Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Analytics wrote:I'm sure you're not, lol.


You don't know that. It is simply a personally held belief. Testify all you like. ;-)

I only jumped in here because having seen many or most of these arguments years ago, I come to the same sticking points in my mind, and I don't see that the arguments have changed but I don't spend my life dwelling on these things which is why I'm going at this half assed yet trying to raise the sticking points that I see. I wish I had some good posts by another poster (on the other side of the argument from me, but I enjoyed it and learned from it) to share but that old board was destroyed by it's participants. That is historical fact. I have eye witnesses who will attest to it and were it not destroyed, I'd have empirical evidence for that claim. ;-)

You: The biggest issue with Carrier and friends is whether the mythical religions they describe really existed in the early first century. Did anybody really believe that there were savior-gods who did things in other realms? Doherty synthesizes various pieces of Pagan mythology, common motifs of dying and resurrecting Gods with allegories of living on earth such as the stories of Heracles, Osiris, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus, and other allegedly authentic ancient concepts and proposes that there were common yet heterogeneous and evolving "mystery cults" in the pagan world, and then proposes that if you mix in some Judaism, you'll get a mystery cult with Hebrew flavors. Such a Hebrew/Christian/Pagan mystery cult fits with what the Ascent of Isaiah describes.

If you believe that the world contained such beliefs, then the writings of Paul fit into that world. But if the world really wasn't like that, the whole question is mute.

Me: Being the Bible believer that I am, I do accept that the ancients subscribed to mystery cults. Paul himself (a Roman citizen was he not?) pointed to them in his writings. There are Old Testament references to them as well. Where I see a difference (and as I see it, this was the Roman's issue with Paul) is that if he indeed laid the ground work for another mystery cult (I don't deny that Christianity is a cult of Judaism--mystery cult I tend to reject that of course) he went completely in the face of existing polytheistic cults, was a threat to the gov't (Did he and why?) and he and others, put their lives on the line for this new Hebrew cult.

When you discuss mystery cults, you are including the reported miracles and resurrection/translation of Jesus, I assume. The reported 40-ish days of presentation between the purported resurrection and translation. Carrier, according to you, theoretically ranks the reports of Jesus up their with other types of god men figures, however, I see the distinction as being somewhat different and here is why.

This could be shaky ground to stand on, but here goes, and I don't know the answer to this.

Were the Romans in the habit of extinguishing all rising mystery cults or was their focus on these new ne'er do wells who preached regarding their Jesus? What I am asking is if the movement, the new cult, was just another off beat mystery cult with a small band of followers, why spend any time on it at all?

You don't have to answer. I'm simply putting it out there. Thinking on the screen.

So far as I can tell, huck and I are the only current Christian believers who showed up on the thread with the exception of Aristotle who made a cameo appearance, and I'm trying to add a bit more Christian representation lest the thread become an echo chamber of head nodding participants.

Because Jersey can't watch it without getting in there and saying something even if it's seen as half assed. ;-)

Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Analytics thanks for taking up the exchanges with me. I wanted to also discuss Pilate. Let me dig around and find out what Carrier has to say about his presence in the accounts before going forward so you don't have to do the work for me unless you feel like writing.

My question is if Carrier accepts that Pilate was indeed present and available as to lend historical validity to the accounts and if he accepts that, does he also accept that Pilate allegedly ordered the Roman guard to guard the tomb of Jesus or does he see the ordering of the Roman guard as part of the myth making venture?

I'm not talking about the opened tomb yet.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _huckelberry »

Jersey Girl wrote:



Were the Romans in the habit of extinguishing all rising mystery cults or was their focus on these new ne'er do wells who preached regarding their Jesus? What I am asking is if the movement, the new cult, was just another off beat mystery cult with a small band of followers, why spend any time on it at all?



Jersey Girl,
I think this point is worth considering. There certainly were mystery cults, I doubt that would excite hostility. More to the point , what is it that causes an early Jewish, pre Pauline mystery cult to attract followers and to attract the high hostility of Jewish authorities? Why was Paul seeking to kill members of this cult prior to his conversion? Why would Paul notice or care?

I think the Jesus mystery cult would be such a trivial affair that it would have gone no where untill it had acquired (by what ever means) an incarnation story like Mark Matthew Luke and John. It does not have to be those specific forms. It would include the idea of apocalyptic prophet bring the question and challenge of what living for God really means and an individual who embodies such a commitment. I think the atonement has to be more than blood, to make any sense and to move people it needs to embody and person willing to suffer for what they understand to be peoples highest good. It should be a human struggling with the fear uncertainty and vulnerability of a human like us.

