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

[whollygoats]

I have not given the whole issue of Paul much attention in my readings over the past couple of decades.

I know of the Dutch Radikalkritiks, but I have not devoted any significant time to understanding the issues they, and their antecedent, Bruno Bauer, framed.

I shall start with Robert M. Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle as a starting point. I've ordered it and the book is in the mail.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back more directly on topic- Ruby, and all, I have linked to this series of YT videos before, but not in this thread. The first dozen or so go into great detail, showing how the book of Mark, the first gospel, was written to purposely parallel Homer's Odyssey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E&list=PL1D58C69D194384D2

Viewing all those videos is another time intensive project. I've watched it through once, but I may decide to go through them again fairly soon; like Vridar, the level of scholarship exhibited is of a very high standard, IMO.

I started watching the videos. It astounds me that we as rational people are giving serious time to a discussion of the possibility of people coming back to life after they are dead. Mercy. That any mature adult member of my species can entertain the belief that there is this guy that came back to life in a fictional narrative has got to be the most telling headline of all time.

I found part 4 very interesting because apparently someone else on the planet besides myself understands what fiction is, and can recognize it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@ Jobar

I had heard before that Mark paralleled Homer's classic but never really spent much time perusing the topic. Shame on me. The parallels are striking. Clearly Mark was using Homer just as Steinbeck and Faulkner and Shakespeare used the Bible.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have not given the whole issue of Paul much attention in my readings over the past couple of decades.

I know of the Dutch Radikalkritiks, but I have not devoted any significant time to understanding the issues they, and their antecedent, Bruno Bauer, framed.

I shall start with Robert M. Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle as a starting point. I've ordered it and the book is in the mail.

Paul the 'I am not a liar, no really, I am not' Paul?

 

[whollygoats]

I have not given the whole issue of Paul much attention in my readings over the past couple of decades.

I know of the Dutch Radikalkritiks, but I have not devoted any significant time to understanding the issues they, and their antecedent, Bruno Bauer, framed.

I shall start with Robert M. Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle as a starting point. I've ordered it and the book is in the mail.

Paul the 'I am not a liar, no really, I am not' Paul?

Yeah? More so than ALuke? Or, Eusebius?

 

[ruby sparks]

More so than ALuke? Or, Eusebius?

Always hard to tell, from this distance.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@ ruby sparks

Take the time to indulge in vridar and the link posted by Jobar. You will not be disapponted.

 

[ruby sparks]

@ ruby sparks

Take the time to indulge in vridar and the link posted by Jobar. You will not be disapponted.

I watched the first video. At the end, it concluded that the resurrection of Jesus most likely did not occur. I alerted Reuters.

As for Vridar, I have been (fairly) familiar with it for many years, and with the postings by Neil Godfrey (its author as far as I know) on various forums, where I have engaged with him at times.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@ ruby sparks

Take the time to indulge in vridar and the link posted by Jobar. You will not be disapponted.

I watched the first video. At the end, it concluded that the resurrection of Jesus most likely did not occur. I alerted Reuters.

As for Vridar, I have been (fairly) familiar with it for many years, and with the postings by Neil Godfrey (its author as far as I know) on various forums, where I have engaged with him at times.

Please keep watching. I am on to part 9.

So, what is your take on the obvious parallels? Thus far I am convinced that the author of GMark used parallels from the Odyssey. It's pretty undeniable. I am curious to hear about the little naked guy running away.

Onward, christian soldier...

Still maintaining that militant guru position?

 

[whollygoats]

@ Jobar

I had heard before that Mark paralleled Homer's classic but never really spent much time perusing the topic. Shame on me. The parallels are striking. Clearly Mark was using Homer just as Steinbeck and Faulkner and Shakespeare used the Bible.

Yeah...That's Dennis R. MacDonald's thesis, as presented in The Homeric Epics and The Gospel of Mark. It hit the bookstands about the time the JesusMysteries YahooGroup was setting up shop. I've seen it presented by others, but never read any of MacDonald's work myself.

- - - Updated - - -

@ ruby sparks

Take the time to indulge in vridar and the link posted by Jobar. You will not be disapponted.

I watched the first video. At the end, it concluded that the resurrection of Jesus most likely did not occur. I alerted Reuters.



As for Vridar, I have been (fairly) familiar with it for many years, and with the postings by Neil Godfrey (its author as far as I know) on various forums, where I have engaged with him at times.

So, what is your take on the obvious parallels? Thus far I am convinced that the author of GMark used parallels from the Odyssey. It's pretty undeniable. I am curious to hear about the little naked guy running away.

But...But...What would Carpocrates say?

 

[whollygoats]

Of course, right at the moment, I'm in the midst of Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal.

I'm unsure as to how 'historical' I should treat the contents, but I'm under the impression that it will provide a broader set of data on the founder figure by filling in some juvenile details.

@ ruby, why should I treat the Gospel According to Biff any differently than the canonical gospels?

 

[Learner]

How interesting... I suppose eventually someone will write a book about Mark who oddly never noticed the "Book of Enoch'" in which the "chosen one " would suit the character Jesus better to entice potential Christians with... rather than lift from the oddysses and being found out especially by Rabbi's and biblical scholars . What was he or those involved thinking?

Have a bit of vid to go through ... much obliged for the link.

 

[whollygoats]

How interesting... I suppose eventually someone will write a book about Mark who oddly never noticed the "Book of Enoch'" in which the "chosen one " would suit the character Jesus better to entice potential Christians with... rather than lift from the oddysses and being found out especially by Rabbi's and biblical scholars . What was he or those involved thinking?

Have a bit of vid to go through ... much obliged for the link.

To a certain extent, I'm with you on the oddity of the lack of Enochian material, but from my understanding of Margaret Barker's work, that Enochian outlook was the ground upon which the seed of Grecophonic sensibilities took root to produce and embrace Mark. Elijah stands in, and in Barker's view, in the day, there was a lot of veneration of Metatron; the angelic world seems more familiar then than now. There is an entire cast list. I suspect a lot of it was jettisoned along with the gnostic materials in the literary purges of the proto-orthodox.

 

[ruby sparks]

@ ruby sparks

Take the time to indulge in vridar and the link posted by Jobar. You will not be disapponted.

I watched the first video. At the end, it concluded that the resurrection of Jesus most likely did not occur. I alerted Reuters.

As for Vridar, I have been (fairly) familiar with it for many years, and with the postings by Neil Godfrey (its author as far as I know) on various forums, where I have engaged with him at times.

Please keep watching. I am on to part 9.

Hm. I watched number 2 and perused 3, at the end of which he was still banging on about the crucifixion being unlikely to have happened, albeit having also dealt with the Mark shorter ending thing (for related reasons). I can see that after that he's going to get into the gospels as fiction. That's fine. I probably already know most of it. But I am a bit worried about his route into the topic via the resurrection not likely having happened. As you know, I sometimes think that 'belief that Jesus existed' gets infected with, conflated with or springs from concerns about 'beliefs in Jesus' and this guy appears to be a candidate.

So, what is your take on the obvious parallels? Thus far I am convinced that the author of GMark used parallels from the Odyssey. It's pretty undeniable. I am curious to hear about the little naked guy running away.

My take is that there do appear to often be parallels. Beyond that, what can one say? I accept that there is a lot of fiction in the gospels, but it is very hard, imo, to work out whether they are exclusively fiction. They could still be based on a recent, core figure. Or they could not. Remember that a messianic claimant might be likely to do the things a messianic claimant might do, such as do things from the OT (and a LOT of the gospels use the OT for parallels). Messianic claimants often did and do. This is one reason I generally don't draw much from the gospels (or Acts). One also has to be wary of parallelism generally. I sometimes think one could take almost any two religions and write an extensive essay on the parallels, criss-crossing influences and common sources between them, such are the psychological and cultural ways humans operate. That's how you get articles linking Jesus to Buddha/Buddhism, Confucious/Confucianism, etc.

Incidentally, the apparent Aramaisms in the texts could suggest that the writer put them in deliberately (even though not appealing to an Aramaic-speaking audience) or they could be evidence of Aramaic sources. Or something else.

Onward, christian soldier...

Still maintaining that militant guru position?

It's there in my mind as one possibility. I think it has plausibilities. That said, it's also plausible, imo, that he (if he existed) wasn't militant in the violent sense. It's also possible he didn't exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Please keep watching. I am on to part 9.

Hm. I watched number 2 and perused 3, at the end of which he was still banging on about the crucifixion being unlikely to have happened, albeit having also dealt with the Mark shorter ending thing (for related reasons). I can see that after that he's going to get into the gospels as fiction. That's fine. I probably already know most of it. But I am a bit worried about his route into the topic via the resurrection not likely having happened. As you know, I sometimes think that 'belief that Jesus existed' gets infected with, conflated with or springs from concerns about 'beliefs in Jesus' and this guy appears to be a candidate.

To be honest I didn't spend much time listening to the discussion about a dead body reanimating and having a walkabout. It may have been at part 4 that I started to watch closely.

 

[ruby sparks]

To be honest I didn't spend much time listening to the discussion about a dead body reanimating and having a walkabout. It may have been at part 4 that I started to watch closely.

You may already have seen this, but if you haven't, you might like it:

How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity
By R G Price (not to be confused with R M Price)- 11/23/2014

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/fictional_jesus.htm

I expect you'll find it more persuasive than I do, but I do still find it interesting.

One of my issues with it is that when you go to the OT passages than he cites as parallel with the NT passages, many of them aren't really all that parallel.

And of course, finding parallel passages in the OT is arguably just what the writers of the NT gospels were doing, but possibly not because they didn't have a figure to apply them to, but possibly because they did, or felt they did, and they were looking for (in some cases ropey) justifications.

Again, hard to tell if it's all fiction or not. 'Generally not to be trusted' is fine by me (same goes for Paul as well).

The gospels are unlike the epistles, which don't easily fit the same genre. That's not to say they can't be argued to be (the epistle form was used for fiction, just not in that form) which is why I'd prefer talking about the epistles than the gospels, generally. Sort of the reverse of you.

That's without assuming anything about the epistles either, including the given datings, obviously. But as someone once said to me, they are about something, and it's not a recipe for banana bread.

So if, like me, one doesn't easily buy into outer space Jesus, they are likely about someone. Well, someones, if you include the prior Jerusalem group, which I lean towards taking as the original Jewish followers, doomed to more or less oblivion, apart from when Acts (and later orthodox writers) have to at least mention them.

 

[Learner]

To a certain extent, I'm with you on the oddity of the lack of Enochian material, but from my understanding of Margaret Barker's work, that Enochian outlook was the ground upon which the seed of Grecophonic sensibilities took root to produce and embrace Mark. Elijah stands in, and in Barker's view, in the day, there was a lot of veneration of Metatron; the angelic world seems more familiar then than now. There is an entire cast list. I suspect a lot of it was jettisoned along with the gnostic materials in the literary purges of the proto-orthodox.

And likewise I'm with you here, with regarding your suspicions and the description of Margaret Barker's work with the particular underlined above. (Just found out about her in your mentioning. Cheers! )

The First Book of Enoch is perhaps considered the more authentic version also known as the Ethiopian BOE and also being the oldest. One main thing to note with the Ethiopian Book is : it is "Messianic" as it is with Jesus.

The third book mainly is where it Contains Metatron which is said to be Judaic . Book Two is no doubt; the inbetween (or a step away into a different religious perspective as according to those who are of the opinion of some conspiracy or it was just simply; a religious preference in the later versions). Taking from your quote underlined above: Metatron etc .. jettisoned along with gnostic materials in the lterary purges and so forth.. I agree with to some extent.

 

[Learner]

My take is that there do appear to often be parallels. Beyond that, what can one say? I accept that there is a lot of fiction in the gospels, but it is very hard, imo, to work out whether they are exclusively fiction. They could still be based on a recent, core figure. Or they could not. Remember that a messianic claimant might be likely to do the things a messianic claimant might do, such as do things from the OT (and a LOT of the gospels use the OT for parallels). Messianic claimants often did and do. This is one reason I generally don't draw much from the gospels (or Acts). One also has to be wary of parallelism generally. I sometimes think one could take almost any two religions and write an extensive essay on the parallels, criss-crossing influences and common sources between them, such are the psychological and cultural ways humans operate. That's how you get articles linking Jesus to Buddha/Buddhism, Confucious/Confucianism, etc.

Good point and an important one imo. You could I'm sure , find parallels with quite a number of various historic figures outside religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

My take is that there do appear to often be parallels. Beyond that, what can one say? I accept that there is a lot of fiction in the gospels, but it is very hard, imo, to work out whether they are exclusively fiction. They could still be based on a recent, core figure. Or they could not. Remember that a messianic claimant might be likely to do the things a messianic claimant might do, such as do things from the OT (and a LOT of the gospels use the OT for parallels). Messianic claimants often did and do. This is one reason I generally don't draw much from the gospels (or Acts). One also has to be wary of parallelism generally. I sometimes think one could take almost any two religions and write an extensive essay on the parallels, criss-crossing influences and common sources between them, such are the psychological and cultural ways humans operate. That's how you get articles linking Jesus to Buddha/Buddhism, Confucious/Confucianism, etc.

Good point and an important one imo. You could I'm sure , find parallels with quite a number of various historic figures outside religion.

And you could find parallels in mythical or fictional figures too, and between them. You can do all sorts of comparisons.

But in this case at least, the main parallelism going on is, it seems, to do with the OT, for obvious reasons. So the OT was mined for validation and comparison.

Added to which, as I said, and if you knew the OT well and had messianic expectations (see: Jewish messiah claimants for both of these things) you were going to do certain things to align yourself with it. For example, if the OT says something about entering triumphantly into Jerusalem being a sign of you being the messiah then you might do that to bolster your claim. When we read of Jesus having done a version of it, it's hard to tell if the writer used the OT when making it up, or the preacher used the OT when actually doing it.

 

[Learner]

And you could find parallels in mythical or fictional figures too, and between them. You can do all sorts of comparisons.

But in this case at least, the main parallelism going on is, it seems, to do with the OT, for obvious reasons. So the OT was mined for validation and comparison.

Added to which, as I said, and if you knew the OT well and had messianic expectations (see: Jewish messiah claimants for both of these things) you were going to do certain things to align yourself with it. For example, if the OT says something about entering triumphantly into Jerusalem being a sign of you being the messiah then you might do that to bolster your claim. When we read of Jesus having done a version of it, it's hard to tell if the writer used the OT when making it up, or the preacher used the OT when actually doing it.

Valid point , I once was in a "what if" imaginative conversation with a friend who thought that in order to make a Nostradamus prediction to happen (for what ever purpose). One could simply follow the book and create the event. Which is quite scary if you think about it.

Aligning oneself to previous events in scripture within the religion is probably a better idea for the argument regarding Christ. No doubt there are those arguing this. Not much (if at all) from the early opposing Jews or Romans texts with this alignment view. Perhaps it wasn't so important then even to some of the gnostics which would of been quite useful ... and for the likes of Carrier.