Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Just wondering. My copy is still in the mail somewhere.

Not yet... but I've been waiting for it like Harold Camping in May

Tenorikuma wrote:Just wondering. My copy is still in the mail somewhere.

amazon UK are not mailing yet.

"Usually dispatched within 1 to 4 weeks."

I ordered it a week ago from bookdepository.com but it hasn't arrived yet. I live in Australia, so my guess is another week or so. I ordered Richard Bauckham's "Jesus & the Eyewitnesses" along with it - I'm assuming the only similarity between these two authors will be their first name haha! To be honest, I'm not expecting much from Carrier's book. For me he raises important questions for those who accept or lean toward historicity (as I do), but I haven't seen any indication from various interviews and blogposts of his that his positive argument for mythicism (his 'heavenly being crucified in the lower heavens' hypothesis) is any less speculative. But we'll see...

Loren Rosson has.
See http://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/24 ... -theories/

toejam wrote:I ordered it a week ago from bookdepository.com but it hasn't arrived yet. I live in Australia, so my guess is another week or so. I ordered Richard Bauckham's "Jesus & the Eyewitnesses" along with it - I'm assuming the only similarity between these two authors will be their first name haha! To be honest, I'm not expecting much from Carrier's book. For me he raises important questions for those who accept or lean toward historicity (as I do), but I haven't seen any indication that his positive argument for mythicism (his 'heavenly being crucified in the lower heavens' hypothesis) is any less speculative. But we'll see...

I think you right re not expecting much from Carrier's book...Knocking down, or re Carrier, casting doubts, on the claimed historicity of Jesus is one thing. It's another thing altogether to present the Carrier/Doherty mythicist arguments as being some kind of positive replacement for the historicist gospel Jesus position. As I've said so many times, there are two issues here not one. ie the gospel Jesus story has to be interpreted through, via, Hasmonean/Jewish history - not Pauline eyeglasses. Make of the Pauline writings what one wants - it's open season on 'Paul'. It's a closed season re the gospel Jesus story. ie that story deals with history and can't be subjected to Pauline theology or philosophy.

That aside, I'll be ordering Carrier's book.....

stevencarrwork wrote:Loren Rosson has.
See http://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/24 ... -theories/

Wow....just had a quick look at this link....

Re Carrier:


"As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation".

It is this very premise that is the downfall of the Carrier/Doherty ahistoricit/mythicist position.

Any debate over the historicity or ahistoricity of the gospel Jesus figure that holds that "as evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation" is shooting itself in the foot.

Why don't you wait until you can read his full argument instead of judging it by a single sentence?

I suspect his argument is something like "the characteristics of the Gospels are such that a mythical figure is just as likely implied as a historical one", and thus they don't directly factor into his Bayesian equation. Which is not at all an absurd position even if you disagree with it.

Personally, I think it's a fairly generous position. Given only the evidence of the Gospels, I would think a mythical character is more likely.

At any rate, I await the book with great interest.

^The gospels are 2nd and 3rd generation Christians writing their foundation history in the most rosy way possible. I don't think it's as easy as prematurely dismissing them as pure myth. Are they full of propaganda and developing legend? Of course! But does that mean we write them off completely? I see the gospels as something similar to the "biography" of L.Ron Hubbard on the official scientology website. They're idealised / stylised portraits. Not pure myth. At least that seems to me to be the best box to put them in.

Tenorikuma wrote:Why don't you wait until you can read his full argument instead of judging it by a single sentence?

I often read reviews before I buy a book - slipped up with the Casey book though - to my shame.....

I suspect his argument is something like "the characteristics of the Gospels are such that a mythical figure is just as likely implied as a historical one", and thus they don't directly factor into his Bayesian equation. Which is not at all an absurd position even if you disagree with it.

I'll rephrase that: "the characteristics of the Gospels are such that a composite figure is just as likely implied as a historical one". See the difference? One position, the composite figure position, allows for historical figures to be reflected within that literary gospel figure. The other position in your statement, the 'mythical' position', relies on imagination or speculation. One position, the composite figure, has potential to open up the search for early christian origins. ie it seeks to deal with historical realities. The 'mythical', re Carrier's above quote, finds the gospel story makes no difference to 'the equation'.

Personally, I think it's a fairly generous position. Given only the evidence of the Gospels, I would think a mythical character is more likely.

The evidence of the Gospels is that it's literary Jesus figure is a composite figure. (A zealot like figure combined with a man of peace type figure - turn the other cheek plus sell your cloak and buy a sword) A composite figure reflecting historical figures of interest to the gospel writers. This position necessitates that priority be given to the gospel story in the debate over historicity or ahistoricity. Richard Carrier nothwithstanding....

“As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation.”

At any rate, I await the book with great interest.

Likewise....