Jesus needs to be human like us to embody the value of all the little people the powers of this world saw as expendable. Because he was and was totally committed his life was difficult to erase. His life was memorable and changed peoples lives. His life continues to change the world.

Carrier castrates Christianity. That may be desirable to some peoples view. I reject it. Historically I do not see a castrated Christianity spreading beyond a handfull of participants.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _Jersey Girl »

huckelberry wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:



Were the Romans in the habit of extinguishing all rising mystery cults or was their focus on these new ne'er do wells who preached regarding their Jesus? What I am asking is if the movement, the new cult, was just another off beat mystery cult with a small band of followers, why spend any time on it at all?



Jersey Girl,
I think this point is worth considering. There certainly were mystery cults, I doubt that would excite hostility. More to the point , what is it that causes an early Jewish, pre Pauline mystery cult to attract followers and to attract the high hostility of Jewish authorities? Why was Paul seeking to kill members of this cult prior to his conversion? Why would Paul notice or care?



Not only those questions, huck, but what do you make of this? There are those who doubt the historical Jesus based on the Synoptic Gospels (at least) and claim that those are basically backfilling the Epistles with myth and tradition, and yet the very same people do not doubt the historicity of Paul or that he professed a visitation based conversion.

Why?

Paul doesn't tell of his own conversion in The Acts, the same author who is purported to have written Luke does.

Why do we accept the hearsay regarding Paul and his miraculous conversion and not the purported hearsay regarding a super human Jesus in the Synoptics when the material is coming from the same agreed upon (by scholars) author?

How does that make rational sense?

Is the author of Luke also backfilling the Epistles or are the gospel authors only backfilling the Epistles when it's convenient to the mythical Jesus position?

Haven't we only got one extra biblical source for Paul vs how many extra biblical sources for Jesus? Oh wait, those are forgeries, name games, and such.

We believe that Paul believes he was visited by the risen Christ, but we don't believe that the 12 (minus 1 by the time Paul steps in) believed they saw what they reported they saw.

Because myth.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _RockSlider »

Denver Snuffer has been visited by Christ, just like Paul. This is modern day and he has well documented it.

That should settle this whole debate right?
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _huckelberry »

RockSlider wrote:Denver Snuffer has been visited by Christ, just like Paul. This is modern day and he has well documented it.

That should settle this whole debate right?


I don't believe any body is arguing that Jesus exists just because Paul saw him.
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _Analytics »

Jersey Girl wrote:Me: Let me repeat something I said earlier because I attempted to make an analogy of my own. This type of argument, to me, is not unlike when someone asks me point blank if I take the entirety of the Bible as literal.

Why would I?

Likewise, why would I take the Gospels (Synoptic for this post because John writes from a world of his own) and compare them to the Pauline Epistles when they are different in form and purpose?

Example, we've basically got three Gospels telling the story of the life and times of Jesus. Why would we compare those to correspondence from a church planter?

If Paul's purpose was to establish the early "church" (faqsian emphasis) then why would we (or Carrier) expect him to repeat the parables or biographical material in his letters?

Paul basically takes his transformational experience and what he was taught, and uses it as inspiration to forward the movement. He sets rules and boundaries, he offers caution, encouragement, friendship, mentorship and guidance. Why would we expect him to insert a parable or a piece of biography or a witness account (when he's got his own) into his messages when his messages were largely to structure and establish a church?


Just to clarify where I'm coming from, you are right, I wouldn't expect a Pauline letter to say, "Dear Saints, I feel inspired to transcribe the Sermon on the Mount, so here you go. Blessed are the...." I would not expect that. Of course not. But if someone is trying to offer advice and encouragement and build up fledgling congregations, you can expect them to draw from the existing body of religious teachings and stories to support their message. That is in fact what Paul does. For example, Paul refers to stories out of the Old Testament as examples to help him make his point. That is exactly what I would expect.

Of course Paul was free to draw upon whatever resources he wanted that best supported the point he was trying to make in any incidence. But if in 2018 I was listening to an entire session of General Conference and nobody paraphrased a story or quoted a verse from the gospels, I would find that odd. After all, the stories, parables, and teachings in the gospels are widely applicable, intrinsically compelling, and superlatively authoritative.

