Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 14 of 18: 5.1 The Gospel in Hebrews[

[GakuseiDon]

Threads in this series

	Thread title	Link
1	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 1 of 18: 1 What I liked and didn't like	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10555
2	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 2 of 18: 2.1 Epiphanius's Nazorians	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10557
3	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 18: 2.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixion	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10562
4	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 18: 2.3 Plutarch's Osiris	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10565
5	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 18: 2.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10669
6	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 18: 2.5 Carrier's Rank-Raglan Ref set	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10603
7	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 7 of 18: 2.6 My Historicity Theory vs Carrier's Hist Theory	Will do on Youtube
8	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 8 of 18: 3.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCE	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10568
9	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 9 of 18: 3.2 1 Clement and Scriptures	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10893
10	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 10 of 18: 3.3 Ignatius and the Star Gospel	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10913
11	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 11 of 18: 3.4 Hegesippus and tales about the family of Jesus	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10919
12	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 12 of 18: 4.1 Acts of the Apostles and the Vanishing family of Jesus	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10925
13	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 13 of 18: 4.2 Acts of the Apostles and the trials of Paul	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10957
14	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 14 of 18: 5.1 The Gospel in Hebrews	viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10977
15	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 15 of 18: 5.2 Gospels in Paul, Hebrews, Colossians
16	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 16 of 18: 5.3 Things Jesus did
17	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 17 of 18: Miscellaneous - Outer space, Euhemerism, etc	Will do on Youtube
18	Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 18 of 18: Conclusion - summary; and what now?	Will do on Youtube

This section looks at Carrier's comments in OHJ's Chapter 11.5 on the Book of Hebrews.

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 14 of 18: 5.1 The Gospel in Hebrews

The Book of Hebrews is a text that many scholars, including Carrier, believes was written very early. Hebrews has no knowledge of the canonical Gospels and the Temple in Jerusalem is still operating, suggesting it was written by the 60s CE at the latest. (page 539) Carrier sees the absence of references to a historical Jesus as lending support for mythicism.

[SLIDE]

CARRIER'S ARGUMENT: The absence of any clear reference to any facts about a historical Jesus, any quotations of him, any stories about him that can definitely be placed on earth is bizarre. It's still 'possible' that the author just never felt the need to relate any such information, not even once, not even where it is expected and would even greatly improve his argument. But this is still improbable. (page 552)

CONTRIBUTION TO ODDS: (Note: odds include the use of 'gospel' in canonical letters attributed to Paul)
- Carrier's Best Odds for historicity: 3/5
- Carrier's Worst Odds for historicity: 2/5

MY ANALYSIS: Carrier dates the Book of Hebrews as written before the Gospels. Since Carrier allows that his Minimal Historical Jesus is not the Gospel Jesus then we wouldn't expect to see Gospel-like details in Hebrews. Much of Hebrews is about how Jesus can fulfill the role of Heavenly High Priest even though he came from the tribe of Judah and there are few statements about the pre-Risen Jesus. But there are in fact a couple of statements that suggest that Jesus was on earth. Many of the arguments in the text are supported by passages from the old Testament, a situation that should by now not be surprising since the Hebrew Scriptures were the only validating source for early Christians until the Gospels became authorative at some point late in the Second Century CE.

MY VERDICT: Pushback. The Book of Hebrews has explicit statements that support Jesus as being a man on earth. There are no explicit statements to suggest a pre-Risen Jesus as not coming to earth. While Jesus being on earth doesn't necessarily mean historicity, it is evidence against Carrier's Celestial Jesus Theory.

Carrier writes:

Whatever its date, this letter is almost entirely about Jesus, yet seems wholly unaware of his having been any kind of earthly man.

While Carrier is correct that much of the Book of Hebrews is about Jesus, the focus is on justifying his heavenly role as High Priest. This is done via the usual process: references to Old Testament passages, and many of them! There is very little interest in the pre-Risen Jesus. But there are four passages that arguably suggest that the pre-Risen Jesus was on earth. I'll go over them first, and then look at Carrier's explanation.

Point 1: The inhabited place ("oikoumenē")

God sends Jesus into the "inhabited place" ("oikoumenē"):

[5] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
[6] And again, when he bringeth in the firstborn into the inhabited place ("oikoumenē"), he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

The word used for "inhabited place" is "oikoumenē", a Greek word that is used for the inhabited places of earth, e.g. the Roman empire or the civilised world. Sometimes it was used to mean the world but it never just means the heavens only (i.e. excluding earth). There is no other way to read this other than Jesus being brought into places inhabited by men.

Point 2: Tribe of Judah

Hebrews describes Jesus as springing from the tribe of Judah:

Heb 7.14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

The prima facie reading suggests that Jesus was a descendant of Judah.

Point 3: Jesus appearing a second time

Jesus is described as appearing a second time "unto them that look for him":

Heb 9.28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

This appears to suggest that Jesus will return to earth, implying a first visitation.

Point 4: Jesus entering into heaven ("ouranos")

The author of Hebrews writes a couple of times how Jesus has entered into heaven. Heb 1.10 shows how the author separates the earth (Greek "ge") and heaven (Greek "ouranos"), while Heb 4.14 and 9.24 explain how Jesus entered into heaven:

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ("ge"); and the heavens ("ouranos") are the works of thine hands:
...
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens ("ouranos"), Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
...
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven ("ouranos") itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Taken together, we have a picture of a Jesus who was a descendent of the tribe of Judah, came into the inhabited world, died and then rose into the Holy Temple in heaven, and will appear a second time. The use of "oikoumenē" to mean a place where humans dwell is well established. The Book of Hebrews was selected early by the early proto-orthodox church. Taken together, a natural reading of the Book of Hebrews separates an earthly Jesus.

How does Carrier see each point? I'll go through each point in the same order as above.

Carrier's view of Point 1: The inhabited place ("oikoumenē")

Carrier writes:

For verse after verse we are told what God said to Jesus at his entry into the lower world, one of which (Heb. 1.5) the Gospel authors later used as what God had said to Jesus at his baptism (e.g. Mk 1.11) or transfiguration (e.g. Mk 9.7; likewise 2 Pet. 1.17) or resurrection (Acts 13.32-35, though there admitted to be known only from scripture), but which here is more ambiguously said to have been declared at his entry into the world. The word 'birth' is not here used. Rather, we're told this happened when God 'led the firstborn into the inhabited place' (Heb. 1.6), a rather oblique way to say 'born', but not such an oblique way to say 'supernaturally sent down into the world of flesh and clothed in a new body'. The author of Hebrews later seems to assume that these things were actually said at his death and resurrection, not his birth (e.g. in Heb. 5). But either way, we are here given extended speeches from God about Jesus, which, we're told, God 'spoke' at whichever event. Obviously this is not history being recorded here. This is a myth. (As many scholars agree.) (page 546)

Carrier simply ignores the implications of "oikoumenē" in Heb 1.6. The word doesn't suggest 'supernaturally sent down into the world of flesh and clothed in a new body' at all. True, God bringing Jesus into oikoumenē does not mean 'birth', but we see the same thing in the famous "gospel of Augustus", the Calendar Inscription of Priene:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_ ... _of_Priene

It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [εὐαγγέλιον] for the world that came by reason of him,” which Asia resolved in Smyrna.

Providence "sent" Augustus as a savior, and his appearance excelled anticipations. No suggestion of a birth or early life. This is the same mythic language we see in Hebrews and other early letters. And indeed some scholars see an influence of the "Augustine gospel" on the Gospels.

Again, the use of "oikoumenē" is not proof of historicity. But the term strongly suggests a Jesus who was on earth.

Carrier's view of Point 2: Tribe of Judah

Carrier writes:

But here we get a piece of information that some cite as evidence of historicity: this transfer entailed the demotion of the priestly tribe of Levi 'for the one about whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar' (7.13), because 'it was made clear before that the Lord has arisen from Judah' (7.14), which fact is 'more abundantly clear' when we acknowledge that 'another priest is raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek, who was not born according to the law of a carnal commandment but according to the power of an eternal life' (7.15-16), as scripture says Jesus was (7.17). Jesus was thus not actually born; and we know he was spawned from the blood of Judah only because scripture and logic say he must have been.

Here it is sometimes claimed that the author is saying Jesus had parents from the tribe of Judah and therefore was a historical man. But what this author is actually saying is that it was 'foretold' [prodelos] that the Christ would be of the tribe of Judah (being 'of the sperm of David', as it is put in Romans: see §4 above and §9 below), and a change of order theologically required a transfer of the priesthood from one tribe to another, and the scrip­tures said such a transfer had occurred. The author therefore is not work­ing from historical information, but scripture and logic. This is therefore just another reference to the Christ being formed 'of the sperm of David' as scripture required. 51 He is thus explaining how a Davidic messiah can be a celestial high priest. Whether this entails historicity or not therefore depends on whether such a belief (that a celestial Christ donned a body formed from the sperm of David) is any less probable on minimal mythi­cism, which question I shall examine later (in §9). In contrast to obscurely ambiguous and indirect remarks like this, when we expect more concrete references to Jesus' life story and eyewitness testament to it, we get none (just as we get no quotations from Jesus, ever, except as derived from scripture). (pages 549-50)

Carrier's argument hangs on two things: (1) his Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory and (2) that the author is working from 'scripture and logic' and not from 'historical information'.

I've discussed Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory in an earlier video and I see it as bad apologetics. It's a contrived solution that early Christians apparently weren't aware of, even though it would have been useful in connecting Jesus directly to David, instead of the Gospels having Joseph the descendant of David but ending up not related to Jesus anyway.

With regards to the author 'working from scriptures': I hope by now everyone can see that early Christians saw the Hebrew Scriptures as important in showing that Jesus was Christ. I agree that this is not 'historical information', but nevertheless the natural reading suggests an earthly Jesus.

Carrier's view of Point 3: Jesus appearing a second time

Carrier writes:

The author says that to perform his sacrifice Jesus 'once and for all, at the end of the ages, appeared (phaneroo] in order to put away sin by sacrific­ing himself (Heb. 9.26}, the verb here being a common term for divine revelations and manifestations (it actually means 'make known, make clear, reveal'). Then he 'shall appear [optanomai] a second time' (9.28), this time a verb of more concrete seeing-so we will observe his next arrival with our eyes. This is exactly in accord with minimal mythicism, whereby Jesus 'appeared' the first time in revelations to communicate that he had just performed this sacrifice (1 Cor. 15.3-8), and then will 'appear' a second time, more concretely in the very air above us, at the end of the world (1 Thess. 4.16-17). Likewise that Jesus had a 'body' to sacrifice, from which could pour 'blood', is exactly what minimal mythicism entails: he assumed a body of flesh in the sub lunar firmament so that it could be killed, then returned to the upper heavens from whence he came. Exactly as the Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus did, and just like what many believed happened to Osiris (Elements 14 and 31). (page 544)

I'm not sure of Carrier's logic here. If Jesus will appear [optanomai, "a verb of more concrete seeing"] a second time, then the implication is that he appeared [i.e an equivalent to 'optanomai'] the first time. Furthermore, I can't see Carrier's reading that Jesus' first appearance was in revelations 'to communicate that he had just performed this sacrifice'. If we look at the text, he wasn't communicating that he'd just performed the sacrifice, he was manifesting in order to put away sin by actually sacrificing himself:

Heb 9.26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared [phaneroo] to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear [optanomai] the second time without sin unto salvation.

Carrier is reading into the text that Jesus' first appearance was to communicate that he'd just performed his sacrifice.

Carrier's view of Point 4: Jesus entering into heaven ("ouranos")

Carrier writes:

The gospel repeatedly emphasized throughout the book of Hebrews is that 'Jesus the Son of God is the great high priest who has passed through the heavens' (Heb. 4.14; see also 6.19-20, in reference to the account in Heb. 5; etc.). You might notice that that sounds exactly like the celestial high priest named Jesus in early Jewish theology (Element 40) undertak­ing the very task described for the celestial Jesus in the Ascension of Isaiah (Chapter 3, § 1). We saw that in the earliest discernible redaction of the latter, the Jesus who passes through the heavens dies in outer space, in the sublunar heaven, not on earth. (page 540-1)

As I explained in an earlier video, Jesus doesn't die in 'outer space' in the Ascension of Isaiah. In all extant versions Jesus makes it to earth without dying. Carrier has created a redacted version but never shows what redactions and text changes he has made in order to explain exactly how Jesus was supposed to die in the firmament. But what the Ascension of Isaiah does do is be very explicit about naming each level of ascension.

In the Book of Hebrews there is only the earth and the heavens (Heb 1.10). Jesus is the high priest who has passed into the heavens (Heb 4.14). He has entered 'into heaven itself' (Heb 9.24) While this doesn't automatically mean the starting point is earth, taken into consideration with the other passages I've gone through already, I'd say it was a fair reading that Jesus entering 'into heaven itself' suggests an earthly starting point.

Carrier continues:

Because here we're told that Jesus not only performed his sacrifice in the celestial temple (as in Heb. 9, as we'll see in a moment), but that he had to do so. Otherwise the magic of it wouldn't have worked. (page 541)

Carrier is wrong here. Hebrews doesn't tell us that Jesus performed his sacrifice in the Celestial temple. That would mean that Satan went into the Celestial temple in Heaven itself for Carrier's theory to be correct. That would be unthinkable in those times. Instead, the sacrifice had to have occurred outside heaven. Hebrews tells us that Jesus, after the sacrifice of himself, goes into heaven and takes his blood to sprinkle in the holy places.

Carrier continues:

We're also told that Jesus wasn't ever on earth-instead, he could only have been God's celestial high priest (so as to perform the ultimate sacrifice) if he wasn't on earth. Because 'if he were on earth, he would not be a priest', since earth already has its priests-but Jesus needs to be a priest, in order to mediate the new covenant (Heb. 8.6). (page 541)

I'm puzzled by Carrier's statement "We're also told that Jesus wasn't ever on earth", because in his notes on the movie "The God Who Wasn't There", Carrier wrote:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/NotesOnTGWWT.pdf

(1) If he "had" been on earth he would not be a priest: an ei...an phrase using the imperfect tense is always a present contrafactual (a past contrafactual would call for the aorist). In other words: "So, then, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest..." is the only correct translation. So this is consistent with both interpretations, but present contrafactuals can imply a past-to-present contrafactual, and Doherty's interpretation is still more plausible in context

In other words, how to view what the passage "if he were on earth" means depends on context. I'd suggest that the context indicates that Jesus would not be a priest "if he were on earth" since there are priests that offer gifts according to the law, and Jesus has more excellent gifts to offer now that he has sacrificed himself.

So the passage doesn't tell us explicitly that "Jesus wasn't ever on earth". Carrier himself noted that "if he were on earth" is "the only correct translation". Carrier believes the context supports the view that "Jesus wasn't ever on earth", but as I've argued above, I believe the context is against Carrier here.

Again though, I'd like to stress that I'm arguing that the Book of Hebrews supports an earthly Jesus rather than a historical one.

My Conclusion

The Book of Hebrews arguably portrays God sending Jesus to the oikoumenē on earth, coming from the tribe of Judah, to manifest a first time to people in order to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Jesus then entered into heaven itself to sprinkle his blood in the Holy places. He will appear a second time.

This is not history, it is mythology. It is similar to the "gospel of Augustus" found in the Calendar inscription of Priene. But the natural reading is of an earthly Jesus who was crucified and ascended into heaven itself. It's hard to read into Hebrews the idea of a Jesus who was crucified above the earth, without importing concepts created by Carrier that simply don't reflect early beliefs.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Very nice.

Probably what becomes a "broken record" comment after a while: conditional independence skepticism:

Once Carrier assesses his prior on the basis that the character Jesus was written up in one heroic mode (e.g. the "kingly hero" model-archetype of Rank-Raglan), then it is less surprising that Jesus would also be written up in a different hero mode (e.g. Melchizedek-style priest) at about the same time. The two observations seem not to be conditionally independent. This instance is not as bad as using the same datum twice, but it is using related data without any allowance for their relationship.

Maybe it comes up so much because so much of the power of the Bayesian and nearly Bayesian methods is the power to represent conditional dependence easily.

Not a criticism of your presentation, just a reaction from a nerd.

[GakuseiDon]

Probably what becomes a "broken record" comment after a while: conditional independence skepticism:

Once Carrier assesses his prior on the basis that the character Jesus was written up in one heroic mode (e.g. the "kingly hero" model-archetype of Rank-Raglan), then it is less surprising that Jesus would also be written up in a different hero mode (e.g. Melchizedek-style priest) at about the same time. The two observations seem not to be conditionally independent. This instance is not as bad as using the same datum twice, but it is using related data without any allowance for their relationship.

Aren't they coming from independent sources though? Unless I mistake what you mean, the former is based on the Gospels (a Rank-Raglanified fictional hero), and the latter comes from the Epistles. Since, per my own Historicity theory, the Epistles were based on a "nobody" martyred Jesus, then the observations are looking at two sets of data, and thus conditionally independent. Does that seem reasonable?

Maybe it comes up so much because so much of the power of the Bayesian and nearly Bayesian methods is the power to represent conditional dependence easily.

Not a criticism of your presentation, just a reaction from a nerd.

Any criticism/feedback/reactions from nerds is most welcomed! I've stayed away from the Bayesian analysis side because (1) I know very little about it, (2) my purpose isn't to try to show that my historical Jesus theory scores higher than Carrier's Celestial Jesus theory but to explain and critique all the points that Carrier argues supports mythcism over best odds for historicity, since most people are only aware of key ticket items (like AoI and the Rank-Raglan score). The Bayesian side will look after itself, I suspect.

So your thoughts are, as always, much appreciated!

[Stuart]

CONTRIBUTION TO ODDS: (Note: odds include the use of 'gospel' in canonical letters attributed to Paul)
- Carrier's Best Odds for historicity: 3/5
- Carrier's Worst Odds for historicity: 2/5

I love that he's an odds maker.

[davidmartin]

Hebrews is completely Pauline. It wants Jesus to be born "just enough" to fulfill some role that requires a human body. Jesus dips his toe into the earth then vanishes. This sect can have had no connection to any historical Jesus movement led by an actual Jesus. This is confirmed by Paul's own admissions

The question is, were there such sects?

Sure there were. The NT writers take great pains to ignore, hide, dismiss other earlier sects. They invent new history and in the case of the gospels appropriate material from their opponents in their quest to be the legitimate inheritors of the tradition. All this shows there were prior sects that could have genuine connections to a historical Jesus. All this is mixed up into the canon where the pieces do not fit well together

The problem mythicists have on their plate which I don't envy, is they must themselves ignore all that evidence of a cover up so they can take texts like Hebrews at face value.. then, yes, Jesus did not exist

I suspect that the original Jesus-led movement was very brief and fleeting and that it swiftly morphed and got blended with other theologies floating around at the time. It did not survive the first Roman-Jewish war but had enough initial popularity and interest to get taken over by it's own fringes or new comers and redirected. It's very tricky to glean any information back about these origins.

ML got close but he confused early gnostics of the Philip type for the original Christians causing him to dismiss the messianic Odes as evidence cause the Odes and Thomas are closely related IMO