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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey, ruby. You might be a little more convincing if you'd learn to spell 'Raglan'.

I know why Christians snigger at such suggestions....because they cannot laugh maniacally in public. Like anybody here would care about what Christians thought of the speculations, any way. They have already chosen to believe complete and utter bullshit, so their opinion is pretty worthless. You, however, seem to think that pointing out that the clueless christians might be snickering at credible postulations is somehow worthy of mention....doesn't that worry you, some how?

Novels are literary inventions. You can take novels like Wreck of the Titan, Gone with the Wind, Old Man and the Sea, and attempt to find the real life inspiration for characters in those works. And in many instances you can make a pretty convincing argument that so-and-so was this person in the novel. To people who think the synoptic gospel protagonist is real this is exactly what is happening. Doherty called it having confessional interests and it was an accurate observation.

And we don't even have all the superman stories that were written about the gospel protagonist. We have very, very few, except for chance, only the ones that those persons with confessional interests wanted preserved. There's no conspiracy involved, just the evolution of another religion. Religious adherents are simply inventing the real Paul Bunyan or William Tell. Religion goes on.

 

[ruby sparks]

Novels are literary inventions.

It would be (is) misleading to compare religious texts with novels.

And specifically in this case, the nearest category for comparison would be, by any reasonable assessment, 'accounts from the early days of a cult'. In those cases where a new cult is said to have had a founder with relatively recent attestation, the majority are accepted as having had an actual founder figure. It is the norm. It also makes sense, since it's arguably the easiest way for a new cult to start. There are exceptions as usual of course.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hey, ruby. You might be a little more convincing if you'd learn to spell 'Raglan'.

I know why Christians snigger at such suggestions....because they cannot laugh maniacally in public. Like anybody here would care about what Christians thought of the speculations, any way. They have already chosen to believe complete and utter bullshit, so their opinion is pretty worthless. You, however, seem to think that pointing out that the clueless christians might be snickering at credible postulations is somehow worthy of mention....doesn't that worry you, some how?

I see merit where I think it is. I wouldn't automatically label christians clueless and atheist mythicists not clueless. Belief in god.....unjustifiable and probably incorrect. Belief that their cult had a founder.....I think they have the better basis than mythicists do, if each was to stick consistently to accepted historiographical criteria, as almost every historian in the world, secular or otherwise, does.

No, it doesn't worry me much. I do think it's a pity though that the mythy meme thrives on atheist fora of all places, where one might hope to find more rational rigor and consistency.

Incidentatlly, I don't agree with you that the onus is on the historicists. If there is onus, it's on both sides. You may still feel that you personally want to be convinced however.

The thing is, in this case, the historicists have the best forms of evidence. The counter-case consists merely of speculations. You may not feel that the evidence is compelling (I don't think it's exactly compelling either but I think it's arguably as much as we have any right to expect in the specific circumstances and just enough to let them have a bloomin' founder of some sort) but they have it and mythicists have to discount it, and sadly they don't have a lot of counter-evidence to do that with. There may be reasons for this, but at the end of the day it's still largely missing.

 

[ruby sparks]

Most new cults who cite a recent founder have had a founder. The first criteria on a list of 'cult characteristics' by two PhD authorities on the subject is:

"The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth."
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Dale Sanders did a study on Millenarian cults around the world throughout recorded history and came to a similar conclusion, though his checklist was specific to millenarian cults, one of which was Christianity. He's a Christian scholar, one of the more moderate and liberal ones. He is actually prepared to consider it possibly a failed 'end-of-times' cult.

"Many New Religious Movements are founded and led by a charismatic leader. The death of any religion's founder represents a significant moment in its history. Over the months and years following its leader's death, the movement can die out, fragment into multiple groups, consolidate its position, or change its nature to become something quite different to that which its founder intended."
(New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. Author E. Barker, Sociology Professor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBarker198913-46


This doesn't mean that Christianity had a founder figure/charismatic leader, later to become (if the cult survives the death of the leader) the subject of increasing religious mythologising accretions. But it would seem to be more usual, if we are factoring in prior background probabilities, as Carrier does.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Novels are literary inventions.

It would be (is) misleading to compare religious texts with novels.

And specifically in this case, the nearest category for comparison would be, by any reasonable assessment, 'accounts from the early days of a cult'. In those cases where a new cult is said to have had a founder with relatively recent attestation, the majority are accepted as having had an actual founder figure. It is the norm. It also makes sense, since it's arguably the easiest way for a new cult to start. There are exceptions as usual of course.

You are covering a lot of bases in that very succinct response, including your own arse.

If you step away from your biases, which we all have, and simply take religion for what it is, your argument fails. It fails because religions are authored. What did Jesus write about his new cult? Nothing, of course, because protagonists in closet novels don't write the novels they appear in. What did Santiago write? What did Rhett Butler write? What did John Rowland write? Understand? And why are you not talking about Athena? Are you arbitrarily distinguishing where there is no distinction when it comes to religion?

