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

[ruby sparks]

"The (Philo's) notion of heavenly man signifies a mode of existence characteristic of human beings only prior to and after their lives on earth."

"At various places throughout his work Philo indicates that prior to their lives in the flesh human beings pre-existed as pure and disembodied minds and once their lives on earth come to an end, they will return to that form of existence."

http://teol.ku.dk/english/dept/akh/...eory_of_Two_Men_in_1_Corinthians_15.45_49.pdf

 

[none]

... hold on

 

[none]

"The (Philo's) notion of heavenly man signifies a mode of existence characteristic of human beings only prior to and after their lives on earth."

"At various places throughout his work Philo indicates that prior to their lives in the flesh human beings pre-existed as pure and disembodied minds and once their lives on earth come to an end, they will return to that form of existence."

http://teol.ku.dk/english/dept/akh/...eory_of_Two_Men_in_1_Corinthians_15.45_49.pdf

you sparked my curiosity when you brought up the epistles description of Christ
I have followed up with a reply from Carrier that explains his analysis that Christ was a celestial being that was later euhemerized, an event that occurred in the construction of the Bible.
I am not sure the relevance of Philo's theology as it pertains to Christ being euhemerized or the tale in the Bible about Christ.

 

[ruby sparks]

And, of course, Bart Ehrman's tome, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, (NYC, 1993), devotes an entire chapter (Ch.4) to "Anti-Docetic Corruptions of Scripture", which he begins with,

Although adoptionism could rightly claim the oldest pedigree among christological heresies, the representatives of docetism proved far more pestiferous for the second- and third-century defenders of orthodoxy. (p.181)

With the following footnote:

1. Like the adoptionists, docetists argued that their views were original to the faith. As we shall see, Marcion, in particular, made this claim an essential component of his program. (p.242)

So, Ehrman expended sixty pages to address the corruption of scriptures undertaken by proto-orthodox scribes to counter docetic 'misinterpretations' of the then existing scripture. A quarter of his book is dedicated to this; I'd guess that belief that Jesus never existed as a corporeal, and thus historical, entity was pretty frippen important to a whole huge shipload of people who believed in Jesus.

I don't agree with Ehrman on several things, but I accept his interpretation on this topic, as he seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy in to it.

Cool. So since Ehrman, who you say seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy into his interpretation of this topic, says, as far as I'm aware, that Docetics only said that Jesus 'seemed to be a man', on earth, not that he didn't come to earth, and you accept his interpretation, can I take it that you agree (with Ehrman) that a Jesus-who-seemed-to-be-a-man was believed by Docetics to have come to earth?

I must admit, I wasn't expecting you to cite Ehrman, agree with him on this and compliment him all in one go.

 

[steve_bank]

Celestial beings? Right up there wit Ancient Aliens on History Channel, JC was an ET...

According to the Oxford Bible Commentary in those days of distance and slow communications, it was common for someone in a community to write in the name of someone more prominent.

There is no way to know who wrote New Testament works.

 

[whollygoats]

Cool. So since Ehrman says that Docetics only said that Jesus 'seemed to be a man' (on earth), not that he didn't come to earth, and you accept his interpretation, can I take it that you don't think a Jesus who seemed to be a man didn't come to earth?

On this I agree with the docetics that any Jesus would have just 'seemed to have been a man' because he was not corporeal, nor historic. He is an ahistoric cultural construct, a product of midrash and belief. A 'celestial being', if you so wish, right on par with Metatron, if not an identity.

I am merely responding to your misguided dismissal of mythic constructs being at the base of the Christian founder figure, particularly when the leading competition for lay members to the proto-orthodox recruiters, at the very moment that the proto-orthodox realized that they needed to systematize and regularize their teachings, explicitly denied the 'humanity' and thus the historicity of said figure. VERY EARLY ON. Yet you insist on denying this to support some whackjob 'historical Jesus' thesis....

How dense are you, anyway?

 

[ruby sparks]

And, of course, Bart Ehrman's tome, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, (NYC, 1993), devotes an entire chapter (Ch.4) to "Anti-Docetic Corruptions of Scripture", which he begins with,



With the following footnote:



So, Ehrman expended sixty pages to address the corruption of scriptures undertaken by proto-orthodox scribes to counter docetic 'misinterpretations' of the then existing scripture. A quarter of his book is dedicated to this; I'd guess that belief that Jesus never existed as a corporeal, and thus historical, entity was pretty frippen important to a whole huge shipload of people who believed in Jesus.

I don't agree with Ehrman on several things, but I accept his interpretation on this topic, as he seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy in to it.

Cool. So since Ehrman says that Docetics only said that Jesus 'seemed to be a man' (on earth), not that he didn't come to earth, and you accept his interpretation, can I take it that you don't think a Jesus who seemed to be a man didn't come to earth?

On this I agree with the docetics that any Jesus would have just 'seemed to have been a man' because he was not corporeal, nor historic. He is an ahistoric cultural construct, a product of midrash and belief.

I am merely responding to your misguided dismissal of mythic constructs being at the base of the Christian founder figure, particularly when the leading competition for lay members to the proto-orthodox recruiters, at the very moment that the proto-orthodox realized that they needed to systematize and regularize their teachings, explicitly denied the 'humanity' and thus the historicity of said figure. VERY EARLY ON. Yet you insist on denying this to support some whackjob 'historical Jesus' thesis....

How dense are you, anyway?

I must be pretty dense because I don't see there anywhere where you clarify that you agree with Ehrman on this topic (with whose interpretation of this topic you said you agree, because as you say he seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy into his interpretation of this topic) about the Docetics, that the non-corporeal Jesus supposedly came to earth.

Or do you really not agree with his interpretation on this topic after all and were you just saying that? Tut tut.

 

[lpetrich]

According to the Oxford Bible Commentary in those days of distance and slow communications, it was common for someone in a community to write in the name of someone more prominent.

Something called pseudepigraphy, though it might also be called inverse plagiarism.

There were some hundred  Pseudo-Aristotle works composed in the Middle Ages, for instance.

The Apocrypha are some Hellenistic Jewish works that were often attributed to such notables as Enoch and Moses and Solomon.

In the New Testament, the writings attributed to Paul apparently had more than one author. The Book of Revelation warns its readers not to alter its contents. Early Xian apologist Tertullian claimed that he once caught someone composing an Acts of Paul, and in the Nag Hammadi texts, there is a half-done document that attributes to Jesus Christ some sayings found in another NH document.

 

[whollygoats]

On this I agree with the docetics that any Jesus would have just 'seemed to have been a man' because he was not corporeal, nor historic. He is an ahistoric cultural construct, a product of midrash and belief.

I am merely responding to your misguided dismissal of mythic constructs being at the base of the Christian founder figure, particularly when the leading competition for lay members to the proto-orthodox recruiters, at the very moment that the proto-orthodox realized that they needed to systematize and regularize their teachings, explicitly denied the 'humanity' and thus the historicity of said figure. VERY EARLY ON. Yet you insist on denying this to support some whackjob 'historical Jesus' thesis....

How dense are you, anyway?

I must be pretty dense because I don't see there anywhere where you clarify that you agree with Ehrman on this topic (with whose interpretation of this topic you said you agree, because as you say he seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy into his interpretation of this topic) about the Docetics, that the non-corporeal Jesus supposedly came to earth.

Or do you really not agree with his interpretation on this topic after all and were you just saying that? Tut tut.

WTF?

I was pointing out that Ehrman points out the docetics were active and influenced much of what eventually became the New Testament documents. There was deep influence by christian believers who believed in an ahistorical founding figure. Yes, I agree with Ehrman on this point. I agree with Ehrman on many points, I like much of his work and I think he is an engaging writer. I also think Ehrman ignores the obvious in his own work when he subsequently argues for the historicity of Jesus. I think his entrenched and misguided defense has done wonders for advancing the mythicist hypothesis amongst the wider public.

 

[ruby sparks]

On this I agree with the docetics that any Jesus would have just 'seemed to have been a man' because he was not corporeal, nor historic. He is an ahistoric cultural construct, a product of midrash and belief.

I am merely responding to your misguided dismissal of mythic constructs being at the base of the Christian founder figure, particularly when the leading competition for lay members to the proto-orthodox recruiters, at the very moment that the proto-orthodox realized that they needed to systematize and regularize their teachings, explicitly denied the 'humanity' and thus the historicity of said figure. VERY EARLY ON. Yet you insist on denying this to support some whackjob 'historical Jesus' thesis....

How dense are you, anyway?

I must be pretty dense because I don't see there anywhere where you clarify that you agree with Ehrman on this topic (with whose interpretation of this topic you said you agree, because as you say he seems to have put a great deal of trained scholastic thought and energy into his interpretation of this topic) about the Docetics, that the non-corporeal Jesus supposedly came to earth.

Or do you really not agree with his interpretation on this topic after all and were you just saying that? Tut tut.

WTF?

I was pointing out that Ehrman points out the docetics were active and influenced much of what eventually became the New Testament documents. There was deep influence by christian believers who believed in an ahistorical founding figure. Yes, I agree with Ehrman on this point. I agree with Ehrman on many points, I like much of his work and I think he is an engaging writer. I also think Ehrman ignores the obvious in his own work when he subsequently argues for the historicity of Jesus. I think his entrenched and misguided defense has done wonders for advancing the mythicist hypothesis amongst the wider public.

You seem to be having a bit of bother actually telling me whether you agree with Ehrman's interpretation that the Docetics believed that a non-corporeal Jesus came to earth. Do you or don't you? This is the 3rd time I've asked.

 

[whollygoats]

According to the Oxford Bible Commentary in those days of distance and slow communications, it was common for someone in a community to write in the name of someone more prominent.

Something called pseudepigraphy, though it might also be called inverse plagiarism.

Yes. There was a lot of it going around in relation to the early development of christian dogma. There seems to be a controversy over whether this was 'accepted' behavior amongst the authors' contemporaries, or contemptuous behavior that was frowned upon.

 

[whollygoats]

WTF?

