The Historical Jesus III

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's you who haven't read the story. After Gamaliel defended them (so goes the story) were they convicted of blasphemy and imprisoned or killed? No they were beaten and released. Why were they treated with such leniency? Because (so goes the story) Gamaliel had reminded the Sanhedrin that such people might be "of God".

You have exposed your own fallaccies. You have trapped yourself.

The story in Acts 5 does not state that the disciples were messianic.

The story in Acts 5 shows that the disciples were arrested because they preached about JESUS the Christ, the Son of God and counsel was taken to kill them..

Acts 5
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obey God rather than men.

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

You obviously did not read or did not understand what you read.

It is the Jesus character that is regarded as the Messiah in Acts--NOT the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
...Well Carrier suggests in some circles 'some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory.' (Element 5 pp. 73-81) pointing to Daniel 9.2; 9.24-27 cf. 12.1-13 and several other works to back this claim up.

Your statement is void of logic.

A Messianic ruler MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE to be considered the prophesied Messianic ruler.


maximara said:
This brings up several of the points Carrier gives us that blows holes in dejudge position:

Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.

Assumptions are worthless at this time. Please state when Christianity began and provide the evidence.

Element 2 has imploded due to lack of evidence.


maximara said:
Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

Up to this day the Jews still expect their Messianic ruler.

Element 3 (a) is of no real value.

When the Mormon religion began Jews had been long expecting a messiah.

maximara said:
(b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.

Up to this very day Jews still expect a PHYSICAL Jewish Messianic ruler.

Please tell us how human beings would know when the "spiritual" messiah won the "spiritual" battle with "spiritual" enemies?

Element 3 (b) makes no sense to human beings.

maximara said:
(c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Jewish messianic expectations are still among the Jews up to this very day but no-one you listed has claimed to be the Jewish Messianic ruler.

Element 3(c) does not help your argument at all.

maximara said:
Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.

You have ZERO evidence that Jews were claiming to be the Messianic ruler in the early 1st century.

No existing manuscripts of the DSS, Philo or Josephus support such a claim.

Element 4 is unevidenced.

maximara said:
Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Again, one MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE before you can be considered the Messianic Ruler.

If one is KILLED BEFORE becoming the Messianic ruler then it is obvious one was NOT.

Element 5 is useless.

maximara said:
Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.

The writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius do state that Jews expected their prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler around c 70 CE.

You obviously cannot present a shred of evidence to support your claims in element 8.

maximara said:
Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

It is a complete waste of time to tell me about MISSING evidence. I cannot examine MISSING TEXTS.

Element 9 is useless.


maximara said:
So we have a fairly diverse religion with each sect using various "scriptures" some of which we don't have or that differ from the versions we do have to determine when the messiah would supposedly come with his death signaling the beginning of the End Time which would culminate in a Jewish victory.

So you have what amounted to a build in initial failure mechanic for these cults: 'ok the first time was a disaster with our messiah getting a serious case of dead but the final battle is going to be a winner' :boggled:

Your un-evidenced post is of no real historical value.

We know the EXISTING evidence from antiquity.

The Jesus story and cult was FABRICATED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple, the writings of Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius or AFTER c 110 CE.

In other words, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are historical garbage.
 
Last edited:
Your statement is void of logic.

A Messianic ruler MUST FIRST BEGIN TO RULE to be considered the prophesied Messianic ruler.

Go back and READ what was posted:

Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

LEADER NOT ruler (on Earth). The ruling was in "God’s supernatural kingdom". Deal with what actual points are presented not your imagined nonsense. :mad:
 
You have exposed your own fallaccies. You have trapped yourself.

The story in Acts 5 does not state that the disciples were messianic.

The story in Acts 5 shows that the disciples were arrested because they preached about JESUS the Christ, the Son of God and counsel was taken to kill them..

Acts 5

You obviously did not read or did not understand what you read.

It is the Jesus character that is regarded as the Messiah in Acts--NOT the Apostles.
The disciples were part of a Messianic movement. The followers of the earlier rebels evidently made similar claims, and Gamaliel suggests the Jesus people might be "of God". You know this and are engaged in absurd nit picking because the essence of your argument - that there were no such movements at the time - has been exploded, and the reeking detritus to which it has been reduced has been swept into the dustbin of delusions and egregious errors.
 
Go back and READ what was posted:

Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.

LEADER NOT ruler (on Earth). The ruling was in "God’s supernatural kingdom". Deal with what actual points are presented not your imagined nonsense. :mad:

Again, your un-evidenced claims are worthless.

Please, tell us when Christianity began and identify the source.

When the Mormon religion began the Jews had been long expecting a messiah.
 
The disciples were part of a Messianic movement. The followers of the earlier rebels evidently made similar claims, and Gamaliel suggests the Jesus people might be "of God". You know this and are engaged in absurd nit picking because the essence of your argument - that there were no such movements at the time - has been exploded, and the reeking detritus to which it has been reduced has been swept into the dustbin of delusions and egregious errors.

You have been trapped by your own fallacies. "Of God" is not a messianic claim.

Jews and Christians considered themselves "of God".

You should have first read the Acts 5 before you posted your absurdities.

