Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:02 am**

Bertie wrote:.
[*] I'm not convinced in the slightest by Carrier's treatment of the Rank-Raglan hero class, by which he derives prior probabilities for his Bayesean scheme, and I don't thing very many other people are going to be convinced on this matter either. I haven't been able to pin down a solid argument against it yet, but I've a sense there's something too gimmicky, too artificial about the whole thing. I've a vague sense that I could probably "prove" lots of silly things in history by contriving some "reference class" that fits just so whatever I want to prove.

Perhaps a reference class for Jesus of , say, Judas,Thomas, Mary Magdalene,Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, Barabbas, Joanna, Salome etc etc - people who exist in the Gospels but appear to have no documentation outside of 4 unprovenance, anonymous works which plagiarise each other and the Old Testament.

But if Carrier had done that, people would accuse him of stacking the deck.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 6:58 am**

to Kapyong,

Bernard Muller wrote:
BTW, the air is not known for his flesh. Earth does.
But that's where you're wrong - the realm below the firmament is the realm of flesh, of corruption, of change :

From where did you get these maps? From NASA? I think not.
Who do you know, before Doherty, described the air as the realm of FLESH, or part of the realm of FLESH?

Under historicity this passage would indeed read that way with a fairly high probability - say 90%

Under mythicism it is still compatible - a person knowing Jesus was celestial and descended the heavens would know perfectly well that being made poor meant essentially poor in power from the context and that humbling himself meant his descent. I would still rate it 90% under mythicism.

But in order to get to that conclusion, you need to add up the words "in power" (before you had "in spirit"!), which do not exist in the Greek text.
That's quite unfair, don't you think so?
Furthermore "poor in power" does not sound right. "weak in power" would be more adequate.

As to the second point he was clearly hung on a tree by the god of this world - i.e. Satan, close enough.

9:14 "And the god of that world [Satan] will stretch forth his hands against the Son, and they will crucify him on a tree, and will slay him not knowing who he is."

This verse, may have been written after or during the gospels, as Carrier thinks:
"The earliest version in fact was probably composed around the very same time as the earliest canonical Gospels were being written."
It does not say where the crucifixion happened, and the "they" can easily refers to the Romans.
Furthermore, the gospels (from the earliest one, gMark) have Satan intervening through Judas for the arrest of Jesus (leading to his execution).

And I showed here http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p73.htm that in 'Job', Satan can arrange for all kinds of killings to happen on earth without being said leaving the heavens, and also, he thinks God, from heaven, can stretch his hand against what Job has on earth:
Job 1:11 NKJV ""But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he [Job] has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" And the LORD said to Satan, ..."
So why not Satan doing the same from the heavens to earth?
Actually, in 'Job', Satan does that, without being said going on earth.

So Satan, by stretching his hand, can cause murder(s) from very far away, with no need to be in close range with the victim(s).

AofI 9:14 does not go against the gospel, far from that.

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:06 am**

Kapyong, describing the epistles of 'Paul' wrote:We know, fairly well, that they date to sometime in the first century.

OOOPS....

"fairly well" ????

Nah, that's not right friend. Nope. Not at all. Please show me ONE piece of evidence supporting the claim that 'Paul' wrote anything in the first century.....

ONE piece. That's all I ask for. Good luck with that.

I agree that I cannot provide the same single piece of evidence for the 4th century BCE supposed date of publication of Kong Zi' Analects. In fact, the earliest recognized published version of Analects dates from about 50 BCE, so, I am asking you for something that I myself, am unable to produce for another author, someone whose writings I have genuine regard for, unlike the nonsense in 'Paul's' so called "epistles". I doubt that even ONE of his "epistles" was sent as a letter to anyone, or any group. I am still waiting for someone to explain the mail courier system of delivery in the Roman Empire that permits conveyance of private correspondence between an outlaw and a group of "terrorists"--if we are to believe Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor.

