrier will do with his book, to cast doubts upon the historicity of the gospel figure of Jesus. It is altogether another thing to propose that the Carrier/Doherty circular mythicist theory can resolve the historicists verse mythicist debate in favor of the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory. That theory did not succeed with Doherty - thus casting doubts on it's reincarnation as a Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory.

Hello, I have been following this thread and have noticed some implying Carrier's position as "Mythicists" I really do not think so as attested to here:

A decisive argument against mythicism has been made by a scholar whose competence certainly can’t be questioned. This scholar is Richard Carrier. In his essay “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb”

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... z36P5A1vOk

Is Carrier backtracking? No one knows but him. Was just curious as to the reference to Carrier as a mythicists or am I reading more into it than whats there?