In the myth/fiction ghost stories of Acts 5 there is no claim that the apostles were messianic.

The disciples were considered to be blasphemers since they preached about a character called Jesus the CHRIST the Son of God as the Prince and Saviour for the remission of sins of the Jews.

Examine Acts 5.40

.....and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus and let them go.

The very Acts chapter 5 has exposed your consistent fallacious argument.

It was Jesus the CHRIST who was considered to be messianic in the Ghost stories of Acts of the Apostles.


Acts 5.42
And daily in the Temple and in EVERY house they cease NOT to TEACH and PREACH Jesus the CHRIST.
 
Last edited:
In the myth/fiction ghost stories of Acts 5 there is no claim that the apostles were messianic.

The disciples were considered to be blasphemers since they preached about a character called Jesus the CHRIST the Son of God as the Prince and Saviour for the remission of sins of the Jews.
I think we can call the disciples of a Christ who go round preaching about him, members of a Messianic movement. If you say that people "of God" who are disciples of a "Christ" are not a messianic movement you are spouting gibberish. Again.
 
I think we can call the disciples of a Christ who go round preaching about him, members of a Messianic movement. If you say that people "of God" who are disciples of a "Christ" are not a messianic movement you are spouting gibberish. Again.

I have merely exposed your fallacious claim that the disciples were considered messianic by Gamaliel in Acts 5 because it is claimed they were "Of God"

The term "Of God" does not mean messianic.

Jews and Christians of antiquity consider that they are "Of God"

You are known to be an inventor of baseless and fallacious arguments derived from your own imagination.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus was the CHRIST--NOT the disciples.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY stated that the disciples were BEATEN and commanded NOT to mention the name of Jesus the supposed Messiah.
 
Last edited:
I have merely exposed your fallacious claim that the disciples were considered messianic by Gamaliel in Acts 5 because it is claimed they were "Of God"

The term "Of God" does not mean messianic.

Jews and Christians of antiquity consider that they are "Of God"

You are known to be an inventor of baseless and fallacious arguments.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY states that Jesus was the CHRIST--NOT the disciples.

Acts 5 SPECIFICALLY stated that the disciples were BEATEN and commanded NOT to mention the name of Jesus the supposed Messiah.
And the outcome of this command was what, may I ask? Acts 5:42
And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
That's a messianic movement if ever there was one!

What they were told (according to the account in Acts 5) was: don't preach about a messiah. We can see why, because such ideas were associated with rebellions like the rebellion of Judas of Galilee.

But did they pay attention to this command? No. The very next verse, which you omit for obvious reasons; it completely refutes your argument and reduces it to vapour; tells us they continued to preach about the Messiah (Christ).
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.
 
Last edited:
And the outcome of this command was what, may I ask? Acts 5:42 That's a messianic movement if ever there was one!

You stated specifically that "Of God" is a "messianic designation".


Your statement is a well established fallacy and consistently quite illogical..


The term "Of God" is not a messianic designation

Jews and Christians are considered people "OF GOD".

The "CHRIST" is considered a messianic designation.

In the Ghost stories of Acts 5 it was Jesus CHRIST who had the messianic designation NOT the disciples.
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.

Josephus had the "divine" revelation after he was captured.

When Josephus and the Jews were Fighting Against and Killing the Romans he expected a Jewish Messianic ruler--NOT Vespasian.

Essentially, Josephus had a very convenient "divine" revelation AFTER the JEWS were defeated.

If the Jews had defeated the Romans Josephus himself may have been chosen the prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler,.

It must be noted that Simon Barcocheba was considered a Messianic ruler when he defeated the Romans around c 133 CE.
 
Even Josephus had a divine revelation (either during the siege at Yodfat/Jotapata in 67CE, of which Josephus was allegedly the only survivor; or while imprisoned shortly after); and he later made a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the "prediction" came true (Vespasian was made emperor in 69), he was released by Vespasian, who considered Josephus's 'gift of prophecy' to be divine.

There's circularity there.

I've heard goofier. I was looking from podcasts regarding the Christ Myth and one of the defenders of the historical Jesus stated that the only evidence we have Josephus himself existed is his writings...which our oldest copies are centuries after Josephus lived and died.

This is one of the main reasons I don't buy into the 'Paul didn't existed either' argument; it tends to lead to this kind of Joseph Wheless meets Fomenko level of ad hod conspiracy where centuries of the past were manufactured which in turn makes the Christ Myth theory as a whole come off as being from tin foil hat land.

The other main reason is by Occam's razor there is no need to even consider Paul didn't exist. We know that at best only seven of the epistles there were credited to Paul were actually the product of one writer and NONE those writings have a "smoking gun" that Jesus existed as a human being. In fact, they go on about a Jesus in visions with constant claims of NOT getting information from earthly sources.

Paul could not have been the only Christian writing letters to fellow believers and yet we only have three authors from the 1st century: Clement I, Ignatius, and Paul himself.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are:

Background Elements to Christianity

Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)

Element 2. When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66)
Element 3. (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed . . . to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.
(b) If these enemies were spiritual powers the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.
(c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)

Element 4. (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.
(b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist.
(c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)

Element 5. Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)

Element 6. The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)

Element 7. (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age.
(b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)

Element 8. (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
(b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)

Element 9. The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)

Element 10. Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.
Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christians belioeved they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism.
Element 13: Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly one in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning (see Element 14)

Element 14: Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myths and allegory, which symbolised a more secret doctrine that was usually rooted in a more esoteric astral or metaphysical theology.

Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices).
Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth.
Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.
Element 18: Jesus Christ was regarded as having fulfilled by his death (and thereby replacing) the two greatest Jewish religious sacrifices - Yom Kippur and Passover.

Element 19: The apostle Paul is the earliest known Christian writer, yet he did not know a living Jesus.

Element 20: The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles bu required them to convert to Judaism.

Element 21: Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels throughout the 1st century.

Element 22: We have no credible or explicit record of what happened within the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE (or possibly even as late as 110 CE), and the leadership of the Christian church had been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period.

(cont)
 
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are: (...) (cont)

Background to Christianity - The Context

Element 23: The Romans annexed Judea to the imperial province of Syria in 6 CE bringing the center of the holy land under direct control of the Roman government, ending sovereignity over Jerusalem and the temple of the Most High God, along with most of the Holy Land that had been promised by God to the Jews.

Element 24: (a) Owing to their vastly greater resources ( in minerals, money and manpower) and superior technical ability (in the training, equipping and supplying of their armies) the Romans were effectively invincible and could never be expelled from Judea by force or diplomacy.

Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.

Element 26: For many Jews in the early first century (in accord with the previous element) the Jewish elite became the scapegoats for God's failed promises (in accord with elements 23 and 24): the reason God withheld their fulfilment (and instead allowed the Romans to rule) was imagined to be the Jewish elite's failure to keep God's commandments and govern justly (already a common theme throughout the OT, e.g. Jeremiah 23 and 25, the latter being the very prophecy whose 'mystery' is decoded in Daniel to produce the timetable that was now indicating the messiah would arrive in the early first century: Element 7).

Element 27: (a) The temple at Jerusalem most the central focus of most Jewish messianic hope (as, for the Samaritans, was Mount Gerizim), which entailed that as long as the 'corrupt' Jewish elite controlled it, God would continue Israel's 'punishment' (in accord with Elements 25 and 26), and as long as the Romans remained in power, the would maintain the corrupt Jewish elite's control of the temple. Accordingly (b) Jewish religious violence often aimed at seizing physical control of the temple and it's personnel.

Element 28: A spiritual solution to the physical conundrum to the Jews would have been a natural and easy thing to conceive at the time.

Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them.

Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies.

Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea.

Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings.

Element 33: In addition to its pagan influences, Christianity was also (obviously) influenced by several Jewish sects (see, in general, Elements 1-5), and can be understood only in this context too.

Element 34: Popular cosmology at the dawn of the Common Era in the Middle East held that the universe was geocentric and spherical and divided into many layers (see Chapter3, Section 1), with the first layer of 'heaven' often called the 'firmament' (being the foundation holding up all the others) and consisting of all the air beneath the earth and the moon (or sometimes the same term only meant the topmost part of this: the sphere travelled by the moon).

Element 35: Popular cosmology of the time also held that the sub-heaven, the firmament, was a region of corruption and change and decay, while the heavens above were pure, incorruptible and changeless.

Element 36: Because of this division between the perfect unchanging heavens and the corrupted sub-lunar world, most religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between those worlds, so God need no descend and mingle with corruption.

Element 37: The lowest heaven, the firmament, the region of corruption and change was popularly thought to be teeming with invisible spirits (pneuma or psychai) and demons (daimones, or daimonia), throughout the whole space, who controlled the elements and powers of the universe there, meddle in the affairs of man, and do battle with one another.

Element 38: (a) In this same popular cosmology, the heavens, including the firmament, were not empty expanses but filled with all manner of things, including palaces and gardens, and it was possible to be buried there.

Element 39: (a) In this cosmology there were also two Adams: one perfect celestial version, of which the earthly version (who fathered the human race) is just a copy.

Element 40: [T]he Christian idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God called the Logos, who was God's true high priest in heaven, was also not a novel idea but already held by some pre-Christian Jews; and this preexistent spiritual son of God had already been explicitly connected with a celestial Jesus figure in the OT (discussed in Element 6), and therefore some Jews already believed there was a supernatural son of God named Jesus--because Paul's contemporary Philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zech. 6.12 in just such as way.

Element 41: The 'Son of Man' (an apocalyptic title Jesus is given in the Gospels) was another being foreseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe, overthrowing all demonic power, and in a text that we know the first Christians used as scripture (1 Enoch).

Element 42: There is a parallel tradition of a perfect and eternal celestial High Priest named Melchizidek, which means in Hebrew 'Righteous King'. We have already seen that a celestial Jesus was already called Righteous and King by some pre-Christian Jews.

Element 43: (a) Voluntary human sacrifice was widely regarded (by both pagans and Jews) as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.

Element 44: In Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matters of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the production of narratives purporting to be true.

Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenom in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.

Element 46: Ancient literature also proliferated a variety of model 'hero' narratives, some of which the Gospel Jesus conforms to as well; and one of these hero-types was widely revered among pagans: the pre-Christian narratives of the life and death of Socrates and Aesop.

Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus conforms, is the apotheosis, or 'ascension to godhood' tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus.

Element 48: Finally, the most ubiquitous model 'hero' narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the fable of the 'divine king', what I call the Rank-Raglan hero-type.
 
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are
I really think that's an abuse of the thread. I know you are obsessed with transmitting the message of your Teacher to us benighted folk; but this time you're not even interpreting his words or basing any argument on them, but simply regurgitating screeds of Holy Text.

You could simply have given us a link, so that those persons who think such an exercise would repay the time and effort could look up these giant lists themselves.
 
Paul could not have been the only Christian writing letters to fellow believers and yet we only have three authors from the 1st century: Clement I, Ignatius, and Paul himself.

Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT the product of ONE person but of a Group of persons.

It must be noted that the author of Hebrews was ALSO a part of the Group.

Papyri 46 do contain the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Group under the name of Paul wrote 14 Epistles sometime AFTER Celsus' True Discourse".
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot int he arm...so here they are:

Background Elements to Christianity

Element 1. The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)

Please, provide the evidence for your claims instead of "hiding" behind Carrier.

There is ZERO evidence that Jews were worshiping a man as a God or Jesus the Lord from heaven in the time of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, vespasian to Trajan..

All existing stories of Jesus are dated to the 2nd century or later.
 
Last edited:
Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.
Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?
 
I really think that's an abuse of the thread. I know you are obsessed with transmitting the message of your Teacher to us benighted folk; but this time you're not even interpreting his words or basing any argument on them, but simply regurgitating screeds of Holy Text.

You could simply have given us a link, so that those persons who think such an exercise would repay the time and effort could look up these giant lists themselves.

It is NOT abuse of the thread, Craig.

The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work you have provided is the same drivel the apologists have been peddling for over 100 years: the NT and questionable third party sources.

Carrier is not "my" teacher or guru or whatever little derogatory term you can come up with. He is the one person who has finally produced a PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work on the Christ Myth theory ie through the accepted channels of scholarship rather then the self published stuff that is more likely to filled with nonsense then anything useful.

I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

The scary thing is dejudge my not be pretending. He may honestly believe that date of composition = the earliest extant manuscript. I grant you the idea is insane and results in nonsense like Fomenko's New Chronology which the moment you sit down and actually think about it you realize is off the wall frothing at the mouth start raving bonkers.
 
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Again, your claim is fallacious and known to be baseless.

The earliest hand written texts about Jesus, the Son of God and the Lord from heaven were NOT written in the 1st century.

The earliest stories of Jesus are Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] which are dated around 175-225 CE.

Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

Still pretending that manuscripts that have ALREADY been dated to c 175-225 CE were written c 50-60 CE because one of the letters mention Aretas?


The same Pauline Corpus do state the Jesus story was FOOLISHNESS.

1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

The Jesus story in the Pauline Corpus is NOT history but Childish and Foolish.

Julian corroborates that Jesus is a FOOLISH FICTION story

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

The Pauline Corpus was known as a Pack of FOOLISH Lies since at least 1600 hundred years ago.
 
Last edited:
I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.
Much of it is stuff that is so banal as to require no refutation.
Element 25: The corruption and moral decay of the Jewish civil and temple elite (regardless of to what extent it was actual or merely perceived) was a widespread target of condemnation and often a cause of factionalising among Jewish sects.
Indeed. Quite so.
 
Last edited:
I suspect you and dejudge haven't actually read the book and don't have actual rebuttals to any of Carrier's points other the same nonsense we have been hearing since this thread began.

I suspect you are NOT familiar with the evidence from antiquity so must depend on the opinion of "authority".

Christians do the same thing.

You will not and is incapable of ever presenting a shred of evidence to show that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

I KNOW the evidence from antiquity.

I KNOW that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN by ALL authors of the NT Canon and was unknown in Multiple Christian and Non-Christian writings up to the late 2nd century.


I KNOW that NO manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.

I KNOW that the Pauline Corpus is historical garbage and was not used at all in the early development of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The Pauline Corpus are ANTI-MARCIONITE writings FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later to counter Marcionism.
 
Still pretending that manuscripts that have ALREADY been dated to c 175-225 CE were written c 50-60 CE because one of the letters mention Aretas?
No. I can't believe you're such a simpleton! Stop pretending. You know I'm not referring to the date of the earliest extant manuscripts. I'm saying that the text inscribed on these manuscripts was copied from earlier sources that have been lost.

Now, you have been told hundreds and hundreds of times that that is what is being claimed, on the basis of internal evidence contained in the wording of the written material. You may not agree with this, if you are mistaken enough; but I can't believe you don't even understand it. So I think you're making a joke for amusement or entertainment purposes.
 
I suspect you are NOT familiar with the evidence from antiquity so must depend on the opinion of "authority".

Christians do the same thing.

You will not and is incapable of ever presenting a shred of evidence to show that the Pauline Corpus was written c 50-60 CE.

The basics of Historical criticism along with modern examples have been presented repeatedly.

Yes the Christians were the ones doing the copying but we must be sure we don't go off the deep end ala Joseph Wheless' Forgery In Christianity (1930) and claim there was some form of mammoth conspiracy by the Church to create the Gospels and supporting documents.

