Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.
Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
-
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Even if he is a believer that shouldn't matter in an intelligent, civil discussion. The facts are the facts.
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Hi Stephan,Stephan Huller wrote:Even if he is a believer that shouldn't matter in an intelligent, civil discussion. The facts are the facts.
That's true.
I guess I have trouble understanding those who look at the Pauline letters and think "obviously Paul was talking about the historical Jesus as portrayed literally in the canonical gospel stories".
I.e., literalism as a default stance regarding the gospel stories is what I don't comprehend as a nay-saying skeptical gadfly.
Cheers,
Theo
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Nope. I'm agnostic atheist. Judge away...theomise wrote:Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.
And for the record: I never said it was "obvious" that Paul was talking about a historical Jesus. I said there was enough earthly references in the letters to pick up the implication - particularly if we're allowed to use later early Christian sources to help us interpret them, as Carrier says we are allowed to do in the quote I supplied. And while it's true that my current best guess as to how Christianity originated includes a historical crucified Jewish cult-leader, that is a far cry from taking the gospels as reliable biographies. I tend to side with the mainstream view of Jesus being something of a failed apocalyptic prophet.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Hi toejam - no worries, just wanted to check...toejam wrote:Nope. I'm agnostic atheist. Judge away...theomise wrote:Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.
And for the record: I never said it was "obvious" that Paul was talking about a historical Jesus. I said there was enough earthly references in the letters to pick up the implication - particularly if we're allowed to use later early Christian sources to help us interpret them, as Carrier says we are allowed to do in the quote I supplied. And while it's true that my current best guess as to how Christianity originated includes a historical crucified Jewish cult-leader, that is a far cry from taking the gospels as reliable biographies. I tend to side with the mainstream view of Jesus being something of a failed apocalyptic prophet.
So, are we talking about the language that Paul DID seem to use (and take for granted), or language that Paul 'failed' to use (that 'historicists' are keen to interpolate)?
Theo
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
- Location: memoriae damnatio
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
What does Carrier have to say about the source labelled "Eusebius"?
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
I have no desire to go back and forth over the same quotes that we all argue over time and time again. Bernard Muller has put together a list that I'm mostly in agreement with (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=30 - there's a few I might add, and a few I'd take away, but you get gist). My point is simply that it cuts both ways - if Carrier sees that it's fine to use the post-Paul Christian writings to help us interpret Paul, as is the implication in the quote, then I'm all for that. But that is what he's always criticising historicists for doing. I detect some inconsistency in his rules as to what sources can be used and how for this technique. But I don't want to overstress it. The quote I pulled out made me chuckle because it's almost word-for-word the same thing historicists say in reply to the "problem" of Paul's lack of historical Jesus material.theomise wrote:So, are we talking about the language that Paul DID seem to use (and take for granted), or language that Paul 'failed' to use (that 'historicists' are keen to interpolate)?
For me, the view that makes the most sense out of Paul's letters is that he thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel of somesort who had himself incarnated here on Earth, "born of a woman under the law" etc., and it was this double-whammy of being angelic but 'one of us' that opened the door for human salvation. I just don't see how Carrier's proposed Pauline theology works if Paul thought Jesus was crucified somewhere else other than here - i.e. how that would affect humanity down here.
Not a whole lot from what I've read so far (about 1/2 way through now).Leucius Charinus wrote:What does Carrier have to say about the source labelled "Eusebius"?
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
On this post, I made some additions on that list:I have no desire to go back and forth over the same quotes that we all argue over time and time again. Bernard Muller has put together a list that I'm mostly in agreement with (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=30 -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&p=14401&hilit=worldly#p14401
And here, I spelled out in a few words, the historical Jesus: No need to be afraid of him, fellow atheists and non-Christians!
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
Interesting comment on amazon - is Carrier's book too scholarly for lay readers? Paul Doland seems to have expected something like a Bart Ehrman book.
Oh, Doland gives the book 4 stars.
Carrier does say, in the Preface:Aimed at skeptical scholarly audience
By Paul Doland on July 8, 2014
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I'm one of the donors for the book. I'm the second name in the list of credits to the donors. When the project was first discussed, what I was thinking would come out of the effort would be a book aimed a at lay audience, something like a Bart Ehman book. This book won't have the mass market appeal that Ehrman has managed to build. At approaching 700 pages, it seems to overwhelm the lay reader.
http://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus ... y+of+jesus
I think I would agree with Paul Doland - the book is going to be overwhelming to the lay reader. Unless one has a considerable grounding in the historicist verse mythicist arguments the book is not going to be an easy read. It's nice to think that Carrier wants to give a lay audience something that is not 'talking down' to them - but I am wondering if the Ehrman approach of two types of writing/books is not a surer method of success for ones ideas. I'm thinking the book is not so much a 'book' as a resource - which is actually the reason I bought it!Though this is a work of careful scholarship, the nature of its aims and funding necessitate a style that is approachable to both experts and laymen. By the requirements of my grant, I am writing as much for my benefactors as my fellow scholars. But there is a more fundamental reason for my frequent use of contractions, slang, verbs in the first person, and other supposed taboos: it is how I believe historians should speak and write. Historians have an obligation to reach wider audiences with a style more attractive and intelligible to ordinary people.
Oh, Doland gives the book 4 stars.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
W.B. Yeats
Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?
it was probably also the "double-whammy of being angelic, but 'one of us' " that opened the door for the Pauline texts to be included in the Canon.toejam wrote: For me, the view that makes the most sense out of Paul's letters is that he thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel of some-sort who had himself incarnated here on Earth, "born of a woman under the law" etc., and it was this double-whammy of being angelic, but 'one of us', that opened the door for human salvation.
Sacrifice & Salvation were key Jewish tenets, and were key features of the theologies developing out of and around Judaism at the time.
It's more how it would have affected the communities at the time?toejam wrote:I just don't see how Carrier's proposed Pauline theology works if Paul thought Jesus was crucified somewhere else other than here - i.e. how that would affect humanity down here.