It is very difficult to produce authentic documents, especially from phantoms. 'Paul' wrote in the late second century, not the first, well AFTER, the gospels had been created. Personally, my money is on Origen of Alexandria, as author 'Paul'.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:09 am**

Ha ha ha ha

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:13 am**

stevencarrwork wrote:
Perhaps a reference class for Jesus of , say, Judas,Thomas, Mary Magdalene,Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, Barabbas, Joanna, Salome etc etc - people who exist in the Gospels but appear to have no documentation outside of 4 unprovenance, anonymous works which plagiarise each other and the Old Testament.

But if Carrier had done that, people would accuse him of stacking the deck.

I can't recall where, but someone pointed out recently that either Rank or Raglan or both had Jesus in mind when developing this hero class idea; if so, is there not a sort of post-hoc data fitting/question begging going on in using this Rank-Raglan hero class notion against Jesus's historicity, of which the example above is a more extreme form?

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:05 am**

Bertie wrote:
stevencarrwork wrote:
Perhaps a reference class for Jesus of , say, Judas,Thomas, Mary Magdalene,Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, Barabbas, Joanna, Salome etc etc - people who exist in the Gospels but appear to have no documentation outside of 4 unprovenance, anonymous works which plagiarise each other and the Old Testament.

But if Carrier had done that, people would accuse him of stacking the deck.
I can't recall where, but someone pointed out recently that either Rank or Raglan or both had Jesus in mind when developing this hero class idea; if so, is there not a sort of post-hoc data fitting/question begging going on in using this Rank-Raglan hero class notion against Jesus's historicity, of which the example above is a more extreme form?

You mean Raglan thought Jesus had not existed?

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:40 am**

to Neil,

Varro, Philo and Apuleius all testify to the ancient belief of this time that air filled the whole space between the earth and the moon.

I agree many ancients thought that.

This was the region of mutability and fleshly animals/birds (including humans) as well as of demons. The association of air with earth is a modern scientific notion.

Did Varro, Philo and Apuleius write that? And to what extent? I mean by that, who of them included non-flying animals or/and fleshy humans living in the air, between earth and moon.

I searched Varro's only preserved work for "air" and "heaven ..." and I could not find find anything about "non-flying animals or/and fleshy humans living in the air".

As for Philo, I got that:
"... Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air." (On the Giants, 6)
and that
"Some souls, therefore, have descended into bodies, and others have not thought worthy to approach any one of the portions of the earth; and these, when hallowed and surrounded by the ministrations of the father, the Creator has been accustomed to employ, as hand-maidens and servants in the administration of mortal affairs. And they having descended into the body as into a river, at one time are carried away and swallowed up by the voracity of a most violent whirlpool; and, at another time, striving with all their power to resist its impetuosity, they at first swim on the top of it, and afterwards fly back to the place from which they started. These, then, are the souls of those who have been taught some kind of sublime philosophy, meditating, from beginning to end, on dying as to the life of the body, in order to obtain an inheritance of the incorporeal and imperishable life, which is to be enjoyed in the presence of the uncreate and everlasting God. But those, which are swallowed up in the whirlpool, are the souls of those other men who have disregarded wisdom, ...
But as men in general speak of good and evil demons, and in like manner of good and evil souls, so also do they speak of angels, looking upon some as worthy of a good appellation, and calling them ambassadors of man to God, and of God to man, and sacred and holy on account of this blameless and most excellent office; others, again, you will not err if you look upon as unholy and unworthy of any address." (On the Giants, 12-16)
Philo did not say where and how these souls got incarnated into human beings on earth. Sure these souls have to descend because the air is above the earth.

Apuleius wrote much later, around 150 CE. His works are fiction, novels with supernatural elements, and very avant-guarde for his times. If he put non-flying animals or/and fleshy humans in the air, that's not evidence this was believed by ancients then to exist in the real world.
A bit as taking Superman's flying capability as proof for today people believe humans can fly through the air (without extra technical devices).