The one thing that helps is the fact living languages change. Not only meaning and grammar but rhythm, meter, and structure.

Even with modern spelling Shakespeare's English of just 400 years ago has a different grammar, rhythm, meter, and structure then the English used 200 years ago or even today.

Compare the novels the 19th century to those of today of any genre you like and you will see this difference though it is less pronounced. This is why fans of a particular era of literature get this uncanny valley effect when someone tries to mimic that era's style; they can't put it into words but they known that something is wrong.

The seven letters of Paul do NOT seem to have that disconnect. As in the context of Occam's Razor a later Paul just adds logistic complexity to the picture.

Detering's The Dutch Radical approach to the Pauline Epistles article which brought the long forgotten ideas of the Dutch Radical School to light is an interesting read but given Paul doesn't really give anything helps the pro-Historical Jesus argument and an early Paul actually hurts the pro-HJ position I have to again ask what is with the near obsession with Paul not existing either?

The classic Christ Mythers that knew of the Dutch Radical School didn't buy into the idea Paul didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Carrier's 48 points should give the thread a good shot in the arm...


Are we sure that Carrier actually exists?

The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED ...


Cite? What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)
 
Last edited:
Still pretending to be a simpleton who believes that the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript? Why are you pretending to believe such foolishness?

The scary thing is dejudge my not be pretending. He may honestly believe that date of composition = the earliest extant manuscript. I grant you the idea is insane and results in nonsense like Fomenko's New Chronology which the moment you sit down and actually think about it you realize is off the wall frothing at the mouth start raving bonkers.


I don't know what dejudge has actually said about any idea that "the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript", because I have not tried to read whatever arguments he has made about that. But what is obviously and unarguably true, is that we can only know what is said in the most useable relatively complete and relatively legible extant manuscripts of the gospels and letters. We certainly do not know if any supposed earlier original gospels and letters said all the same things that we find in those later extant more complete copies.

And for Craig's benefit (and the benefit of any other HJ people here who may be inclined to "gloss over" what I just said above without bothering to understand what I am saying - what I am saying is -

- the detail of the Jesus stories which bible scholars and other HJ believers are using and quoting from the gospels, are afaik most definitely being taken from those much later more complete and legible gospels typically dated to 4th-6th century and later (mostly later than 6th century, in fact). That has to be the case, because although there are a number of very small individual fragments thought to be from a much earlier date, such as P52 which may be as early as circa.125 AD, those individual fragments are of course nowhere near big enough to contain more than a few words from a certain few lines of just one individual gospel. And where there are apparently more extensive pages of gospel writing thought to also be from quite early dates (i.e. earlier than 4th-6th cent.) those more extensive remains are not in sufficiently good condition to be accurately readable except again for only partly legible sentences and paragraphs.

The point being - the missing parts of those earlier fragments and damaged remnant pages, are so extensive (i.e. almost all the contents are missing), that it's not possible to determine what those earliest gospels actually said about the full detail of the writers Jesus beliefs. For all anyone knows, a complete version from any of those scant earliest remnants might very easily have made clear that Jesus was originally believed only as spiritual entity ... but we just don't know, because we don't have anywhere near a complete copy from those earliest fragments and remnants. And that is exactly why the later 4th-6th century more complete and more readable copies have to be used to determine a more accurate and more complete picture of what those much later copyists were writing as the biblical story by the 4th-6th century and later.

But that's all the we actually have as the biblical stories of Jesus belief, and that is what afaik actually has to be used, and actually is being used, by bible scholars and others when they debate the detail of the biblical sentences about Jesus - they are using what was written from about 4th-6th century onwards ... not using any earlier fragments or extensively damaged remains.

IOW - the Jesus stories that everyone here is relying upon, and which biblical scholars and others are also relying upon, does come from extant 4th-6th century copies at the earliest.

And incidentally - that is also why the extant copies of Paul’s letters are more important and more credible as “earlier” description of Jesus beliefs than those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels (irrespective of whether or not dejudge is right or wrong to say that Paul’s letters were originally written after the gospels). Because P46, which is said to predate those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels by 100-200 years or more, is by far the earliest relatively complete and relatively legible account which can be used to determine more-or-less all that the writer (i.e. Paul in the case of P46) actually believed about Jesus.

That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

But the Jesus belief described in P46, is very clearly stated by the writer (“Paul”) to be only a spiritual belief which the author repeatedly stresses, was known to him only according to scripture and through divine revelation. Paul describes that spiritual belief as his “witnessing” of Jesus. He says that 500+ other people as well as the 12 disciples and James, were also “witnesses” of Jesus only in that same spiritual sense. I.e. he says that when all those other people “witnessed” Jesus, they witnessed only the “risen Jesus”, i.e. according to Paul they only ever witnessed the dead spirit of Jesus communicating from the heavens ... Paul never says that any of the people ever witnessed a living Jesus at all.

So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.
 
Cite? What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)

I am referring to the book On The Historicity of Jesus published by Sheffield Phoenix Press (the scholarly published part) and if you dig around enough you will find this response directly from Sheffield Phoenix Press itself regarding their requirements:

"We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted."

