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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not saying people don't make shit up or that some man called Jesus necessarily did exist or that he could not have been made up, only that the thesis is not as convincing, imo, all things considered. That somebody started the cult is obvious, and Jesus is the most plausible candidate.

Jesus is a character in an anonymous story. How exactly does that compare to the beginnings or Mormonism and Scientology with regard to founding figures? Clearly you need a better methodology, not to mention a better understanding of how fiction is composed, and I consider this the number one shortcoming of Jesus scholarship.

The book suggestions are cool but HJers need to pick up a couple good novels and give them a read. And while they are reading reflect on the likely historicity of the characters and what the author was telling the audience.

There's this real double standard when it comes to Jesus scholarship and it's simply the result of 2000 years of religious indoctrination and outright suppression of dissent. I totally understand this inability to understand my position, which results from simply not having an appreciation for the development of literature generally.

Jesus Scholars are kinda like treasure hunters and the gospels are their map. The treasure is out there buried and they are going to find it. They don't even consider the possibility that the story about buried treasure is just a story.

 

[whollygoats]

Yep...Christians' humbug is privileged.

Oh, and if you plan to read Unterbrink, you also might want to pick up Joe Atwill's stuff. It's almost as credible.

Azlan looks interesting. Of course, he has 'confessional interests' to begin with, being Shiia with Sufi inclinations. Does anyone know of a scholar, or group of historical scholars, from outside the Abrahamic traditions, who have spent any time on this question?

 

[none]

Origen seems to be a highly inspired person, and interpolation of Josephus' work seems highly likely
hard to say for certain but the guy was definitely inspired, was the ethic of preservation absent of interpolation.. I don't think so

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not saying people don't make shit up or that some man called Jesus necessarily did exist or that he could not have been made up, only that the thesis is not as convincing, imo, all things considered. That somebody started the cult is obvious, and Jesus is the most plausible candidate.

Jesus is a character in an anonymous story. How exactly does that compare to the beginnings or Mormonism and Scientology with regard to founding figures? Clearly you need a better methodology, not to mention a better understanding of how fiction is composed, and I consider this the number one shortcoming of Jesus scholarship.

The book suggestions are cool but HJers need to pick up a couple good novels and give them a read. And while they are reading reflect on the likely historicity of the characters and what the author was telling the audience.

There's this real double standard when it comes to Jesus scholarship and it's simply the result of 2000 years of religious indoctrination and outright suppression of dissent. I totally understand this inability to understand my position, which results from simply not having an appreciation for the development of literature generally.

Jesus Scholars are kinda like treasure hunters and the gospels are their map. The treasure is out there buried and they are going to find it. They don't even consider the possibility that the story about buried treasure is just a story.

I get that you write fiction and I get that you want to project that genre onto this issue, but that's about all I get. Sorry. It only fits if the texts were likely written as fiction. You may think you've made a case for that, but you haven't, and apart from the gospels (which you appear to concentrate on to the exclusion of almost everything else) they don't seem to fit your 'case' at all.

By the way, I'm a lover of good novels.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not saying people don't make shit up or that some man called Jesus necessarily did exist or that he could not have been made up, only that the thesis is not as convincing, imo, all things considered. That somebody started the cult is obvious, and Jesus is the most plausible candidate.

Jesus is a character in an anonymous story. How exactly does that compare to the beginnings or Mormonism and Scientology with regard to founding figures? Clearly you need a better methodology, not to mention a better understanding of how fiction is composed, and I consider this the number one shortcoming of Jesus scholarship.

The book suggestions are cool but HJers need to pick up a couple good novels and give them a read. And while they are reading reflect on the likely historicity of the characters and what the author was telling the audience.

There's this real double standard when it comes to Jesus scholarship and it's simply the result of 2000 years of religious indoctrination and outright suppression of dissent. I totally understand this inability to understand my position, which results from simply not having an appreciation for the development of literature generally.

Jesus Scholars are kinda like treasure hunters and the gospels are their map. The treasure is out there buried and they are going to find it. They don't even consider the possibility that the story about buried treasure is just a story.

I get that you write fiction and I get that you want to project that genre onto this issue, but that's about all I get. Sorry. It only fits if the texts were written as fiction. That's circular reasoning. You may think you've made a case for it, but you haven't, and apart from the gospels (which you appear to concentrate on to the exclusion of almost everything else) they don't seem to fit your 'case'.

By the way, I'm a lover of fictional literature.

One of my favorite movies is City Slickers II. I just love it. I think I've discovered the historical Curly but I'm keeping it secret.

When I mention methodology what I am trying to explain is that founding figures can be authors or non-authors. What you've done by equating Mormonism and Scientology with the Jesus Tale is to have no methodology. We know who authored the Superman tales so we have founding figures, just like Mormonism and Scientology. But with the Jesus story you have somehow concluded that the founding figure in the Superman story is an historical Clark Kent. Quite a difference.

 

[ruby sparks]

What you've done by equating Mormonism and Scientology with the Jesus Tale is to have no methodology.

I haven't equated Mormonism and Scientology with the Jesus tale? Quite the opposite.

I think your fiction thesis needs a lot of work. If the texts were written as fiction then there is no history to do on the issue. If that's your line, no prob. You are entitled to have that pov. I don't think I'll be subscribing to it though, and I've explained why. mainly that the texts, especially the apparently earliest, can't easily be made to fit the fiction genre, even for their time, something you haven't addressed very well.

 

[ruby sparks]

HJers need to pick up a couple good novels and give them a read.

Some novelists might need to read up on how ancient history is done. Or even just textual analysis by scholars. Two areas of relevant expertise that appear to be missing almost entirely from some novelists' unconvincing attempts to shoehorn everything into their own genre.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

HJers need to pick up a couple good novels and give them a read.

Some novelists might need to read up on how ancient history is done. Or even just textual analysis by scholars. Two areas of relevant expertise that appear to be missing almost entirely from some novelists' unconvincing attempts to shoehorn everything into their own genre.

More to the point is 'how ancient history is done with regard to christianity and having a historical Jesus as a founding figure.'

Onward the search for the Holy Grail.

Not to be pedantic but

But with the Jesus story you have somehow concluded that the founding figure in the Superman story is an historical Clark Kent. Quite a difference.

Would you care to argue my point here or are you simply saying ancient history is a special case? Is there a historical Pegasus?

 

[ruby sparks]

But with the Jesus story you have somehow concluded that the founding figure in the Superman story is an historical Clark Kent. Quite a difference.

Would you care to argue my point here or are you simply saying ancient history is a special case? Is there a historical Pegasus?

I first came across this sort of comparison with fiction about 12 years ago. At first, it seemed to make a relevant point. And then I thought about it. It relies on a starting position that we are dealing with invented fiction genre. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that and don't think you or anyone has a good case for it.

Given that I don't think I can discuss your point without accepting that your 'fiction thesis' is a good one, I'm not going to jump on board. Sorry. Try someone else. Or, make a good case as to why I should consider fiction a good starting point. Which you haven't done. You could start by making a case for the epistles to be in that genre. I have asked several times.

As to Pegasus, I've made comments numerous times about supposed figures from the dim and distant past, so again, unless you have a case that Jesus was like that, I'm going to pass. Otherwise I'm just going to be repeating myself. Also, Pegasus was a type of horse.

In other words, I have given my reasons for up to now not favouring certain approaches. I don't mind if you disagree, but at least I have given my reasons.

Imo, this is a valid subject for historical analysis, for a variety of reasons to do with the evidence, and indeed if we want to be consistent in our methodology when assessing similar types of evidence, in erasing this figure we would have to erase a large number of similar figures from ancient history also, which we don't do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But with the Jesus story you have somehow concluded that the founding figure in the Superman story is an historical Clark Kent. Quite a difference.

Would you care to argue my point here or are you simply saying ancient history is a special case? Is there a historical Pegasus?

I first came across this sort of comparison with fiction about 12 years ago. At first, it seemed to make a relevant point. And then I thought about it. It relies on a starting position that we are dealing with invented fiction genre. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that and don't think you or anyone has a good case for it.

Is it that you don't think the ancients dealt in fictional literature, that it somehow had not been invented yet?

In the case of Superman the story was invented by high school students who could hardly be called academics. Was the ancient world somehow different?

 

[ruby sparks]

Is it that you don't think the ancients dealt in fictional literature, that it somehow had not been invented yet?

No and nothing I have said even remotely suggested that.

I would like, to start with, to hear your case that the epistles fit the genre you are talking about. I think I've asked this several times already. I don't think a good case can be made for it. A case, maybe, but not a good one. Consider the form and content.

I'm not suggesting the epistles are necessarily true, of course. Just that it is reasonable to assess them using accepted historiographical methods, and not as being in the fiction genre.

 

[whollygoats]

Origen seems to be a highly inspired person, and interpolation of Josephus' work seems highly likely
hard to say for certain but the guy was definitely inspired, was the ethic of preservation absent of interpolation.. I don't think so

Yeah, but he seemed to get caught in the 'heretic vs. heretic' wars fanned by proliferation of variant interpretations of Jesus and of the Christ.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is it that you don't think the ancients dealt in fictional literature, that it somehow had not been invented yet?

No and nothing I have said even remotely suggested that.

I would like, to start with, to hear your case that the epistles fit the genre you are talking about. I think I've asked this several times already. I don't think a good case can be made for it. A case, maybe, but not a good one. Consider the form and content.

I'm not suggesting the epistles are necessarily true, of course. Just that it is reasonable to assess them using accepted historiographical methods, and not as being in the fiction genre.

Okay.

I'll take it we agree that creation myths and founding myths are examples of ancient fiction.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah, but he seemed to get caught in the 'heretic vs. heretic' wars fanned by proliferation of variant interpretations of Jesus and of the Christ.

The death of a charismatic founder/leader is arguably the greatest crisis point for his or her followers. If the cult wasn't well-formed and organised (not much at all in the case of early Christianity) or the timing of the founder/leader's death was not anticipated (again not much in the case of Christianity) different opinions and reactions can start very quickly and often turn into separate factions. Islam is a classic example, as is the Hare Krishna movement after the death of its founder guru, Prabhupada. 'Splittism' is rife in religions. There are over 40,000 denominations of christianity alone today.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'll take it we agree that creation myths and founding myths are examples of ancient fiction.

Careful there. Although creation myths may not be true, they are not necessarily intentionally written as fiction in the same way that novels are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Ditto for sacred texts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

The writer may believe more, mistakenly or otherwise, in what he or she is writing compared to the novelist intentionally writing secular fiction.

There may be similarities.

In any case, where are the creation myths in the NT? They are usually, like most myths, set in the 'dim and distant past'.

I hope you're not about to change tack and try to shoehorn the epistles into being creation myths.

Or even the gospels. I could have agreed those were at least related to the genre of fiction.

 

[ruby sparks]

The epistles are didactic. They are meant to teach and advise the reader/listener. In the specific case of the Pauline epistles (and others) they are also religious texts and specifically eschatological ones. They are warnings of what is (really) about to happen. They deal with current and upcoming events, often relatively mundane, but in the context of the religious beliefs supposedly held by the writer* and shared by the listener, which may include preceding alleged events.

You could use the letter form to write fictional narrative, but that is not what these ones seem to be.

Again, it doesn't mean they are true at all and certainly not true in every detail.







* I have some doubts about 'Paul's' sincerity.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, for example, when 'Paul' warns his small flock of sometimes wavering new converts about not heeding rival Jesus-teachers, or when he refers to other people by name, including prior members of the cult he admits he joined late, or sometimes his own companions, it seems unlikely that he is writing fiction, not least because his audience would have met some of these people already.

Unless these letters were never delivered to anyone, of course......or 'Paul' was an invention...of the later church...

Who's up for that sort of theory?

After that, we could do whether the inventor of 'Paul' actually existed.

 

[none]

Origen seems to be a highly inspired person, and interpolation of Josephus' work seems highly likely
hard to say for certain but the guy was definitely inspired, was the ethic of preservation absent of interpolation.. I don't think so

Yeah, but he seemed to get caught in the 'heretic vs. heretic' wars fanned by proliferation of variant interpretations of Jesus and of the Christ.

is fair to say bat shit crazy?

 

[whollygoats]

Origen seems to be a highly inspired person, and interpolation of Josephus' work seems highly likely
hard to say for certain but the guy was definitely inspired, was the ethic of preservation absent of interpolation.. I don't think so

Yeah, but he seemed to get caught in the 'heretic vs. heretic' wars fanned by proliferation of variant interpretations of Jesus and of the Christ.

is fair to say bat shit crazy?

Evidently, one of many. Rumor has it that, later in life, he could not testify.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yep...Christians' humbug is privileged.

Oh, and if you plan to read Unterbrink, you also might want to pick up Joe Atwill's stuff. It's almost as credible.

Azlan looks interesting. Of course, he has 'confessional interests' to begin with, being Shiia with Sufi inclinations. Does anyone know of a scholar, or group of historical scholars, from outside the Abrahamic traditions, who have spent any time on this question?

I started Reza Aslan. As you imply, I think I'm going to have to filter out some pro-Jesus bias. That said, I think it good he moves away from 'beatnik Jesus' to offer an alternative.

Unterbrink is good (I've read the book before) and his decimation of 'Jesus' (and 'Paul') is so complete that he does not seem to be trying to rescue any pro-Jesus bias. He also thinks the gospels were literary fiction, which should please Joedad. In terms of apparently unbiased thoroughness, Unterbrink is impressive. I'm not saying I necessarily buy it, but I think he may be onto something interesting nonetheless.

As for Atwill, I've sampled the book ('Ceaser's Messiah') and read reviews. It looks like conspiracy theory drivel that even Robert Price dismisses and Eisenman damns with faint praise. There may be observations within it which are interesting. I'm reluctant to part with any hard-earned cash to read it though. He does 'that thing' of thinking that the gospels are the obvious place to look and doesn't deal with what 'Paul' wrote earlier. He also, to suit his purposes, accepts the TF as genuine, so that he can make it part of the Roman (Flavian) plot. Duh. If Josephus was part of a plot to promote Jesus, he would've surely have written more about him.