I was pointing out that Ehrman points out the docetics were active and influenced much of what eventually became the New Testament documents. There was deep influence by christian believers who believed in an ahistorical founding figure. Yes, I agree with Ehrman on this point. I agree with Ehrman on many points, I like much of his work and I think he is an engaging writer. I also think Ehrman ignores the obvious in his own work when he subsequently argues for the historicity of Jesus. I think his entrenched and misguided defense has done wonders for advancing the mythicist hypothesis amongst the wider public.

You seem to be having a bit of bother actually telling me whether you agree with Ehrman's interpretation that the Docetics believed that a non-corporeal Jesus came to earth. Do you or don't you? This is the 3rd time I've asked.

I don't know how to make it flash for you. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[ruby sparks]

WTF?

I was pointing out that Ehrman points out the docetics were active and influenced much of what eventually became the New Testament documents. There was deep influence by christian believers who believed in an ahistorical founding figure. Yes, I agree with Ehrman on this point. I agree with Ehrman on many points, I like much of his work and I think he is an engaging writer. I also think Ehrman ignores the obvious in his own work when he subsequently argues for the historicity of Jesus. I think his entrenched and misguided defense has done wonders for advancing the mythicist hypothesis amongst the wider public.

You seem to be having a bit of bother actually telling me whether you agree with Ehrman's interpretation that the Docetics believed that a non-corporeal Jesus came to earth. Do you or don't you? This is the 3rd time I've asked.

I don't know how to make it flash for you. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Yes or no about the coming to earth? It's not that hard, whollygoats. That's 4 times I've asked you specifically about this Docetic coming to earth belief. Specifically.

 

[whollygoats]

I don't know how to make it flash for you. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Yes or no about the coming to earth? It's not that hard, whollygoats. That's 4 times I've asked you specifically about this Docetic coming to earth belief. Specifically.

Already answered.

 

[steve_bank]

If anyone is interested. The Oxford commentary discusses for each book authorship, dating techniques, literary styles, translation issues, and errors.

In the gospels there was an architectural reference out of date and location. Genesis can be interpreted to mean god created order out of chaos in creation. Words for which there is no known meaning.

By the time of Nicea there were competing versions, some hostile. Paul says to avoid some community he did not sanction. Nicea resolved geo-theological disputes by consensus and coercion.

The divinity of JC was not universal.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If anyone is interested. The Oxford commentary discusses for each book authorship, dating techniques, literary styles, translation issues, and errors.

In the gospels there was an architectural reference out of date and location. Genesis can be interpreted to mean god created order out of chaos in creation. Words for which there is no known meaning.

By the time of Nicea there were competing versions, some hostile. Paul says to avoid some community he did not sanction. Nicea resolved geo-theological disputes by consensus and coercion.

The divinity of JC was not universal.

And add to that the translation issue, that all translation is essentially a lie. It doesn't have to be a religious work either. People love to protect and defend the translation they like.

There's a great Jesus industry just about what means what when it comes to translation. And can anyone say anachronism?

 

[whollygoats]

The divinity of JC was not universal.

As was opinion on his corporeality.

 

[whollygoats]

If anyone is interested. The Oxford commentary discusses for each book authorship, dating techniques, literary styles, translation issues, and errors.

In the gospels there was an architectural reference out of date and location. Genesis can be interpreted to mean god created order out of chaos in creation. Words for which there is no known meaning.

By the time of Nicea there were competing versions, some hostile. Paul says to avoid some community he did not sanction. Nicea resolved geo-theological disputes by consensus and coercion.

The divinity of JC was not universal.

And add to that the translation issue, that all translation is essentially a lie. It doesn't have to be a religious work either. People love to protect and defend the translation they like.

There's a great Jesus industry just about what means what when it comes to translation. And can anyone say anachronism?

Just remember, it ALL depends upon interpretation.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't know how to make it flash for you. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Yes or no about the coming to earth? It's not that hard, whollygoats. That's 4 times I've asked you specifically about this Docetic coming to earth belief. Specifically.

Already answered.

Ok. I didn't see it. I'm going to have to guess. Since you're at pains to say that you agree with him, I'm going to guess that you agree with his interpretation about the Docetics.

In which case, when the non-corporeal Jesus they believed in came to earth, what did they believe happened to him/it there?

Actually, that's not my real guess. I think you evaded answering my question because you don't agree with him on that. I reckon you're citing a different sort of Docetism, one that didn't believe that a non-corporeal Jesus came to earth. That's the only way you can get to conflate Docetism with ahistoricity, isn't it? This not-so-smooth move is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It must be about 5 years since I've seen that particular old chestnut, but then I am new to this particular forum.

I don't know why you didn't just say. You could have explained afterwards why you disagree with Ehrman on the point I asked you about. You don't have to agree with him on everything, obviously, but I find it odd that you studiously avoided answering a specific follow-up question about exactly what you do or don't agree with him about.

Just remember, it ALL depends upon interpretation.

Are you referring to deciphering your posts? If so, I agree.

 

[whollygoats]

Cute. Now you've decided to gaslight your conversant.

Talk about chestnuts...

Did phands teach you that? Or, did you actually go to troll school?