In fact, respectable academic publishers like Sheffield Phoenix Press have the final say on who does the peer reviewing. Their own web sites states "Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press."

Peer review in of itself doesn't mean much as the Open Journal of Geology shows. It's main publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, is considered little more then a vanity publisher with various examples of copyright violations aw well as padded and inaccurate editorial boards. The acceptance of paper created by a random text generator shows just how crap the peer review is there.

Peer review by an established respected academic publisher (such as Wiley or Sheffield Phoenix Press) is a totally different animal.

I would like to mention the Anthropology of Consciousness is a peer-reviewed journal published by Wiley which stated in a 1994 article that "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16).

In fact, its abstract clearly states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example..." and that was when Carrier was still working on his Masters.
 
Last edited:
That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

Actually, Papyrus 75 (Luke 3:18-24:53 + John 1-15) at 175-225 has the same date range as P46 (also 175-225 CE)

Then you have Egerton Papyrus 2 which has a collection of four Jesus stories which have no equivalent in any known Gospel. With a slightly younger date range at 150-200 CE this rather then P46 is our oldest known manuscript references to Jesus

From what I can find out the four stories are:

1) a controversy similar to John 5:39-47 and 10:31-39;

2) curing a leper similar to Matt 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16 and Luke 17:11-14;

3) a controversy about paying tribute to Caesar analogous to Matt 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26; and

4) an incomplete account of a miracle on the Jordan River bank, perhaps carried out to illustrate the parable about seeds growing miraculously

Since Paul makes no references to these stories it seems a safe assumption that Paul predates them. EP2 also shows that idea of preexisting stories being used in our Gospels seems a reasonable assumption.
 
What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism? (No need to shout, btw.)



I don't read any religious journals or biblical studies journals. So I don't know what papers Carrier and others have published in any such journals. However, afaik Carrier does have several published papers in journals in that field. And since Carrier is very clearly sceptical of the existence of Jesus, I would not be surprised to find his published papers were fairly critical of evidence purporting to show a real Jesus.

Apart from that, iirc there has been mention in these various HJ threads, of biblical studies scholars and related academics who have published a good number of papers critical of the usual assumption of, or belief in, a HJ.

Hector Avalos, for example, is a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State Univ., who is now very critical of Jesus belief amongst his academic colleagues, and who now believes and teaches that the evidence for a HJ is too hopelessly weak, and in fact has historically been presented in a deliberately deceptive way, such that (iirc) he now thinks Jesus was probably a mythical figure.

I expect Avalos will have published a good number of critical dissenting papers in the mainstream biblical studies journals. And he has also written a very informative and fully referenced academic book expressing those concerns in unmistakably frank terms highly critical of the profession of bible studies and it's practitioners ("The End of Biblical Studies", 2007). Here's a link to the wiki page on Hector Avalos ... but you and other HJ people here would do well to read that book (which is as I say, full of hundreds of academic references illustrating his criticisms of HJ belief, so without checking (though I do have the book, so I can check it if necessary), I expect the refs in that book are to papers that are critical of the HJ case and it's claimed evidence) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Avalos

See also this YouTube clip of Avalos talking about what is so wrong with the profession of Biblical studies and it's practitioners (this is part 1 of a two part talk and discussion ... part 2 and it's question and answer session is particularly revealing) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o&list=PLiNgTF1S32SjBdLpglExsapLWXAFM5BuY
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

This reference supports your opinion. It was written 25 years ago. I wonder if there has been any newer research, that affirms the belief that P46 antedates P45? As far as I am aware, the dating is based solely on palaeography. Can we really specify handwriting with such precision, that two manuscripts can be sorted chronologically?
Wikipedia said:
As with all manuscripts dated solely by palaeography, the dating of P46 is uncertain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

I have looked at some of the images of P46, online, from UM library, and don't find them spectacularly different from Codex Sinaiticus.

The crucial bit of evidence, in my opinion, that leads one to suspect that Paul wrote after Mark's gospel had been distributed, (i.e. regardless of the dates of the two collections p45, p46) is the distinction between 1Corinthians 25:
τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι
the cup of blood represents the NEW covenant,
as opposed to the same story in Mark, which omits the word NEW, kaine. (n.b. ONLY in Codex Sinaiticus, not more recent bibles!!)
τουτο εϲτιν το αιμα μου τηϲ (omitted) διαθηκηϲ

Is there any portion of Jewish history and religion, more important, than the covenant with God? So, for Paul to CHANGE the significance of the blood contract, described by Mark, suggests, to me, if no one else, that Mark's plain vanilla portion MUST HAVE COME FIRST, and Paul then added a little extra flavor, by proclaiming that the contract, sealed in blood, represented a NEW agreement, and by implication, an invalidation of the former covenant of Moses, as Paul had explained in the foolish Galatians letter.

Had Paul's letters been known to Mark, would it not have been presumptious of Mark, to have ignored the concept of a changed covenant, by failing to reference the word NEW?

That page of text from P46, containing 1 Corinthians 25, is found in the Chester Beatty Collection in Ireland. I have not seen it, but would profit from someone on the forum with access to the library, confirming the same text as found, above, in Codex Sinaiticus.