Of course Paul does mention Christ repeatedly. But the way he talks about Christ generally fits with the idea of a mystery-cult savior who died and resurrected in another realm. For example, Galatians 3:1 says, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" Even this verse seems a little odd. After all (according to the historicist hypothesis), Jesus was crucified 1,000 miles away among the Palestinians, not among the Galatians themselves. So in what sense did these guys in Galatia actually see Jesus crucified? In what way did this happen among the Galatians? It incredibly unlikely that any of them actually saw a crucifixion 1,000 miles away in Jerusalem.

But if Jesus was crucified in a spiritual realm, this was an event that is visible to everybody who has eyes to see such things.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _huckelberry »

Curious I looked up the Ascension of Isaiah to read how it fit with the idea of a spiritual Jesus. I read about a preexisting Jesus who descends from the seventh heaven and is born of the virgin Mary who has a husband and who stay at first in Bethlehem.

from chapter 11 of Ascension of Isaiah;
I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.

3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.

4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.

5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.

6. And he did not live with her for two months.

7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.

8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.

9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.

10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.

11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."

12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

the quote is from chapter 11

chapter 3:13 mentions descent of the Beloved to earth and is crucified, as prophesy. Chapter 9 Isaiah ascends to seventh heaven follows the descent of Christ becoming hidden so in the lower realms where there is violence he is unrecognized.

I could find no indication that the Mary Joseph child , becoming a man and being crucified were not happening on the same planet as the early Christian church lived on.
//////////////////

I remain unable to find any report of first century Christians believing the crucifixion took place in a spiritual realm. I am aware of disputes about the relationship of the divine and the human person who died on a cross. This book is clearly viewing a divine person clothed in a human disguise. It could be viewed as docetic (maybe) . Known variations of early Christian understanding which I have read about also include the idea of Jesus as all human adopted as son by God, or perhaps all human, or human with the spirit of the son descending upon Jesus at his baptism. Orthodox view, true human and true God took some time to settle on.
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _Analytics »

huckelberry wrote:Curious I looked up the Ascension of Isaiah to read how it fit with the idea of a spiritual Jesus. I read about a preexisting Jesus who descends from the seventh heaven and is born of the virgin Mary who has a husband and who stay at first in Bethlehem. ....


One of things that is convenient for the mythicists is their assertion that texts that don't corroborate with their theory must have been meddled with. Of course just because this is convenient doesn't mean it isn't true.

Carrier spends a few pages of his book quoting Ascension of Isaiah. When he comes to the part you quoted, he stops quoting it and instead says:

At this point several paragraphs have been inserted summarizing a lost non-canonical Gospel bearing some similarities with the New Testament Gospels, with a birth to Joseph and a virgin Mary, and a great deal else. That ‘pocket gospel’ is overly elaborate and completely unlike the rest of the text, either in style or content (e.g. evincing an oddly sudden zeal for specific details), and it does not correspond at all to what (in chaps. 9 and 10) Isaiah was told he would later see (in chaps. 10 and 11). This pocket gospel is also missing from several manuscripts— in fact, it is missing from all manuscripts that lack chaps. 1– 5 as well, thus signifying an earlier state of the text. 3

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Kindle Locations 1783-1791). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.


After finishing the summary of chapter 11 with the parts he likes (which, of course is mutually exclusive from what you quote here), Carrier goes on to say:

Key to understanding this text is the evidence that it’s been tampered with. Even apart from the manuscript evidence confirming this, the text itself confirms it. In the first part we’re told that high above in the firmament of this world there are copies of all the things on earth, and there the ‘rulers of this world’ fight over who will control the earth below. As I’ll demonstrate in Chapter 5 (Elements 34-38) this was a popular belief, and one accepted by Paul and the author of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews— both in the New Testament. And with this in mind God commands his Son (here a preexistent divine being called Lord Christ, and soon to be dubbed Lord Jesus Christ) to descend ‘to the firmament and to that world, even to the angel in the realm of the dead’ (10.8) and to take ‘the form of the angels of the firmament and the angels also who are in the realm of the dead’ (10.10) so ‘none of the angels of this world shall know’ who he is (10.11), and thus (Isaiah’s guiding angel explains) ‘they will think that he is flesh and a man’ (9.13, a line not present in all versions, see below), in a ‘form’ like Isaiah’s (8.26, likewise not present in all versions), and then ‘the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will lay hands on him and crucify him on a tree, without knowing who he is’ (9.14). And then ‘he will arise on the third day and will remain in that world’ for one and a half years (9.16)— thus fulfilling the predictions of Daniel (see Chapter 4, Element 7), although in no way conforming to any account in the New Testament (even in Acts 1.3 Jesus sticks around after his resurrection barely more than a month). 4 Indeed, that Jesus hung around after his resurrection for a whole year and a half would have sounded patently absurd even then, begging the question: what is really being said here?

Notice that up to this point in the story nothing is ever said about Jesus visiting earth or being killed by Jews or Romans— or conducting a ministry for that matter (of any sort at all). 5 The ‘they’ who will think he is a man and not know who he is and kill him are only ever said to be Satan and his angels. No other subject is mentioned for that pronoun, nor is any other implied. God clearly intends Jesus to do nothing more than go to the firmament, and for no other reason than to be killed by Satan and his sky demons, then rise from the dead and conduct affairs there for over a year (doing what, it’s not said), and then ascend to heaven. In other words, instead of conducting a ministry on earth, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die, and rise from the dead, and then remain where he had died for a year and a half (9.16; cf. 10.12-14; although the duration is omitted from some versions), and then ascend to the heavens. The ‘tree’ on which he is crucified (9.14) is thus implied to be one of the ‘copies’ of trees that we’re told are in the firmament (7.10). 6 Certainly no mention is made here of this happening in or anywhere near Jerusalem.

Likewise, it’s only said ‘none of the angels of this world shall know’ who he is (10.11), not ‘none of the Jews’ or ‘none of the authorities in Israel’ or any such thing (which is essentially just what Paul himself says in 1 Cor. 2.6-10). The text also does not identify any further stage of descending from the firmament to earth before entering the realm of the dead (not even in chap. 11— the redactors made no effort to connect their later insertion of a completely out-of-place ‘gospel’ narrative to the sequential ‘descent-by-stages’ storyline of the previous chapters). In 10.30 it’s implied Jesus descends to a lower part of the firmament (where he finds he needs no password to get in), but he is still then among ‘the angels of the air’. He goes no further. Back in 10.8 it was said he shall descend ‘even to the angel in the realm of the dead’ (though specifically not to Hell), but as we’ll see in Chapter 5 (e.g. in Plutarch’s account in On the Face That Appears in the Orb of the Moon), many theologians of this period regarded the ‘realm of the dead’ to be up in the sky, not in an underworld (see Chapter 5: Element 37), and there is no indication here that anything else was meant.

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Kindle Locations 1808-1858). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.


Clearly, the metaphysical view that Carrier reads here needs more support as being something that was actually believed. He tries to make that case elsewhere in the book (when he refers to "elements" he is referring to numbered points of background knowledge that you need in order to be able to "correctly" read these various texts).
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Price, Carrier, Ehrman, Wright: Jesus Mythicism Again

Post by _huckelberry »

Analytics , I am repeating the portion in your quote which sums up the message Carrier is reading in the Ascension book:

"Notice that up to this point in the story nothing is ever said about Jesus visiting earth or being killed by Jews or Romans— or conducting a ministry for that matter (of any sort at all). 5 The ‘they’ who will think he is a man and not know who he is and kill him are only ever said to be Satan and his angels. No other subject is mentioned for that pronoun, nor is any other implied. God clearly intends Jesus to do nothing more than go to the firmament, and for no other reason than to be killed by Satan and his sky demons, then rise from the dead and conduct affairs there for over a year (doing what, it’s not said), and then ascend to heaven. In other words, instead of conducting a ministry on earth, Jesus is commanded to go straight to the firmament and die, and rise from the dead, and then remain where he had died for a year and a half (9.16; cf. 10.12-14; although the duration is omitted from some versions), and then ascend to the heavens. The ‘tree’ on which he is crucified (9.14) is thus implied to be one of the ‘copies’ of trees that we’re told are in the firmament ."

Supposing an earlier version like this I wonder what the point is of this tale. Why would anybody be concerning themselves? Perhaps it would fit with Daniels Son of Man as an explanation of who that is referring to and how he has judgemental power over the evil spirits. It would fit into the apocalyptic interests of Jews at the time. Why would this particular line of thought not be considered just an acceptable line of Jewish thought. Jews at the time were not all of one party line. They accepted a variety of thought. What was it about the beginning Christian church which made it stand out getting special negative and positive attention?
Post Reply