Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.

Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.

Even if he is a believer that shouldn't matter in an intelligent, civil discussion. The facts are the facts.

Stephan Huller wrote:Even if he is a believer that shouldn't matter in an intelligent, civil discussion. The facts are the facts.

Hi Stephan,
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

theomise wrote:

toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.

Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.

Nope. I'm agnostic atheist. Judge away...

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.

toejam wrote:

theomise wrote:

toejam wrote:^But why should he? There are enough earthly Jesus references scattered here and there in his letters to pick up the implication.

Apologies for my ignorance, but are you a Christian 'true believer'? ...Don't want to offend you with my vulgarly secular, skeptical judgments.

Nope. I'm agnostic atheist. Judge away...

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.

Hi toejam - no worries, just wanted to check...

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

What does Carrier have to say about the source labelled "Eusebius"?

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)?

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.

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.

Leucius Charinus wrote:What does Carrier have to say about the source labelled "Eusebius"?

Not a whole lot from what I've read so far (about 1/2 way through now).

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 -

On this post, I made some additions on that list:
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

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.

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

Carrier does say, in the Preface:

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.

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!

Oh, Doland gives the book 4 stars.

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.

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.

Sacrifice & Salvation were key Jewish tenets, and were key features of the theologies developing out of and around Judaism 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.

It's more how it would have affected the communities at the time?