Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[Jobar]

For me, much of the argument for mythicism is of 'the dog that didn't bark in the night' sort.

From the traditional datings, Paul/Saul was alive while Jesus was wandering about the Holy Land preaching. But except for a very few contentious passages, none of the epistles that most scholars agree are genuinely Pauline say anything personal about such a man. Paul even, in one verse, states that "we know not how to pray as we ought"- so he plainly never heard of any Lord's Prayer.

I freely admit that an argument from silence is not usually a good one. But when the silence is so profound, it can still be valid.

 

[ruby sparks]

For me, much of the argument for mythicism is of 'the dog that didn't bark in the night' sort.

From the traditional datings, Paul/Saul was alive while Jesus was wandering about the Holy Land preaching. But except for a very few contentious passages, none of the epistles that most scholars agree are genuinely Pauline say anything personal about such a man. Paul even, in one verse, states that "we know not how to pray as we ought"- so he plainly never heard of any Lord's Prayer.

I freely admit that an argument from silence is not usually a good one. But when the silence is so profound, it can still be valid.

Ok, but if you look at the wider context, 'impersonal' texts and epistles with next to no biographical detail are common, and carry on for another 100 years at least, well past the point at which personal detail was apparently available in gospels and could have been used. 2nd Peter for example. Epistle of Barnabas. 1st timothy. 2nd Timothy. Titus. 1st John......

it's arguably slightly ironic that ahistoricists don't point to the supposed 'missing bio' in these letters more often, because they agree they're late on the scene, and written by what they call 'historicist writers', after the gospels have supposedly been written to make a case that he existed (which there is no evidence anyone at the time ever disputed).

It has also been said that this is a common phenomenon in Jewish writings too:

'Precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran'. (Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus, Second Edition, Oxford Bible Series, 2002, page 144)

Sure, if you look only at Paul, it seems odd, to you and I, but in the wider context the epistles arguably don't stand out at all. As for 'Paul' supposedly being silent about Jesus' life, he isn't really.

Also note that as well as possibly having reasons of convention or other reasons not to get into the sort of bio that the gospel writers did, it's very possible that the writer we take to be 'Paul' also never met the man he wrote about either. He never claimed to have. As a set of texts, the sense that the writer is at least a bit full of himself comes through. That sort of guy likes to plough his own furrow. As you may be aware, there are mentions of rifts between him and 'The Jerusalem Group'. He admits that they preceded him. So, if the epistles were started in the mid 50's, we have reference to even earlier followers of a crucified dude. That this guy 'Paul' in many ways hijacked a Jewish cult seems a strong possibility.

 

[steve_bank]

If the JC in the gospels was making a big splash someone would have recorded events.

A friend writes Tiberius, ' Hey dude some Jewish guy is walking on water and raising the dead. Everybody is talking about it'.

Buddhists have the same problem. There are no independent contemporary accounts of the the anecdotal story. An insulated wealthy noble who went walkabout to see things for himself.

 

[whollygoats]

Sure, if you look only at Paul, it seems odd, to you and I, but in the wider context the epistles arguably don't stand out at all. As for 'Paul' supposedly being silent about Jesus' life, he isn't really.

Yeah? Well, show us. Where is it he was forthcoming about an historical Jesus?

Also note that as well as possibly having reasons of convention or other reasons not to get into the sort of bio that the gospel writers did, it's very possible that the writer we take to be 'Paul' also never met the man he wrote about either. He never claimed to have. As a set of texts, the sense that the writer is at least a bit full of himself comes through. That sort of guy likes to plough his own furrow. As you may be aware, there are mentions of rifts between him and 'The Jerusalem Group'. He admits that they preceded him. So, if the epistles were started in the mid 50's, we have reference to even earlier followers of a crucified dude. That this guy 'Paul' in many ways hijacked a Jewish cult seems a strong possibility.

Hmmm...And it seems to me that he claimed that all these witnesses witnessed what he witnessed. In other words, they all saw what he saw: a vision. His meeting with Jesus was as a vision, just like all the others. A least, that's one reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[sharon45]

That this guy 'Paul' in many ways hijacked a Jewish cult seems a strong possibility.

More like a lot of people bought into his foolish meanderings.

 

[Juma]

Just because something is written with times and dates and places does not mean it happened that way.

No one is saying it is.

I can lift a character or story from anywhere and place that character into a context. I can do it. Any writer can do it.

Sure, but is that what happened here? At the moment, all you're offering is 'coulda been written as fiction'. Can you construct a case for it? I think you need to do that. Every case needs to be assessed on its own merits, surely?

Texts with 'historical' narratives (gospels), for example, are in the minority of texts. I think you will run into a problem when trying to explain all the texts that aren't of that form, because you will not easily be able to say they were probably written as fictional narratives. You will have to then also say that just because they're texts where the writer isn't doing fiction, that that doesn't mean the figure existed either. And you will be right, but you will have moved on from your initial position.

At some point, I think you are going to have to also say that the texts which don't readily fit the narrative fiction genre which were apparently written before the gospels aren't about the same figure, or are about an outer space figure only. Good luck with that, imo.

Later, you will also have to discount the historical references from outside the religion, which, despite what you might feel, still qualify as recent by the standards of ancient history. In all of this, you could be right, but the strength of your case will matter and imo you will have jumped through a lot of hoops to get to a case for non-existence and arguably done a fair bit of special pleading for this figure's case compared to the cases for similar figures from the time and era and indeed from ancient history generally and religious figures specifically.

There is no 'clincher' reason to accept that he was more likely (than not) to have existed. Looking at everything as a whole, I myself now think the case for existence is a bit stronger, that's all, especially if we try to be consistent, dispassionate and not prejudiced and if we stick to the methodologies that are used in the study of ancient history. Hey, disagree by all means, but give me your thorough analysis for this figure, not just your suspicions in general.

There arent any outside references. Just mentions of there being christians. Not any of ”the man jesus”.

 

[ruby sparks]

There arent any outside references. Just mentions of there being christians. Not any of ”the man jesus”.

Incorrect.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hmmm...And it seems to me that he claimed that all these witnesses witnessed what he witnessed. In other words, they all saw what he saw: a vision. His meeting with Jesus was as a vision, just like all the others. A least, that's one reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

I would say that's an accurate reading. They all, allegedly, saw the ghost of a guy who had been killed and was buried.

If you think people thinking they saw the ghost of a dead person is unusual, you should come to Ireland.

In America, 1 in 5 people report it, apparently, 1 in 3 say they have felt the presence of someone who has died, and most Americans believe in the possibility.

Sort of irrelevant, really. What matters in terms of having an attestation is that in the case of Jesus it was reportedly the ghost of a Jewish guy who had lived and died. And if the epistles were begun in the mid 50's CE, there were reportedly others, from Jerusalem, before that.

It's just an early citation that there was such a man, that's all.

 

[Juma]

There arent any outside references. Just mentions of there being christians. Not any of ”the man jesus”.

Incorrect.

So what of the forgeries are you relying on? Show me an genuine reference to jesus.

 

[whollygoats]

There arent any outside references. Just mentions of there being christians. Not any of ”the man jesus”.

Incorrect.

So what of the forgeries are you relying on? Show me an genuine reference to jesus.

I'm still waiting for this poster to provide me evidence in genuine Pauline materials which identify an historical Jesus.

This poster provides nothing but empty assertions.

 

[whollygoats]

Hmmm...And it seems to me that he claimed that all these witnesses witnessed what he witnessed. In other words, they all saw what he saw: a vision. His meeting with Jesus was as a vision, just like all the others. A least, that's one reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

I would say that's an accurate reading. They all, allegedly, saw the ghost of a guy who had been killed and was buried.

If you think people thinking they saw the ghost of a dead person is unusual, you should come to Ireland.

In America, 1 in 5 people report it, apparently, 1 in 3 say they have felt the presence of someone who has died, and most Americans believe in the possibility.

Sort of irrelevant, really. What matters in terms of having an attestation is that in the case of Jesus it was reportedly the ghost of a Jewish guy who had lived and died. And if the epistles were begun in the mid 50's CE, there were reportedly others, from Jerusalem, before that.

It's just an early citation that there was such a man, that's all.

LOL...Wrong.

 

[Jobar]

Ok, but if you look at the wider context, 'impersonal' texts and epistles with next to no biographical detail are common, and carry on for another 100 years at least, well past the point at which personal detail was apparently available in gospels and could have been used. 2nd Peter for example. Epistle of Barnabas. 1st timothy. 2nd Timothy. Titus. 1st John......

it's arguably slightly ironic that ahistoricists don't point to the supposed 'missing bio' in these letters more often, because they agree they're late on the scene, and written by what they call 'historicist writers', after the gospels have supposedly been written to make a case that he existed (which there is no evidence anyone at the time ever disputed).

There's no scholarly agreement on the dating of Mark, largely agreed to be the earliest of the Gospels. I've seen estimates as late as 130 AD. So the lack of personal detail in the other epistles and books of the NT might be seen as evidence of the late provenance of all the Gospels.

But that's not really my point. Paul is the earliest; if there were actual personal details concerning Jesus Christ available, you'd think that Paul would be the most likely to record them. Yet not one miracle does he mention, no direct quotes, no paraphrased teachings, nothing to date or locate his savior. It's not just that he didn't meet Jesus in person- he does say specifically that he only saw a vision of Christ. It's the fact that he apparently never even heard anything more specific than the bare outline of his vision, and the things obviously derived from the Septuagint. And you can't say that such details weren't important to early Christians, considering how much such detail was written into the Gospels, and later books. (And remember how many non-canonical tales of Christ there were; some still exist, 'pious fictions'.)

This pattern- the religious vision first, with more stories and personal detail being filled in afterwards- is typical of mythopoesis.

 

[none]

I remember the text attributed to Paul/Saul saying that he heard a voice not that he saw a vision when he was with 100 soldiers

 

[Jobar]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it. I mean, what about all those miracles, and preachings, and his disciples, and the huge crowds he supposedly fed by magic? (At the time I thought the books of the NT were in roughly chronological order.) That inconsistency was one of the major factors in my own deconversion. In fact it continued to puzzle me for years afterwards, until in 1985 I read G.A. Wells' book, Did Jesus Exist?, which was my first exposure to the mythicism hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, but if you look at the wider context, 'impersonal' texts and epistles with next to no biographical detail are common, and carry on for another 100 years at least, well past the point at which personal detail was apparently available in gospels and could have been used. 2nd Peter for example. Epistle of Barnabas. 1st timothy. 2nd Timothy. Titus. 1st John......

it's arguably slightly ironic that ahistoricists don't point to the supposed 'missing bio' in these letters more often, because they agree they're late on the scene, and written by what they call 'historicist writers', after the gospels have supposedly been written to make a case that he existed (which there is no evidence anyone at the time ever disputed).

There's no scholarly agreement on the dating of Mark, largely agreed to be the earliest of the Gospels. I've seen estimates as late as 130 AD. So the lack of personal detail in the other epistles and books of the NT might be seen as evidence of the late provenance of all the Gospels.

But that's not really my point. Paul is the earliest; if there were actual personal details concerning Jesus Christ available, you'd think that Paul would be the most likely to record them. Yet not one miracle does he mention, no direct quotes, no paraphrased teachings, nothing to date or locate his savior. It's not just that he didn't meet Jesus in person- he does say specifically that he only saw a vision of Christ. It's the fact that he apparently never even heard anything more specific than the bare outline of his vision, and the things obviously derived from the Septuagint. And you can't say that such details weren't important to early Christians, considering how much such detail was written into the Gospels, and later books. (And remember how many non-canonical tales of Christ there were; some still exist, 'pious fictions'.)

This pattern- the religious vision first, with more stories and personal detail being filled in afterwards- is typical of mythopoesis.

There are more places in which the epistles concur with the gospels than is generally thought.

However, that in itself doesn't necessarily add much, because the gospel writers could have used the epistles.

Jobar, if you accept that the epistles refer to a Jewish preacher man who taught about end times, who was killed, buried, and thought to cheat death and 'rise' again, and there's a connection to prior followers in Jerusalem who also believed this, and any of the other stuff (death related to passover, Lord's Supper, called 'Son of God', supposedly descended from David......whatever) what man do you think the epistles do refer to?

 

[ruby sparks]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it.

Can you help me find where the epistles say that?

 

[Jobar]

I will- in fact I was trying to recall chapter and verse on that myself. It may be a day or so- work calls right now, with a whining and hateful voice...

 

[whollygoats]

Re: Pseudoepigrapha.

Scroll down to the article on forgery in the Bible. Was it really all that 'acceptable'?

 

[whollygoats]

Ok, but if you look at the wider context, 'impersonal' texts and epistles with next to no biographical detail are common, and carry on for another 100 years at least, well past the point at which personal detail was apparently available in gospels and could have been used. 2nd Peter for example. Epistle of Barnabas. 1st timothy. 2nd Timothy. Titus. 1st John......

it's arguably slightly ironic that ahistoricists don't point to the supposed 'missing bio' in these letters more often, because they agree they're late on the scene, and written by what they call 'historicist writers', after the gospels have supposedly been written to make a case that he existed (which there is no evidence anyone at the time ever disputed).

There's no scholarly agreement on the dating of Mark, largely agreed to be the earliest of the Gospels. I've seen estimates as late as 130 AD. So the lack of personal detail in the other epistles and books of the NT might be seen as evidence of the late provenance of all the Gospels.

But that's not really my point. Paul is the earliest; if there were actual personal details concerning Jesus Christ available, you'd think that Paul would be the most likely to record them. Yet not one miracle does he mention, no direct quotes, no paraphrased teachings, nothing to date or locate his savior. It's not just that he didn't meet Jesus in person- he does say specifically that he only saw a vision of Christ. It's the fact that he apparently never even heard anything more specific than the bare outline of his vision, and the things obviously derived from the Septuagint. And you can't say that such details weren't important to early Christians, considering how much such detail was written into the Gospels, and later books. (And remember how many non-canonical tales of Christ there were; some still exist, 'pious fictions'.)

This pattern- the religious vision first, with more stories and personal detail being filled in afterwards- is typical of mythopoesis.

There are more places in which the epistles concur with the gospels than is generally thought.

Then cite them.

However, that in itself doesn't necessarily add much, because the gospel writers could have used the epistles.

Yes...Father Brodie suggests that the gospel writers probably did. So what? Midrash just continues.

...if you accept that the epistles refer to a Jewish preacher man who taught about end times, who was killed, buried, and thought to cheat death and 'rise' again, and there's a connection to prior followers in Jerusalem who also believed this, and any of the other stuff (death related to passover, Lord's Supper, called 'Son of God', supposedly descended from David......whatever) what man do you think the epistles do refer to?

Spiderman? Superman? Who do you think would win in a battle between Batman and Apollonius of Tyana? How about Serapis?

Peregrinus Proteus looks on and sniggers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hmmm...And it seems to me that he claimed that all these witnesses witnessed what he witnessed. In other words, they all saw what he saw: a vision. His meeting with Jesus was as a vision, just like all the others. A least, that's one reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

I would say that's an accurate reading. They all, allegedly, saw the ghost of a guy who had been killed and was buried.

If you think people thinking they saw the ghost of a dead person is unusual, you should come to Ireland.

In America, 1 in 5 people report it, apparently, 1 in 3 say they have felt the presence of someone who has died, and most Americans believe in the possibility.

Sort of irrelevant, really. What matters in terms of having an attestation is that in the case of Jesus it was reportedly the ghost of a Jewish guy who had lived and died. And if the epistles were begun in the mid 50's CE, there were reportedly others, from Jerusalem, before that.

It's just an early citation that there was such a man, that's all.

That just means people believed in a fictional account and claimed to see the protagonist. Whether it's bigfoot or bigfoot's ghost hardly matters. People see a blessed virgin all the time.

But if you're saying bigfoot is historical because all the hair allegedly belonging to bigfoot has been DNA confirmed to be from actual bears, then bigfoot is historical. It's just that bigfoot isn't bigfoot.