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, the corresponding page from P45, Mark 14:24, does not exist. Codex Sinaiticus contains the oldest extant copy of it.

So, IanS, yes, Paul could have written before Mark, but I don't see any evidence supporting that legend. As far as I am concerned, Codex Sinaiticus suggests, contrarily, that Mark MUST have written first, else, there is no way to understand why Mark would not have included the crucial adjective, NEW, in describing the blood covenant from the last supper. I claim he did not include it, because Mark didn't know that the covenant had been changed.
 
I don't know what dejudge has actually said about any idea that "the date of composition of an ancient text is the same as the date of the earliest extant manuscript", because I have not tried to read whatever arguments he has made about that.

What a most blatant fallacy.

You have argued with me about the dating of the Pauline Corpus.

Why are you repeating the known false claims by Craig B?

You appear to be promoting "Chinese Whispers" or propaganda.

Ians said:
And incidentally - that is also why the extant copies of Paul’s letters are more important and more credible as “earlier” description of Jesus beliefs than those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels (irrespective of whether or not dejudge is right or wrong to say that Paul’s letters were originally written after the gospels).

What?? The Pauline Corpus cannot be credible when it is riddled with forgeries or false attribution and events which did not and could not have happened.

Forgeries and false attribution are specifically fabricated to deceive the reader.

The Pauline Corpus is a most deceptive and fictional compilation.


Ians said:
Because P46, which is said to predate those extant 4th-6th cent. gospels by 100-200 years or more, is by far the earliest relatively complete and relatively legible account which can be used to determine more-or-less all that the writer (i.e. Paul in the case of P46) actually believed about Jesus.

You statement is a well established fallacy. Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] c 175-225 CE are dated around the same time period as Papyri 46.

You also very well know that P 46 does not contain all the Epistles of the Pauline Corpus and some of the leaves are damaged

Why can't you even admit that manuscripts of gLuke and gJohn are dated just as P 46?

In addition, Christian writings of antiquity ADMIT the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John and that the Pauline writers knew of and commended gLuke.


Ians said:
That, i.e. P46, is supposed to be (as claimed by bible scholars and palaeographers etc.) by far our earliest extant source of what anyone believed about Jesus.

Again, you repeat your fallacies.

Don't you remember that we have the DATING of NT manuscripts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Papyri 46--200 CE.

Papyri 75--175-225 CE.


It is completely unacceptable that you continue to spout the same fallacies over and over although you have been shown the dating by Paleographers.


Ianss said:
But the Jesus belief described in P46, is very clearly stated by the writer (“Paul”) to be only a spiritual belief which the author repeatedly stresses, was known to him only according to scripture and through divine revelation. Paul describes that spiritual belief as his “witnessing” of Jesus. He says that 500+ other people as well as the 12 disciples and James, were also “witnesses” of Jesus only in that same spiritual sense. I.e. he says that when all those other people “witnessed” Jesus, they witnessed only the “risen Jesus”, i.e. according to Paul they only ever witnessed the dead spirit of Jesus communicating from the heavens ... Paul never says that any of the people ever witnessed a living Jesus at all.

Again, you present more fallacies.

The Pauline Corpus was used to ARGUE AGAINST an ALL DIVINE Son of God.

You don't remember that the Pauline Corpus was USED almost exclusively to ARGUE AGAINST Marcion's Phantom Son of God.



Ians said:
So the earliest useable account that we have of the way anyone thought of Jesus, is the account in Paul’s letters (P46). And that account describes a purely “mythical” Jesus of spiritual belief.

Your claim is a fallacy. There is NO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed BEFORE stories of Jesus were already known and composed.

The 2nd century or later manuscripts we have of P46 were NOT written by "Paul" if it is argued "Paul" died in the 1st century.

gLuke and gJohn are dated the same time period as the Pauline Corpus.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus and the Prophets.
 
Last edited:
Since Paul makes no references to these stories it seems a safe assumption that Paul predates them. EP2 also shows that idea of preexisting stories being used in our Gospels seems a reasonable assumption.

It is NEVER safe to ASSUME.

You keep promoting the flawed assumptions of "authority" as evidence.


Since Acts of the Apostles makes no reference to the Pauline Corpus and mentions a character called Paul over a hundred times it can be argued that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN when Acts of the Apostles composed.

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity which support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was written NO earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Minucius Felex, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Elder.

You don't remember that it is claimed that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul in "True Discourse" in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

We are interested in the EVIDENCE from Antiquity NOT the flawed opinion of "authority".

You should find out what the WITNESSES of antiquity said.
 
http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

This reference supports your opinion. It was written 25 years ago. I wonder if there has been any newer research, that affirms the belief that P46 antedates P45? As far as I am aware, the dating is based solely on palaeography. Can we really specify handwriting with such precision, that two manuscripts can be sorted chronologically?

No. Here is what the wikipedia article on Palaeography says:

However, "paleography is a last resort for dating" and, "for book hands, a period of 50 years is the least acceptable spread of time"[4][5] with it being suggested that "the "rule of thumb" should probably be to avoid dating a hand more precisely than a range of at least seventy or eighty years."[6] In an 2005 e-mail addendum to his 1996 "The Paleographical Dating of P-46" paper Bruce W. Griffin stated "Until more rigorous methodologies are developed, it is difficult to construct a 95% confidence interval for NT manuscripts without allowing a century for an assigned date."[7] William M Schniedewind went even further in the abstract to his 2005 paper "Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions" and stated that "The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity".[8]


4. Turner, Eric G. (1987), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (2d rev. ed.; London: Institute of Classical Studies
5. 6. Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24.

7. Griffin, Bruce W. (1996), "The Paleographical Dating of P-46"

8. Schniedewind, William M. (2005) "Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions" in Thomas Levy, Thomas Higham (ed) (2014) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science Routledge.

---

As I have mentioned before with a minimum 50 year range and a 80 to 100 years being far more realistic paleography is far too crude a dating method for the task it is being used for.

As the shenanigans with P52 show there is this tendency to present the earliest possible date rather then the true midpoint. If we used the midpoint P52 would be c 175 CE not the c 125 that is generally presented. So we can't trust the single dates we are being given are actual medians..

Carrier spends nearly a third of a page (361) referencing examples of editorial 'meddling' with Paul's writings:

Philip Sellew "Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis" Harvard Theological Review. 1994; 87:17-28.

William Walker (2001) Interpolations in the Pauline Letters Sheffield Academic Press,

his own blog at http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html

Rainer Reuter 'Introduction to Synoptic Work on the New Testament Epistles' Journal of Higher Criticism. - (2002) vol.9 1 2 SPR FALL, p.246-258

E. Randolph Richards (2004) Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection pg 99-121

Carrier then gives works regarding such 'meddling' with the Gospels and the other epistles:

Robert B. Stewart (2011) The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue

Bart D. Ehrman (1993) The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Oxford University Press

Bruce Metzger (1992) The Text of the New Testament Oxford University press

With all this editorial meddling hanging a theory on one word (or even a phrase) is not logical. If anything it is reckless. There is no way to say if anything that short was actually Paul and not some copyist mucking around with the text to "improve" it

As I pointed out before each of the seven epistles is composed of two or more letters so some editing occurred. Some scholars think that Marcion of Sinope was this editor. Given his idea that the true God had sent Jesus to save us from the incompetent and-or malicious demiurge that the Jews worshiped I wouldn't put it past Marcion to "improve" what Paul wrote.

I should mention in the Lucan priority (Luke first) school (also known as Jerusalem School Hypothesis) Marcion takes on even greater significance but that line of though depends on the Gospels originally being in Hebrew which makes no sense in that that Greek was the main language of Jews by the 1st century CE with Hebrew on par with how Latin was for Roman Catholics after Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
The only refutation to date regarding Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work...


What peer reviewed journals have published Carrier's JC denialism?


I don't read any religious journals or biblical studies journals. So I don't know what papers Carrier and others have published in any such journals.


In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.
 
In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.
Carrier's book is peer-reviewed -
"My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well."

freethoughtblogs [dot] com/carrier/archives/4090*
He has published several peer-reviewed articles in academic journals eg.

Carrier R (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental *Interpolation* in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
vol. 20, no. 4; 
pp. 489-514.

Carrier, R (2014) "The Prospect of a Christian *Interpolation* in Tacitus, Annals 15.44" Vigiliae Christianae, 68:3;

Carrier, R “Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 8 (2011-2012): 185-91.​

More here - richardcarrier[dot]info/pubs.pdf* (not all peer reviewed)

* I can't post urls here (as a new poster), so you'll need to put in ht2p:// or wx3 front of those 'links'
 
Last edited:
Again, we have another strawman to divert attention from the fact that the HJ argument was initiated WITHOUT the supporting historical data.

It is already known that "peer review" is completely irrelevant to determine veracity or the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters.

When we examine the NT Canon it becomes increasingly clear that the Pauline writings about Jesus are always the LATER version of the story.

Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth are figures of fiction based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.
 
It is already known that "peer review" is completely irrelevant to determine veracity or the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters.
Err, peer-reviewed articles published about 'evidence from antiquity' tend to have more veracity than some waffle, somewhere.
 
In other words, your assertion that Carrier's work was peer reviewed is just that, an assertion with no citations to back it up.

WHAT?!? :mad:

Go back and READ post 388. I provided ample evidence that books published by Sheffield Phoenix Press (the scholarly publisher) have to go through peer review and I did NOT use Carrier as my source. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Err, peer-reviewed articles published about 'evidence from antiquity' tend to have more veracity than some waffle, somewhere.

Not when the "peer reviewed" article is by somebody like Scientific Research Publishing who is considered little more then a vanity publisher. This is in reference to the article that claims authenticity of James Ossuary which has been declared a fraud by no less then the Israeli Antiquities Authority and was reported by a Archaeological Institute of America (Chartered by the US government 1906) magazine.

Psudojournals (like what Scientific Research Publishing seems to publish) claim "peer review" but it is little more then a rubber stamp, a pained on fig leaf to lend credibility to what is really psudoscience. As I said without an established respected academic publisher (such as Wiley or Sheffield Phoenix Press) backing it peer review doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom