Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Boxing Pythagoras
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:42 am

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Boxing Pythagoras »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:07 am For the gospel Jesus to be the result of euhemerization - ie. the result of anthropomorphization of a celestial figure - does not require
  1. that pre-euhemerized figure to have been called Jesus, or
  2. that figure to have been pre-Christian, either fully or partially (though that is possible)
    • eta: ie. there may have been a period of early Christianity that espoused a celestial figure, whatever his/it's name
I agree.

However, Dr. Carrier's hypothesis (at least, the one being addressed in my article) is explicitly that the gospels Euhemerize a pre-Christian celestial figure named Jesus. If one wants to propose and support a less specific hypothesis, one is certainly free to do so. However, that's a completely different case to the one at which my comments were directed, and therefore irrelevant.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Carrier versus Hurtado about what there was in the mind of Philo

Post by Giuseppe »

Here I explain what are the two errors of prof Hurtado:


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3699#p79634
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply