Carrier - Goodacre conversation on the historicity of Jesus

[Peter Kirby]

In case you missed it in 2012:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130121052 ... 70595c.mp3

Carrier comments on it here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2839

[Peter Kirby]

A bunch of comments went up on Goodacre's blog here:

https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/d ... rrier.html

Earl Doherty for example makes an appearance in the comment section.

[maryhelena]

A bunch of comments went up on Goodacre's blog here:

https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/d ... rrier.html

Earl Doherty for example makes an appearance in the comment section.

A few of my posts to the Goodacre blog re the debate with Carrier.........how time flies.

maryhelena said...

Ben, in reply to Mike Ganatt:

“All you are saying is that you give zero weight to the category of explanation being offered even though you engage in none of it specifically, which isn't all that helpful. What have you said that would lead someone else to think so little of it like you do?”

Maybe stop for a bit here. Perhaps it’s not explanation that the JC historicists are seeking but some reasoning, some logic, some plausibility, for the proposition put forward by some ahistoricists/mythicists that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC.

Ben, bottom line here for the JC historicists is not how you, Carrier or Doherty, are able to provide alternative readings, explanations, of Pauline philosophy/theology. Interpretations are anyone’s game - a Sunday morning game for some doorstep preachers. The bottom line is that the proposition upon which your position rests - that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic type JC - is deemed to be untenable. If your proposition is itself questionable - your argumentation, your explanations, to support it is of little interest. Why expect the JC historicists to go to step 2 when they dispute the validity of step 1? Ergo - debate gets sidelined to trading negative vibes.

If you, or any other ahistoricist/mythicists who support the historicizing of the Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure, want the JC historicists to consider your proposition- then, it’s that proposition that has to be argued. Argued not by throwing interpretations of Pauline philosophy/theology around - but by reason, logic and plausibility. Ben, it’s one thing to argue that the probability of the gospel JC being ahistorical is pretty high - it’s a far different ball game - far removed from arguments of probability - to establish plausibility for your proposition dealing with a historicizing of that Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure. That idea, for the JC historicists, is just not plausible. Now, the ahistoricists/mythicists who uphold this proposition, can bang their heads all day in frustration - but what they need to do is leave their ‘oranges’ at home and approach the JC historicists with what they want - ‘apples’. The JC historicists want arguments based on reality, upon history - not arguments based upon speculation on the Pauline writings.

It’s not good enough for the ahistoricist/mythicist argument to turn one mystical idea, Pauline JC, into another mystical idea; a historicized gospel JC that, supposedly, pulled the wool over the eyes of those early Jewish Christians. i.e. they believed the gospel JC story had no relevance for Jewish history. It was all just a means to an end – an aid to understanding the Pauline cosmic JC. Pauline technicality made user friendly via an easier to understand mythical story set in real time.

If some mythicists have understood mythicism to mean the gospel JC story is completely devoid of any historical relevance, that the gospel story is completely and utterly a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC figure – then they will lose out as far as their theories finding some relevance in the HJ/MJ debate and the search for early christian origins. In other words; debates over the HJ/MJ question will be deadlocked, check-mated, in their opening move - and it’s just downhill from there - as this present exchange is demonstrating.

Yes, Ben, the JC historicists don’t have a historical leg to stand on - but those ahistoricist/mythicists who propose a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure - don’t have one either...

24 December 2012 at 12:53

maryhelena said...
Ben

I missed nothing in that Wikipedia quote. ..”or mythological characters as historical personages” . One big word there that you seem to want to gloss over..”historical”.. The whole thrust of that Wikipedia article is dealing with “History in disguise” - it is not dealing with mythology in disguise i.e. in drag. Before you start waving the euhermerism flag around - get some history on the table.

The proposition that the Pauline cosmic JC figure has been historicized as the gospel JC is what is under question. The proposition is suspect. That this proposition seems to be viewed as being a consequence of an interpretation of the Pauline writing indicates just one thing. And that is that the interpretation of the Pauline writings that have led to this conclusion are in error. Check your premises, as someone once said. If your conclusion lacks plausibility - then check out your interpretation.

Doherty, unfortunately, is unable to help you out here.

Yes, running to step 2 - as though step 2 is going to support your proposition is not logical. How many people were waiting for the end of the world on Friday? And why - because they read some ancient calendar a certain way. And the rest of the world - a few heads being shaken, I would imagine. In other words; people are not going to go running to that ancient Mayan calendar, step 2, the moment they hear the proposition - the world will end on Day X. They have heard it all many times before. However, when someone comes along and says climate change is here - people will look around them and notice, and will have experienced, changes in the weather. They then have a reason, an interest, to look at various theories, step 2, regarding climate change.

Paul and his visions? No denial here - just an acknowledgement that visions are ten a penny - and last only as long as the next big thing comes along. Yes, Paul’s visions, his insights, propelled the early Christian movement forward. That is one thing - but to suppose that the whole NT story is nothing more than one’s man vision winning the Vision Jackpot - is ludicrous. Paul’s insights, his visions, needed to resonate with reality, with historical events, if they ever were to have ‘legs’ upon which to run.

