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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

I understand all that. I'm also attempting to stay away from having an ivory tower discussion.

Regardless the intention of creation myth founders, the stories are fictional. They are obviously intended to convey the greatest of truths to listeners and adherents but they are not accurate renderings of events. Fiction is that which simply did not happen as written or spoken. The myriad creation myths out there are proof enough of that.

That is not to say that knowledge about the time and place, the author and the authors intent cannot be derived from fictional accounts.


Here's a brief discussion of the point I'm trying to make.

 

[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.

I understand all that. I'm also attempting to stay away from having an ivory tower discussion.

Regardless the intention of creation myth founders, the stories are fictional. They are obviously intended to convey the greatest of truths to listeners and adherents but they are not accurate renderings of events. Fiction is that which simply did not happen as written or spoken. The myriad creation myths out there are proof enough of that.

That is not to say that knowledge about the time and place, the author and the authors intent cannot be derived from fictional accounts.


Here's a brief discussion of the point I'm trying to make.

Interesting article.

I still don't know what you are trying to say regarding the topic here though.

 

[bilby]

History consists of that which is supported by archaeology, plus that which is widely supported by a number of independent sources, and which describes events that are plausible.

Very little of the stuff we have describing Jesus qualifies as history on this basis. Some of it we know cannot be true - the laws of physics haven't changed in the last two millennia. Some of it could be true, but cannot be shown to be true due to a lack of support.

If you want to believe the stuff that is poorly supported, that's fine; but you cannot reasonably expect anyone else to agree with your beliefs in that regard.

And no amount of analysis of the few textual sources we have will make them into the many independent sources that are a prerequisite for a reasonable claim that they constitute history.

That's not to say that they are (where they don't conflict with natural law) necessarily fictional, either. Neither claim has adequate support, and the only reasonable verdict is 'not proven'.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok.

I was going to respond in detail, and then I noticed that you just made up your own rules for what the study of history is, so I decided not to bother.

 

[lpetrich]

Joseph Atwill proposes in "Caesar's Messiah" that Christianity was invented by some Flavian-dynasty Roman Emperors and their supporters, like Josephus. That seems like a rather contrived conspiracy theory to me.

But there is an even weirder conspiracy theory that I've seen, that Xianity was invented by Roman Emperor Constantine and his supporters, complete with inserting bogus references to Xianity in lots of earlier books.

 

[Learner]

Both the Jews and the Romans would be more likely Not to mention or invent Jesus because of their interests and traditions,as it wouldn't make any logical sense otherwise, especially when conversions could be taking place shifting away the attention from Caesar so to speak.

Any existence of Jesus mentioned by Roman or Jewish texts would be at the least ,not in anyway portrayed the way He is in the NT. Christianity conflicts with the gods of the Romans and traditions of the pharisees etc... Imo... the conspiracy line (if you will) and stating the obvious, when Jesus having many enemies: to distort or destroy Christianity you have to deny the existence or credibility of Jesus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Both the Jews and the Romans would be more likely Not to mention or invent Jesus because of their interests and traditions,as it wouldn't make any logical sense otherwise, especially when conversions could be taking place shifting away the attention from Caesar so to speak.

Any existence of Jesus mentioned by Roman or Jewish texts would be at the least ,not in anyway portrayed the way He is in the NT. Christianity conflicts with the gods of the Romans and traditions of the pharisees etc... Imo... the conspiracy line (if you will) and stating the obvious, when Jesus having many enemies: to distort or destroy Christianity you have to deny the existence or credibility of Jesus.

That is similar to Meier and others argument from embarrassment. I've always considered it weak to say the ignominious death of their leader was too embarrassing to accept but yet they did. Huh? I mean billions of people accept it today as just fine. What's with the double standard about something being too embarrassing yet accepted universally? The argument only appears reasonable if viewed through Jesus lenses.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I understand all that. I'm also attempting to stay away from having an ivory tower discussion.

Regardless the intention of creation myth founders, the stories are fictional. They are obviously intended to convey the greatest of truths to listeners and adherents but they are not accurate renderings of events. Fiction is that which simply did not happen as written or spoken. The myriad creation myths out there are proof enough of that.

That is not to say that knowledge about the time and place, the author and the authors intent cannot be derived from fictional accounts.


Here's a brief discussion of the point I'm trying to make.

Interesting article.

I still don't know what you are trying to say regarding the topic here though.

Sure you're not a bot?

The article states that when writing fiction authors make shit up. This is an author stating this, one who writes historical fiction or fictional history, take your pick.

Neither of the two most cited events in an alleged Jesus's life, his baptism and his execution, need have happened. Yet these are accepted as genuine by scholars.

Scholars also endlessly analyze texts, assuming I guess that everyone back then was a grammar nazi and could only have used a word a certain way.

 

[ruby sparks]

Both the Jews and the Romans would be more likely Not to mention or invent Jesus because of their interests and traditions,as it wouldn't make any logical sense otherwise, especially when conversions could be taking place shifting away the attention from Caesar so to speak.

Any existence of Jesus mentioned by Roman or Jewish texts would be at the least ,not in anyway portrayed the way He is in the NT. Christianity conflicts with the gods of the Romans and traditions of the pharisees etc... Imo... the conspiracy line (if you will) and stating the obvious, when Jesus having many enemies: to distort or destroy Christianity you have to deny the existence or credibility of Jesus.

That is similar to Meier and others argument from embarrassment. I've always considered it weak to say the ignominious death of their leader was too embarrassing to accept but yet they did. Huh? I mean billions of people accept it today as just fine. What's with the double standard about something being too embarrassing yet accepted universally? The argument only appears reasonable if viewed through Jesus lenses.

Joedad, I think you need to get your head around the historical context.

It was, in the main, rejected by the establishment Jews then (and in fact still is) as being anything less than ridiculous for a supposed Jewish Messiah.

Initially and for some time afterwards, there were no christians to 'universally accept it', so it being accepted now or later is not the point.

That said, I don't consider the criteria of embarrassment to be, of itself, a strong argument. It is often overplayed by some scholars, imo. I think it should be used sparingly and not as a conclusive indication. On the other hand, its use is not restricted to religious scholarship, it being used, at times, in doing history generally.

 

[ruby sparks]

The article states that when writing fiction authors make shit up. This is an author stating this, one who writes historical fiction or fictional history, take your pick.

Neither of the two most cited events in an alleged Jesus's life, his baptism and his execution, need have happened. Yet these are accepted as genuine by scholars.

Scholars also endlessly analyze texts, assuming I guess that everyone back then was a grammar nazi and could only have used a word a certain way.

So basically, you're still making the case that the writers were writing literary fiction. I think I've said pretty much everything I could possibly say about that and about why I don't think it's the best hypothesis in the first place (other than for the gospels). See previous posts. I went blue in the face waiting for you to actually make the case, especially in relation to the epistles, but you moved on to creation myths instead, for some odd reason, since they do not appear to be relevant here.

To repeat myself ad nauseam, no one is saying anything was true, necessarily. But literary fiction is another matter. Apart from anything else, I think you are conflating the two.

 

[whollygoats]

Context: Midrash, pesher, scriptures. Greek language. Hebrew culture. Roman legal structures. Chaos and massive social change.

Will someone please explain to me how midrash and pesher are NOT fictional?

 

[ruby sparks]

Don't forget exegesis and hermeneutics.

 

[whollygoats]

Don't forget exegesis and hermeneutics.

Midrash IS exegesis and hermeneutics.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sort of like a holy trinity then.

Threesomes are among my favourite fantasies. Sadly, they are entirely fictional.

 

[whollygoats]

Here, this might be helpful to readers:
"Midrash and Pesher: Their Significance to the Intertextuality Debate"

Context.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here, this might be helpful to readers:
"Midrash and Pesher: Their Significance to the Intertextuality Debate"

Context.

I never realized that in my college days I was performing midrash and pesher, secular style, until I learned the words later.

Religion has its holy writings. Midrash and pesher evolved with the invention of writing as ways to teach an audience that was not literate.

 

[whollygoats]

Here, this might be helpful to readers:
"Midrash and Pesher: Their Significance to the Intertextuality Debate"

Context.

I never realized that in my college days I was performing midrash and pesher, secular style, until I learned the words later.

Religion has its holy writings. Midrash and pesher evolved with the invention of writing as ways to teach an audience that was not literate.

It was a very common activity among the literate religious teachers of the sectarian divisions in Hebraic belief as it was practiced in Judea in the first century. It was probably a relatively common activity among the Diaspora Hebraic communities throughout the Palestine region, and further. Where there were active 'Jewish' communities, there was midrash and pesher. And toying with ideas like bodily resurrrection, eternal life, and salvation. There were those who thought the Temple sullied and the priesthood corrupted. Factions and sectaries abounded. Yet, much of the gentile world was just as vexed...unique religious sects abounded, to the annoyance of those attempting to control governance. My understanding from Mack is that there were significant segments of the gentile world which had been living cheek and jowl alongside Diaspora Jews for generations and admired the community of the Hebrews and sought inclusion. Paul is a spokesperson of one aspect of that point in time when gentiles sought inclusion in the Hebraic community...but for Paul, time was short. The end was nigh.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here, this might be helpful to readers:
"Midrash and Pesher: Their Significance to the Intertextuality Debate"

Context.

I never realized that in my college days I was performing midrash and pesher, secular style, until I learned the words later.

Religion has its holy writings. Midrash and pesher evolved with the invention of writing as ways to teach an audience that was not literate.

It was a very common activity among the literate religious teachers of the sectarian divisions in Hebraic belief as it was practiced in Judea in the first century. It was probably a relatively common activity among the Diaspora Hebraic communities throughout the Palestine region, and further. Where there were active 'Jewish' communities, there was midrash and pesher. And toying with ideas like bodily resurrrection, eternal life, and salvation. There were those who thought the Temple sullied and the priesthood corrupted. Factions and sectaries abounded. Yet, much of the gentile world was just as vexed...unique religious sects abounded, to the annoyance of those attempting to control governance. My understanding from Mack is that there were significant segments of the gentile world which had been living cheek and jowl alongside Diaspora Jews for generations and admired the community of the Hebrews and sought inclusion. Paul is a spokesperson of one aspect of that point in time when gentiles sought inclusion in the Hebraic community...but for Paul, time was short. The end was nigh.

And I don't think there is anything special about the Jewish eschatological or socioeconomic experience. Humankind lives this way everywhere because it's a behavior that has been selected for.

Building on sacred stories and traditions to make them more relevant, or to gain understanding or resolve apparent conflicts sounds quite sensible, and this is precisely what midrash is. As I've said before, this is what authors do. It's interpretive fiction in the end because it's attempting to resolve some initial fictional religious silliness. It's impossible to be a writer or speaker without doing midrash, it just happens minus the religious association to something "sacred."

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's possible to describe the canonical gospels as Greek Biography in format, with midrashic components. I don't think the biography is reliable, obviously. It's theo-biography, really. Theology posing as biography and also posing as history. Acts is similar.

I don't think the arguably midrashic elements in the gospels shed much light on the historicity issue though. In fact, I'd say that given how weak the exegesis of the OT passages often is, it looks more like the interpretations were being shoehorned to fit supposed events.

That does not mean the events described in the gospels happened. They could have been partly or wholly non-factual and/or literary fiction, specifically theological literary fiction, in which the writers (if motivated by genuine religious beliefs, in other words if they were actual woo-heads) may not have been as clear in their own heads that the literary fictional parts were fictional in the way that a secular novelist might be.

 

[whollygoats]

That does not mean the events described in the gospels happened. They could have been partly or wholly non-factual and/or literary fiction, specifically theological literary fiction, in which the writers (if motivated by genuine religious beliefs, in other words if they were actual woo-heads) may not have been as clear in their own heads that the literary fictional parts were fictional in the way that a secular novelist might be.

So incisive!

Go for the jugular, ruby!