I've stated this many times, that what invented christianity are the anonymous authors in the christian corpus. Look at Paul's letters. How many are considered bogus?

The alleged historical Jesus is likely one of those authors, of which we have no record, which means of course, that historical Jesus, a protagonist in those stories not unlike Superman, is an allegation, a fiction, not a reality.

 

[ruby sparks]

.. stories not unlike Superman, is an allegation, a fiction, not a reality.

We have every reason to take it that the very earliest christians (around 60 AD) did actually believe that someone had recently died nailed to a cross and was coming back and that they too would survive death, just like him. It was a major selling point. This is religion. You need to stay on category.

It doesn't mean he existed, of course.

As for The Epistles, some are bogus. Big deal. Point here is that some likely aren't, something that Carrier accepts, which is a point in his favour, imo, because it takes a lot of jumping through hoops to see them otherwise.

As for Jesus not having written anything himself, if he existed he was probably illiterate. We have nothing from a large swathe of minor figures from the region anyway (for similar reasons probably), and none from any messianic prophets of the time (of which there were a few). Plus, it's not uncommon for cult leaders to be written about rather than writing themselves.

 

[whollygoats]

.. stories not unlike Superman, is an allegation, a fiction, not a reality.

We have every reason to take it that the very earliest christians (around 60 AD) did actually believe that someone had died nailed to a cross and was coming back and that they too would survive death, just like him. It was a major selling point. This is religion. You need to stay on category.

It doesn't mean he existed, of course.

Of course.

We have historical record from the early second century that somebody believed the basic storyline and accepted the crucified man as somehow divine and worshipped him.

And, of course, that doesn't mean that citation was not cribbed in at a later date. To lie for the faith became honorable soon after.

But as to how the story arose and developed prior to that point, I don't think we really know. I would like to see your evidence for christians at or around 60 CE. Please. I'd be interested to know how it is you know about what it is a small, obscure set of believers in a time and place distant from you, might believe.

It is ALL speculation, ruby.

 

[ruby sparks]

We have historical record from the early second century that somebody believed the basic storyline and accepted the crucified man as somehow devine.

Text dating starts in Mid-50's AD actually (Epistles).

Some gospels possibly also mid/late 1st C.

 

[blastula]

If you just used Mark, the Raglan score would be lower. Though I don't know how the textual history for other figures affects their score.

 

[whollygoats]

We have historical record from the early second century that somebody believed the basic storyline and accepted the crucified man as somehow devine.

Text dating starts in Mid-50's AD actually (Epistles).

Some gospels possibly also mid/late 1st C.

According to who? Oral Roberts University? Some bible school?

Tell me...Before or after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem?

Plus, given that the genuine epistles might have originated in the middle of the first century CE, what evidence do they supply for a corporeal Jesus?

 

[ruby sparks]

We have historical record from the early second century that somebody believed the basic storyline and accepted the crucified man as somehow devine.

Text dating starts in Mid-50's AD actually (Epistles).

Some gospels possibly also mid/late 1st C.

Thank you for reminding me of some of my reservations about the quality of analysis often seen on internet fora.

When, in your opinion, were the Epistles written, assuming you accept some as genuine?

 

[blastula]

50s for Paul is mainstream dating.

 

[ruby sparks]

50s for Paul is mainstream dating.

And accepted by Richard Carrier, whose book is the main OP topic.

- - - Updated - - -

According to fucking who? Oral Roberts University? Some bible school?

You don't appear to be very well-informed on this subject at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

.. stories not unlike Superman, is an allegation, a fiction, not a reality.

We have every reason to take it that the very earliest christians (around 60 AD) did actually believe that someone had died nailed to a cross and was coming back and that they too would survive death, just like him. It was a major selling point. This is religion. You need to stay on category.

It doesn't mean he existed, of course.

Of course.

We have historical record from the early second century that somebody believed the basic storyline and accepted the crucified man as somehow divine and worshipped him.

And, of course, that doesn't mean that citation was not cribbed in at a later date. To lie for the faith became honorable soon after.

But as to how the story arose and developed prior to that point, I don't think we really know. I would like to see your evidence for christians at or around 60 CE. Please. I'd be interested to know how it is you know about what it is a small, obscure set of believers in a time and place distant from you, might believe.

It is ALL speculation, ruby.

Well, we don't have christians before the 4th/5th century. Before that they were chrestians, and they were living in Antioch. Of course, early church fathers took issue with this argument saying they were one and the same yet did not change their writing to say christian, and not chrestian. Curious indeed.

But that is another discussion.

And we should leave the ridicule out of the discussion. It reminds me of vegetarianism discussions. When vegans first came into attention their position was ethical, they were for the most part unaware of the health benefits of restricting the intake of animal flesh. It was only later that the actual health benefits became known, but they are still harangued as commie fag junkies.

We can rise above that I hope.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you just used Mark, the Raglan score would be lower.

True. I hadn't factored that in.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, we don't have christians before the 4th/5th century. Before that they were chrestians, and they were living in Antioch. Of course, early church fathers took issue with this argument saying they were one and the same yet did not change their writing to say christian, and not chrestian. Curious indeed.

But that is another discussion.

There is very, very little reason, if any, to suppose that Chrestian referred to a completely different cult that died out.

Citing two cults is tenuous and unparsimonious, given the evidences.

Plus, there is overlap, with Chrestian as a spelling still being used in the 5th C, by Christians themselves (P.Oxy.XLIII 3149).

One of the more interesting examples of 'Chrestian' is in a work attributed to Tacitus. It appears the text (dated 116 AD) may have originally used 'Chrestian' (at least an 11th C copy seems to have). So, if this was added by a Christain writer, why the 'e'? And if it wasn't, the writer clearly associates the 'Chrestians' with a 'Christus' crucified in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate at around the relevant alleged time.

This 'Chrestian' thing is almost certainly a badly thought-out red herring.

 

[blastula]

Christians was mentioned in Acts.

 

[lpetrich]

If you just used Mark, the Raglan score would be lower. Though I don't know how the textual history for other figures affects their score.

List of Lord Raglan evaluations | Atheism | FANDOM powered by Wikia has these scores:

• Matthew: 19
• Mark: 11
• Luke: 16
• John: 13

Mark scores low because that gospel does not have a birth story -- we meet Jesus Christ fully grown in it. John is similar, but has a very metaphysical sort of birth story.

 

[lpetrich]

"Great leader" seems good enough, and it fits.

That is silly. You're aware that even in the very biased 'Acts of the Apostles' he's awarded approximately only 250 followers in a Jewish population of around 600,000?

The Gospels state that he had a big following, and that he got a hero's welcome in Jerusalem. You could try to quantify that.

 

[ruby sparks]

The Gospels state that he had a big following, and that he got a hero's welcome in Jerusalem. You could try to quantify that.

Lpetrich, he wasn't a king or any sort of ruler, his mum and dad weren't a king or queen, and he didn't reign at all, never mind uneventfully. Shoehorn him into the criteria if you want to, but I'm going to consider it ropey, no matter how many people were alleged to have supposedly given him a hero's welcome somewhere. Ditto for 'prescribes laws' which even your linked assessment admits is only true, 'in an informal sort of sense', yet goes on to give him a full point.

See also my other reservations about Ralgan's scale and its application, which, taken together, leave me underwhelmed.

 

[ruby sparks]

..given that the genuine epistles might have originated in the middle of the first century CE, what evidence do they supply for a corporeal Jesus?

Sorry. Missed this.

Given your apparent lack of even knowing that it is not just bible scholars who accept that Epistles were probably written in the mid-1st C, I hope you can understand if I am wary of how much accurate and reasonable analyses you have taken on board up to now. I am only hoping it is from places other than mythicists, especially Earl Doherty, who I sometimes feel I might like to put in the same cupboard, if not necessarily on the same shelf, as Erik Von Daniken. I'm not going to apologise for that ad hom. Sometimes they're deserved, imo. I'm a card-carrying, fully-fledged hard atheist by the way, just in case you were worried about that.

The answer to your question is that a Jesus figure as an actual man is by far the most obvious way to read the usage in the Epistles when referring to the character's supposed earthly life (prior to crucifixion). After that, it would not be surprising, would it, if the language was less clear, since the faithful were being urged to believe that he had, um, changed status.

To be specific, when the epistles use the Koine Greek word for 'man' ('anthropos') it is consistently and routinely used for actual humans, and it is used, at least three times I think, for pre-crucifixion Jesus. Thus, the writer clearly had a once-corporeal figure in mind. I don't know of a better way to explain the multiple use of the word 'anthropos' for Jesus.

Furthermore, it is (in the texts) clearly a selling tool to the early followers that they can do the same thing. Live a human life. Die and continue afterwards. Cheating human death, in other words. Telling them something like a spirit that had never actually lived had not actually been literally crucified except in an upper realm would not make as much sense or be a model for them to be incentivised to buy into for themselves. The former sales pitch still works to this day in fact.

Nor would it be a stumbling block to mainstream Jews, for whom being crucified was very shameful. Oh by the way, the epistles refer to the founder figure being crucified on wood. I'm not sure about reading into that that it was spiritual wood in an upper realm.

This is in addition to other references, including born under the law (ie as a jew), etc. etc. Yes, I am aware of Doherty's interpretations and have in fact discussed them with him online some years go.

The most parsimonious explanation is that (a) someone started writing the epistles shortly after (within about 20-25 years of) the alleged time of death and during the very early years of the cult, (b) that the original cult leader was referenced and (c) that he was put forward and received by new recruits as having been a human, almost certainly quite recently.