Prove what? That visions are of no consequence to early Christian history? Come now - reality is a far greater taskmaster than any vision by anyone. If some mythicists are running with the idea that Paul won some Battle of the Visions - it’s no wonder that the JC historicists are giving them shortshift...

No, Ben, no tricks are needed here - just some rationality, some logic, some plausibility for that proposition, made by some mythicists, that the Pauline cosmic JC figure has been historicized as the gospel JC figure.

25 December 2012 at 08:06

maryhelena said...
Ben

Well now - that’s a new one for me - “anti-mythicist pull string doll”....

Let me tell you something - I doubt very much that you will come across such a hard core ahistoricist/mythicist than myself...

“ to keep things from moving on...” Ben, I’ve been at this ‘game’ for over 30 years - and I don’t think anyone is near catching up with me yet....haha.....

Actually, I’m not interested in the HJ/MJ debate - one makes ones decision and moves forward from there. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating - so, in this case, it’s where the HJ or the MJ decision can take one that is important.

However, when I see some mythicist repeatedly banging their heads against the HJ camp - I get a headache - and either reach for the keyboard - or more usually - just shake my head. This HJ/MJ debate cannot be won via arguments over the NT. The NT is what it is. If a forward movement is possible in the search for early Christian origins, it will have to come from outside that source.

It’s this debate, the HJ/MJ debate, that is keeping things from moving along....this debate is a quagmire that will devour time and energy that would be better utilized elsewhere.

26 December 2012 at 09:25

[maryhelena]

Richard Carrier's book, Jesus from Outer Space, has been released in Polish and Greek.

My popular market summary of my academic study of Jesus, Jesus from Outer Space, is now available in Greek and Polish translations. Follow the links for details and to buy one. These are not available in the Americas by normal channels, but special ordering at a brick and mortar store might be possible; otherwise, you’re in for overseas shipping. But they are quite affordable in Greece and Poland and I suspect across Europe generally.

Their covers are awesome…

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/27820

[RandyHelzerman]

I remember listening to that debate, and wishing that Dr. Goodacre had prepped more for it. It's a common trap: the outsider waves his flag around, plants it in the ground and challenges all comers......

....and somebody who is an expert in the subject matter--but not an expert in debating--agrees to the debate thinking that it will be quick work dismissing such an obviously bogus position. Only to run into a buzz-saw. I was disappointed and thought that Carrier handily won the debate--even though I'm not impressed at all with Carrier's "research."

Its like when Michio Kaku debates mainstream physicists about string theory, or William Lane Craig debates somebody on the resurrection. Or even when Michael Bloomberg--genius billionaire businessman and 3 time mayor of New York City, thought he could just saunter onto the presidential debates and show them what's what. Forget it. Debating is a skill set all its own, and a good debater can make anybody look bad.

[Peter Kirby]

I was disappointed and thought that Carrier handily won the debate

How so?

[RandyHelzerman]

How so?

Well, it was a long time ago, so I don't remember specifically.....I just remembered, at the end of the debate, that somebody who spends their entire professional life studying the gospels, trained at and working at the best universities in the world should have left no doubt in my mind whether the central figure in the literature he studied actually existed or not. He should have been able to snap Carrier like a twig. He did not.

[Peter Kirby]

How so?

Well, it was a long time ago, so I don't remember specifically.....I just remembered, at the end of the debate, that somebody who spends their entire professional life studying the gospels, trained at and working at the best universities in the world should have left no doubt in my mind whether the central figure in the literature he studied actually existed or not. He should have been able to snap Carrier like a twig. He did not.

It's the nature of the subject. If you want to see people snapped like a twig, try scripted professional wrestling. We underestimate how delicate-sounding the underlying arguments for a reasoned probability* could sound, in many cases, if met with a sufficiently informed, intelligent, and insistent opponent.

Indeed, I don't know how anyone explains the state of the field without assuming widespread interest and widespread willfulness that often produces elaborate defenses of positions intuited a priori or just eventually sinking to the level of one's own bias, however high-minded the endeavor began.

* Not meant to provoke. Feel free to interpret this as whatever is considered to be such.

[JarekS]

The greatest enemies are the internal enemies in your own camp. The external enemy is the reason for our ennoblement and glory. The enemy within is the cause of our shame.
Carrier probably does not know that he is offering and developing "communist mythicism", which was the official historical policy in my country for 45 years. It is based on cultural syncretism and the alleged cult of the divine Jesus preceding the Christianity of the historical Jesus. It was created in the 19th century by William Benjamin Sith, Arthur Drews and Frederick Engels.
I prefer the approach of the late pastor from the Old March, Hermann Detering, whom Carrier constantly criticizes

[Giuseppe]

I prefer the approach of the late pastor from the Old March, Hermann Detering, whom Carrier constantly criticizes

in his last book, Detering argues for a pre-Christian cult of Jesus too.

The problem, if you move the epistles in the second century, is that there is a total fifty-fifty between historicity and mythicism. This is evident from the fact that Detering deigned himself to review the Lena Einhorn's book, hence showing tolerance to the possibility that the historical Jesus existed. A tolerance that is prohibited by Carrier insofar the epistles are placed in the first century, before the 70 CE.