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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

The gate may simply be the gate of the camp: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1484. "Outside the gate" may mean no more than "outside the camp," with "outside the gate" being chosen simply to break up the monotony of repeating "outside the camp" three times in quick succession:

Hebrews 13.11-13: 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.

It is always possible that the author is relying upon his knowledge, whether true or false, of a crucifixion outside the gates of Jerusalem to inform his wording here, but I am not sure this is something we have to conclude.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

So Couchoud (note the difference from Carrier/Doherty even sharing the same general conclusion about where Jesus was crucified):

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews considers the Crucifixion, which is at the same time the priestly sacrifice, as taking place in heaven. Since expiatory victims had to be burned without the camp (Heb. xiii. 11), Jesus suffered without the gate—i.e., not in this world. “Let us go forth unto him without the camp . . . for here we have no continuing city” (xiii. 13-14). Here is the earth. Jesus suffered in the flesh, but not on earth.

(Creation of Christ, p. 122)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 3:23 pm
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 ---
That's very interesting indeed...

... 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?
I think Isaiah was there all along --- right from the beginning --- the original source of a great deal of the "knowledge" about a Jesus Christ . See Paul and Mark.

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:23 pm ... Does this suggest that the author didn't believe that Peter was an eye-witness to the suffering of Christ?
We have what the NT authors wrote (or at least what has come down to us). We can analyze what they were promoting.

But to determine what they actually believed --- well, that is something else entirely. That is a much more difficult task and necessarily rife with assumptions.

More than Peter as an "eye-witness to the suffering of Christ", one seems to find in the letter the Pauline Peter that "saw" the death of Jesus Christ "according to the scriptures".

n.b. The English "eyewitness" comes from 2 Peter (1:16) --- and that in my opinion and in the context the result of an imprecise and misleading translation of the Greek ἐπόπται. In 1 Peter 5:1, the term (μάρτυς) in English is "witness" --- and the only evidence about the events of Jesus Christ offered by this "witness" writing in the name of Peter consists of references to the Jewish scriptures.
Last edited by robert j on Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

Papist wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:18 am
Papist wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:13 am
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)

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!
Right, we do not know why the author of 1 Peter, writing in the name of Peter, did not mention any events of Jesus specific to the early 1st C. in Judea.

I think the letter tells us much more about what the author thought the target audience would relate to, rather than the actual doctrinal beliefs of the author. The letter is addressed to groups in Asia Minor --- Pauline territory. And the flavor of the letter is distinctly in-line with the Paulines and the Pastorals.

I think the author --- regardless of his personal belief system --- was writing what he thought would appeal to his target audience.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:56 am So Couchoud (note the difference from Carrier/Doherty even sharing the same general conclusion about where Jesus was crucified):

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews considers the Crucifixion, which is at the same time the priestly sacrifice, as taking place in heaven. Since expiatory victims had to be burned without the camp (Heb. xiii. 11), Jesus suffered without the gate—i.e., not in this world. “Let us go forth unto him without the camp . . . for here we have no continuing city” (xiii. 13-14). Here is the earth. Jesus suffered in the flesh, but not on earth.

(Creation of Christ, p. 122)
Nice quote. Thanks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply