Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I think Carrier grossly exaggerated his scoring on his Rank-Raglan list:
I got 7 for gMark and 13 for gMatthew.
However Carrier put 14 for gMark and 20 for gMatthew:

1. The hero’s mother is a virgin. Mk: 0, Mt: 1
2. His father is a king or the heir of a king. 0, 1
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual. 0, 1
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god. 1, 1
5. An attempt is made to kill him when he is a baby. 0, 1
6. To escape which he is spirited away from those trying to kill him. 0, 1
7. He is reared in a foreign country by one or more foster parents. 0, 1
8. We are told nothing of his childhood. 1, 1
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom. 0, 0
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king. 1, 1
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e., without wars or national catastrophes). 0, 0
12. He prescribes laws. 1, 1
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects. 1, 1
14. He is driven from the throne or city. 0, 0
15. He meets with a mysterious death. 0, 0
16. He dies atop a hill or high place. 1, 1
17. His children, if any, do not succeed him. 0, 0
18. His body turns up missing. 1, 1
19. Yet he still has one or more holy sepulchers (in fact or fiction). 0, 0
20. Before taking a throne or a wife, he battles and defeats a great adversary (such as a king, giant, dragon or wild beast). 0, 0
21. His parents are related to each other. 0, 0
22. He marries a queen or princess related to his predecessor. 0, 0

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: Furthermore, Ro 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren."
denies that Paul thought of his Christians as brothers of Jesus in any way, just brothers between themselves:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p86.htm
See also
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p87.htm

How is that a denial? In the article you link to your argument seems to be that Paul could've used the genitive, and therefor it can't mean what we have in every translation.

But you don't explain why "firstborn [en + D of "many brothers"]" should not be understood as "firstborn among many brothers". What do you think it means if not that?

As an example, I found a similar construction in Mt 2:6

And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;...

Is this also a "denial" of Bethlehem being one of the "rulers of Judah" because it's not in the genitive?

My copy just arrived. The thing's enormous. It will take a while to get through while taking notes.

hjalti wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote: Furthermore, Ro 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren."
denies that Paul thought of his Christians as brothers of Jesus in any way, just brothers between themselves:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p86.htm
See also
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p87.htm

How is that a denial? In the article you link to your argument seems to be that Paul could've used the genitive, and therefor it can't mean what we have in every translation.

But you don't explain why "firstborn [en + D of "many brothers"]" should not be understood as "firstborn among many brothers". What do you think it means if not that?

As an example, I found a similar construction in Mt 2:6

And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;...

Is this also a "denial" of Bethlehem being one of the "rulers of Judah" because it's not in the genitive?

If we continue with the mind-reading method of interpreting Paul that Bernard sets out we can say that if Paul wanted to clearly point out that the Christians were not brethren of Jesus then he would have said Christ was the "First and Last born" or the "First and Only born". Of course "firstborn" carries the implication that others are to follow, as you point out. That's clear to all but one person here, it seems.

Moreover, just a few verses earlier Paul had said those same people are all joint-heirs of the Father with Christ and they all call God "Abba". That sets up the context and makes it pretty certain that Paul is saying that all Christians are brothers of Christ. The same principle was set out in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus calls all who do his will his brothers and sisters, his family. I'd be interested to know if Bernard can point to any scholarly article supporting his reading of Paul here.

ghost wrote:

maryhelena wrote:The only one of the above that I can find is a mention of Courtney:

Page 53/54
If ‘Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false, it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars have indeed argued - the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney)

(Courtney’s book, Et Tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus!, mentioned in the footnote)

Carrier then goes on to write that such a premise has a “much lower prior probability”. I’m not going to type any more from the book. The book is heavy and unyielding and trying to keep a page open for typing is frustrating.....

Thanks. That's interesting.

OK - I managed to keep the book open - so here is the full paragraph.


my bolding

And there you are - that is Carrier's big problem. He is viewing the gospel Jesus story through a Pauline lens. A political theory "suits the Gospels well" - and yet, re Carrier, this gives the political theories a low probability......

Carrier needs to realize that a claim for the historicity of the gospel Jesus, a figure that does reflect zealot characteristics (re Reza Aslan's Zealot) is in fact a political claim. How much plainer could the gospel story be when it puts that King of the Jews sign over the crucified man? The gospel writers, and any Jew of that time, and even now, were not just interested in abstract theological or philosophical ideas - they are interested in politics, interested in the social/political arena in which they lived. Such interests being heightened, during the gospel time frame, due to Roman occupation.

Indeed, Carrier can keep his celestial christ figure - what he can't do is impose this celestial christ figure upon the gospel Jesus story. Theological and philosophical ideas are fine, in their place. However, when theology infiltrates social/political structures it produces social/political problems. Likewise, interpreting the gospel story through a Pauline theological/philosophical lens reduces the social/political relevance of that story. Theology cannot be allowed to trump the relevance of history to the gospel story.

Tenorikuma wrote:My copy just arrived. The thing's enormous. It will take a while to get through while taking notes.

Haha - one does not just get tired of reading - one gets tired of holding the book......Oh, for an ebook.......

maryhelena wrote: And there you are - that is Carrier's big problem. He is viewing the gospel Jesus story through a Pauline lens.

oh Oh.

GakuseiDon wrote:

Kapyong wrote:Gday again.

Here is another section that may interest readers, especially GakuseiDon :
(Italics, bolding and notes from original.)

Carrier OHJ, pp36-48, on The Ascension of Isaiah

Yes, indeed! Thanks so much for giving Carrier's comments on the AoI! I was very curious on how he was going to use it. Carrier is fairly consistent with Doherty's view there AFAICS, which I discussed with you on your blog. One interesting comment Carrier makes though is the implication of the predictions in 9.14 and following not showing up as actions in the later text. It's not a point for mythicism that I can see, but food for thought. Thanks again!

I'm not sure Carrier is correct about 9:14

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

the long [Ethiopic] version reads in 11:19-20

And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).In Jerusalem indeed I saw Him being crucified on a tree:

This does seem like a fulfillment of 9:14.

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

FWIW the equivalent to 9:14-18

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].
And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.
Then indeed they will receive their [garments and] thrones and crowns, when He has ascended into the seventh heaven."

in the short [Latin/Slavonic] text reads

And the prince of that world will stretch forth his hand upon the Son of God and will kill Him and hang Him on a tree, and he will kill Him not knowing who He is. And He will descend into hell and will lay it waste, with all the phantoms of hell. And He will seize the prince of death and despoil him, and crush all his powers, and will rise again on the third day; having with him certain of the righteous. And He will send His preachers into the whole world, and will ascend into heaven. Then these will receive their thrones and crowns

while the equivalent of 10:7-14

And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus:
"Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.
And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament [and the angels also who are in Sheol].
And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels.
And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."
And afterwards from the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place. And Thou wilt not be transformed in each heaven, but in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right hand.
And thereupon the princes and powers of that world will worship Thee."

reads in the Slavonic/Latin

And after that, I heard the voice of the Eternal saying to the Lord [His] Son: 'Go forth and descend from all the heavens and be in the world, and go even to the angel who is in hell; transfiguring thyself into their form. And neither the angels nor the princes of that world shall know thee. And thou shalt judge the prince of that world and his angels, and the rulers of the world, because they have denied me and said, "We are and without us there is no one." Thereafter, thou shalt not transfigure thyself as thou ascendest through the heavens in great glory, and thou wilt sit at my right hand. Then the princes and the virtues and all the angels and all the principalities of the heavens and of earth and of the lower regions will adore thee.'

The problems of non-fulfillment Richard Carrier is emphasizing do seem bound up with the particular text form one is using. The short version does not prophesy an ascension of Jesus with others nor does it refer to a loud voice from God.

Kapyong wrote:Gday,

Bernard Muller wrote: Of course, I object strongly that Paul's Christians considered themselves as spiritual/adopted brothers of the Lord (I wish I could read element 12 now), which is a cornerstone in Carrier`s argumentation.

Here is Carrier's element 12 in it's entirety :

"Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christian believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through Baptism (Rom. 6.3-10), which symbolised their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God' , hence they became the brothers of the Lord, 'the son of God' 101

"101. there are numerous passages that confirm this: Rom. 8:15-29; 9.26; Gal. 3:26-29; 4:4-7; and Heb. 2:10-18; Eph. 1:5; 1 Jn. 5:1-4; (and likewise 1 Jn. 2:28-3:10; 4:8; 5:18-20; with Rom. 6:3-10; Col. 2:12. See also Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 3 and 8; with Carrier 'Spiritual Body' in Empty Tomb (ed. Price and Lowder), pp 142-47. The notion could easily be derived from Ps. Sol. 17.27 "

Thanks for that rundown on the 33%!
ETA
A request for Kapyong!
Could you post up the section on Tacitus from OHJ, please?

Is Carrier seriously thinking that a case for historicity is a case for historicity for a figure named 'Jesus'? When he has already made mention of “thousands of men named Jesus in Judea in any given generation". (page 31)

OK - lets rephrase Carriers’ three points for minimal historicity - without the name ‘Jesus’.

1. 1. An actual man at some point acquired followers who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
   
   2. This is the same man who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
   
   3. This is the same man some of whose followers soon began worshipping as a living god (or demigod).

Now then, that looks a better account of a minimal historicism than what Carrier has set up against the minimal mythicist theory. Removing the name ‘Jesus’ from the minimal historicist position gives that position far greater probability than what Carrier is giving it.


So - behind, underneath - or sideways.......... there could well be a historical figure that inspired the gospel story. To rephrase Carrier:

"But showing that the Gospel Jesus didn’t exist does not show that a historical figure didn’t exist, because it could still be the case that a real historical figure is the one who inspired these unrealistic narratives about him, and that some actual facts about him really are hidden in there somewhere (even if we can never find out which facts these are)"

Interesting that Carrier makes mention of Herod the Great.......that leads to 37 b.c.e. and the hanging on a cross, scourging and beheading of the last King of the Jews.....Yep, Carrier needs to go back around 70 years not 40 years.....