New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by Peter Kirby »

Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm Just joined the Early Writings forum after reading it for months, and as you can tell by my username, I am a Catholic! But a reasonable one!
Welcome to the forum! :)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by robert j »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm1 Peter is “historicist, Ha!” because the writer who of course claims to be Peter says he witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and 2:21-23.
I think that even mythicists generally regard 1 Peter as 'historicist'. But why are the references so vague, then? Why not give concrete times and places? 1 Peter has Peter as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ". Regardless of whether the author is the apostle Peter or a forger pretending to be the apostle Peter: why not give more details indicating historicity? Doesn't this lack of overt references to an earthly Jesus support a non-historical Jesus?
The author of 1 Peter claimed to be a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). But yet, the ‘evidence’ for the events and sufferings of the Christ in 1 Peter consist entirely of references to the Jewish scriptures.

And verses 2:21-23 do not support a claim that the author of 1 Peter directly witnessed the earthly events of Jesus --- but rather these verses clearly demonstrate Isaiah as the source for these concepts ---

1 Peter 2:21-25 Isaiah 53 (LXX)
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps, (2:21)
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. (2:22)He did not commit lawlessness nor was treachery in his mouth (53:9)
When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. (2:23)He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth. (53:7)
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His stripes you are healed. (2:24)This one bears our sins, and is grieved for us … (53:4)

… by his stripe we were healed. (53:5)
For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (2:25)All we as sheep have gone astray … (53:6)

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by DCHindley »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pmHebrews I don’t believe helps the Mythicist thesis because of the gate reference, Jesus being from Judah,days of flesh and supplication of prayers, etc.
How do general references to a "gate" (what gate? where?),
"days of flesh" (where?) and
"supplication of prayers" (can't this be done in a place that is not on earth?) be against mythicism?
I think he's making reference to talk in Hebrews about Jesus having existed on this good ol' earth:
"11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood." (13:11-12)
"In the days of his flesh Jesus offered up prayers and supplications ..." (5:7)

That all sounds pretty earthy to me, GakuseiDon. Are you suggesting that references to burning of the bodies of sacrificed animals is figurative, or that the gate outside which he suffered was a spiritual gate? The analogy doesn't seem to make much sense to me if so. More "make our own reality" here. We get enough of that here in the USA with the folks who honestly think Donald Trump is Jesus Christ returned for his 2nd coming!*

DCH

* Matthew 7:22 On that [actual] day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

Luke 13:27 But he will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!'
28 There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by GakuseiDon »

robert j wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:58 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm1 Peter is “historicist, Ha!” because the writer who of course claims to be Peter says he witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and 2:21-23.
I think that even mythicists generally regard 1 Peter as 'historicist'. But why are the references so vague, then? Why not give concrete times and places? 1 Peter has Peter as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ". Regardless of whether the author is the apostle Peter or a forger pretending to be the apostle Peter: why not give more details indicating historicity? Doesn't this lack of overt references to an earthly Jesus support a non-historical Jesus?
The author of 1 Peter claimed to be a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). But yet, the ‘evidence’ for the events and sufferings of the Christ in 1 Peter consist entirely of references to the Jewish scriptures.

And verses 2:21-23 do not support a claim that the author of 1 Peter directly witnessed the earthly events of Jesus --- but rather these verses clearly demonstrate Isaiah as the source for these concepts ---
That's very interesting indeed. What do you make of that? Does this suggest that the author didn't believe that Peter was an eye-witness to the suffering of Christ? Or if it is to show Peter was an actual eye-witness, why frame it to match Isaiah? How would this set expectations when we see Isaiah and other passages from the OT being used in the same way in early Christian writings?
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by GakuseiDon »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:25 pmThat all sounds pretty earthy to me, GakuseiDon. Are you suggesting that references to burning of the bodies of sacrificed animals is figurative, or that the gate outside which he suffered was a spiritual gate?
No, I agree it all sounds 'earthly' in Hebrews to me also. Just playing devil's advocate there. Hopefully it highlights the fact that some mythicists see 1 Peter and some other NT texts as 'historicists', despite the lack of clear detailed markers of times and places, which parallel what we see in the texts that the same mythicists mark as 'mythicist' texts.

On the question of 'gate' and other similar vague references: I have to wonder who the audience is that the author is writing to. Is it Hebrew Scriptures aware Jewish Christians? God-fearing pagans? I mean, what does the reader take away from the word 'gate'? "Oh, gate! Of course, 'gate'! I get it!! That all makes sense now!" I only understood its significance to Jewish practices of sacrifice because I read someone more knowledgeable than myself's explanation of it. All of the NT letters come across as kind of coded, deliberately made vague, with the apparent expectation that the audience would understand. I don't find that surprising now, since there are so many examples of early writings where this happens that it isn't unexpected. But I still don't understand it.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by MrMacSon »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm1 Peter is “historicist, Ha!” because the writer who of course claims to be Peter says he witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and 2:21-23.
I think that even mythicists generally regard 1 Peter as 'historicist'. But why are the references so vague, then? Why not give concrete times and places? 1 Peter has Peter as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ". Regardless of whether the author is the apostle Peter or a forger pretending to be the apostle Peter: why not give more details indicating historicity? Doesn't this lack of overt references to an earthly Jesus support a non-historical Jesus?
robert j wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:58 pm
The author of 1 Peter claimed to be a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). But yet, the ‘evidence’ for the events and sufferings of the Christ in 1 Peter consist entirely of references to the Jewish scriptures.

And verses 2:21-23 do not support a claim that the author of 1 Peter directly witnessed the earthly events of Jesus --- but rather these verses clearly demonstrate Isaiah as the source for these concepts ---

1 Peter 2:21-25
Isaiah 53 (LXX)
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps, (2:21)
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. (2:22)He did not commit lawlessness nor was treachery in his mouth (53:9)
When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. (2:23)He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth. (53:7)
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His stripes you are healed. (2:24)This one bears our sins, and is grieved for us … (53:4)

… by his stripe we were healed. (53:5)
For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (2:25)All we as sheep have gone astray … (53:6)


1 Peter 2:18-25
Mark 10
House servants, obey masters (2:18) Be servants, not lords (Mk 10:42b-43a)
Accepting undeserved punishment, as did Christ (2:19-21a) Being the slave of all, like the Son of Humanity (10:43b-45)
Follow His footsteps (2:21b)Following Jesus, amazed and afraid (10:32a)
Christ's suffering: looking back (2:22-24)Looking forward: to Christ's coming suffering (10:32b-34)
Straying sheep return to the shepherd (2:25)Jesus rebuffs James and John, and calls all the disciples to be servants (10:31-45)

modified from Brodie (2004) The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the NT Writings, p. 190.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Papist
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by Papist »

robert j wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:58 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm1 Peter is “historicist, Ha!” because the writer who of course claims to be Peter says he witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and 2:21-23.
I think that even mythicists generally regard 1 Peter as 'historicist'. But why are the references so vague, then? Why not give concrete times and places? 1 Peter has Peter as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ". Regardless of whether the author is the apostle Peter or a forger pretending to be the apostle Peter: why not give more details indicating historicity? Doesn't this lack of overt references to an earthly Jesus support a non-historical Jesus?
The author of 1 Peter claimed to be a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). But yet, the ‘evidence’ for the events and sufferings of the Christ in 1 Peter consist entirely of references to the Jewish scriptures.

And verses 2:21-23 do not support a claim that the author of 1 Peter directly witnessed the earthly events of Jesus --- but rather these verses clearly demonstrate Isaiah as the source for these concepts ---

1 Peter 2:21-25 Isaiah 53 (LXX)
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps, (2:21)
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. (2:22)He did not commit lawlessness nor was treachery in his mouth (53:9)
When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. (2:23)He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth. (53:7)
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His stripes you are healed. (2:24)This one bears our sins, and is grieved for us … (53:4)

… by his stripe we were healed. (53:5)
For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (2:25)All we as sheep have gone astray … (53:6)

And this is probably because Peter didn’t write 1 Peter!
Papist
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by Papist »

Papist wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:13 am
robert j wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:58 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:32 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:03 pm1 Peter is “historicist, Ha!” because the writer who of course claims to be Peter says he witnessed Jesus’ sufferings and 2:21-23.
I think that even mythicists generally regard 1 Peter as 'historicist'. But why are the references so vague, then? Why not give concrete times and places? 1 Peter has Peter as "a witness of the sufferings of Christ". Regardless of whether the author is the apostle Peter or a forger pretending to be the apostle Peter: why not give more details indicating historicity? Doesn't this lack of overt references to an earthly Jesus support a non-historical Jesus?
The author of 1 Peter claimed to be a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). But yet, the ‘evidence’ for the events and sufferings of the Christ in 1 Peter consist entirely of references to the Jewish scriptures.

And verses 2:21-23 do not support a claim that the author of 1 Peter directly witnessed the earthly events of Jesus --- but rather these verses clearly demonstrate Isaiah as the source for these concepts ---

1 Peter 2:21-25 Isaiah 53 (LXX)
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps, (2:21)
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. (2:22)He did not commit lawlessness nor was treachery in his mouth (53:9)
When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. (2:23)He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn’t open his mouth. (53:7)
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His stripes you are healed. (2:24)This one bears our sins, and is grieved for us … (53:4)

… by his stripe we were healed. (53:5)
For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (2:25)All we as sheep have gone astray … (53:6)

And this is probably because Peter didn’t write 1 Peter!
And further, I think whoever wrote 1 Peter maybe just wanted to draw off the Scriptures ?
We don’t know why he didn’t talk about Pontius Pilate or the Sanhedrin, but I don’t think that means he didn’t know about it!
Papist
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by Papist »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:53 am
Papist wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:07 pm Oh also I think ephesians 2:17 shows an obvious reference to Jesus on earth!
on the earth but by revelation for few apostles and only them. After the resurrection.
Maybe if he said “preached to us the Apostles” but he’s talking about Jews here. I think you’re reading your mythicist claims into it!
Papist
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:17 pm

Re: New Testament -- which are the mythicist texts? Analysis of Carrier OHJ

Post by Papist »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:38 pm
DCHindley wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:25 pmThat all sounds pretty earthy to me, GakuseiDon. Are you suggesting that references to burning of the bodies of sacrificed animals is figurative, or that the gate outside which he suffered was a spiritual gate?
No, I agree it all sounds 'earthly' in Hebrews to me also. Just playing devil's advocate there. Hopefully it highlights the fact that some mythicists see 1 Peter and some other NT texts as 'historicists', despite the lack of clear detailed markers of times and places, which parallel what we see in the texts that the same mythicists mark as 'mythicist' texts.

On the question of 'gate' and other similar vague references: I have to wonder who the audience is that the author is writing to. Is it Hebrew Scriptures aware Jewish Christians? God-fearing pagans? I mean, what does the reader take away from the word 'gate'? "Oh, gate! Of course, 'gate'! I get it!! That all makes sense now!" I only understood its significance to Jewish practices of sacrifice because I read someone more knowledgeable than myself's explanation of it. All of the NT letters come across as kind of coded, deliberately made vague, with the apparent expectation that the audience would understand. I don't find that surprising now, since there are so many examples of early writings where this happens that it isn't unexpected. But I still don't understand it.
The gate seems to be a reference to Leviticus 4 as you imply. But Hebrews is extremely sophisticated. I don’t know who he’s writing too, maybe a few smart Jews?, but also I think more Jews were extremely knowledgeable about their religion, scriptures, and practices! That’s all they had
Post Reply