Cordially, Bernard

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:54 am**

Let me try to explain. Consider two scenarios:

Scenario A:
At some point, a researcher identifies a class of literary-historical persons scored by some criteria, most of whom also share some feature F. Later, a new researcher identifies another literary-historical person named X, one never considered by the first researcher, who also meets the criteria and thus also probably shares F.

Scenario B:
A (single) researcher identifies a class of literary-historical persons including person X identified by some criteria (criteria which may show evidence of having been influenced by the knowledge available about X) most of whom also share feature F.

Of there two, the first scenario is the more scientifically interesting result in terms of X really having the feature F. There is separation of data used to produce a hypothesis and the additional data to which the hypothesis is applied. There is less risk of over-fitting or question begging being committed.

Now, the development of the Rank-Raglan hero type, from what little I understand of it, doesn't match the history of Scenario B. But nor is it so pure as Scenario A.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:28 am**

Way to much word salad going on.

Nothing explains this as simple as a man who was martyred after passover, and a culture who was never really on board with Judaism but wanted one god, found inportance in the mythgology that grew around the martyrdom.

And THAT is exactly what we have and see.

No use trying to complicate the matter, think too deep, or over anylize it. Critical examination is fine, but as it stands the man has more then enough historicity to determine a Galilean walked and taught taking over Johns movement.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:22 pm**

GakuseiDon wrote:Just relooking at what you quoted by Carrier earlier:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=140

In line with this, two other key phrases also appear to have been interpolated: 'they will think that he is flesh and a man' (9.13) and he shall 'descend in your form' (8.26) are both missing from the Latin version.
Since 9.13 is 'And after he has descended and become like you in appearance, they will think that he is flesh and a man', then I wonder if Carrier implies an understanding that the 'become like you in appearance' is still part of the Latin text. If so, it still leaves the question of where "become like you in appearance" actually occurs, since the Beloved has already descended past the firmament -- into the air below -- and at that point has the form of the creatures of the air.

From Carrier's comment that "human sorcerers could fly into the air and be met with there", Carrier seems to suggest that it is possible that AoI has the celestial Christ crucified "in [Isaiah's] form" in the air, below the firmament and above the earth. But if that is true, what is the significance of "they will think that he is flesh and a man" and "descend in your form" missing from the Latin versions (if that is even the case)? Would that prove a problem for Carrier's theory? Especially since he also writes "earliest Christian belief certainly held that Jesus had assumed the form of a man". I'm a bit confused by what Carrier is suggesting there. Was there an implication that the Beloved appeared "in your form" or not? If so, why point out that the "in your form" statements were missing? Confusing.

Carrier then goes on to explain what he sees may have been in the original Latin version, and its implications:

This is what we see (translating from the Latin text):

[11.1] After this, the angel said to me. "Understand. Isaiah, son of Amoz. because for this purpose have I been sent from God. that everything be revealed to you. For before you no one ever saw. nor after you will anyone be able to see. what you have seen and heard'. [11.2] And I saw one like a son of man, dwelling among men, and in the world, and they did not know him. |11.23] And I saw him ascend into the firmament but he did not change himself into another form, and all the angels above the firmament saw him. and they worshipped him.
This new version of 11.2 describes a kind of earthly sojourn, but in an absurdly brief fashion. This actually looks like a rewrite of the Jewish scripture of Bar. 3.38, where God himself was 'seen on earth and conversed with men', which would sooner suggest a revelatory experience was going to be described. Hence it's notable how this Ascension text transforms Baruch: it does not have Jesus converse with men or seen by men. but has him only among men yet completely unknown to them.
So was "in your form" there or not, according to Carrier? Does the Latin form of AoI have Christ on earth in the form of a man (even just as a revelatory experience) or not? It is quite confusing what Carrier is suggesting was in the Latin version.

For my 2 cents: the original AoI looks like a docetic text that had Christ come to earth, be crucified and then ascend.

FWIW Vision of Isaiah provides an English version of the short Latin/Slavonic text form.

Andrew Criddle

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?