I’m not sure, from your post, if you are claiming these prophecies are valid because they were “fulfilled” or you’re just mentioning Strong’s work without opinion.
In the off chance you are claiming that these 40 prophecies prove divine influence, let me tell you about a book I am writing.
I have in front of me The Sacred Tome, written 200 years ago. It makes some predictions about some future, but unspecified, time. I desperately want this book to be taken seriously and revered, and if the predictions have come true, it will be.
So, in my new book, I take each one of the Sacred Stories and make up a new one that fulfills it. Let’s say the original said, “A person of color will take a long trip.” My book will tell about Mr. Brown (who happens to be my invisible friend from childhood) who sails to a foreign land. To make it seem more authentic, Mr. Brown will visit Rio. Rio exists, so my story must be true, right?
No one saw Mr. Brown sail, but that doesn’t make it false, right?
No one knows who the author is, but maybe he has psychic powers or a direct line to Og. Long after I’m gone someone will find my book, make the startling discovery about all the predictions in The Sacred Tome coming true, and write their own book about it. We now have a cult with all the trappings of early Christianity, but nothing more than a work of fiction to support it.
If we are debating whether Paul believed that Jesus was a human being or an angel/archangel, the most important thing is that Paul said directly that Jesus was a human being many times, as I mentioned before. Paul said described Jesus with the word anthropos, which means simply “man”. We can see that Paul used this word to describe himself and everyone else, and when we wanted to emphasize the gulf between human and divine realms. Paul also described Jesus as existing and being descended from David “in the flesh” (kata sarx); once again, this is the phrase Paul uses to distinguish humanity from the divine or spiritual realm. And Paul described Jesus as an Israelite, and Paul certainly believed the Israelites were human.
So if Carrier wants to argue that Paul viewed Jesus as an archangel and not as a human, the first thing he ought to explain is why Paul kept saying that Jesus was human, over and over again. Earl Doherty never even tries to answer this question. While I haven’t read Carrier’s book, I’m guessing he doesn’t try to answer it either, since no one’s posted any answer to it from him. Until this question is addressed, the entire argument seems quite silly.
I’m not aware that there are any alternate texts for the passages we’re discussing, Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4. But even if there are later manuscripts where the wording was changed, that would hardly show that anyone was “disturbed” by the original wording, as Carrier claims. The existence of a manuscript with changed wording scarcely seems important when, as I mentioned, Paul’s original wording actually uses the same verb that he uses to describe human birth. You dispute that Paul saying Jesus comes from the seed of David is the same as saying Jesus is descended from David. There are numerous examples from the New Testament and other sources showing that when someone spoke of A being “of the seed” of B, they meant A is descended from B. Paul uses that formulation exactly, later in the same letter and his other letters. He even uses it when reminding the reader that he, Paul, is a descendant of Abraham (Rom 11:1). Further, in the verse 1:3 Paul uses the words kata sarx, as if he wanted to make double-super sure that everyone knew that Jesus was a descendant of David in the flesh.
Further, in Gal 4:4 Paul also reminds readers that Jesus was “under the law” (meaning the law of Moses). Now Jews believed–and the Orthodox still believe–that the law applied to the Israelite people, and them only. Certainly it did not apply to any archangel or heavenly being. Given Paul’s lengthy exposition on the matter, we can be sure he believed this too, so that would be a further demonstration that Paul knew Jesus was a human being and an Israelite.
Now regarding the “celestial sperm bank” which Carrier alleges that Paul believed in, certainly none of the four passages from Against Heresies listed mention anything like that, even by a very tenuous reading. That leaves us, at the moment, with no evidence whatsoever that any ancient Jew (or anyone else) ever believed in such a thing. I don’t have time to watch a 2-hour debate right now, so I’ll take your word for it that Trent Horn agreed such a concept in Jewish mythology existed. But hasn’t Carrier warned us to not believe something just because scholars say so. If the claim about a “celestial sperm bank” is true, why can’t Carrier produce a source that at least mentions it? (Of course if Jewish mythology did mention it but only in the late Middle Ages, that would be equally fatal to Carrier’s case.)
According to the Psalmist(Psalm 81 or 82 depending on what version you use says to the people he was talking to:“I said you are gods and sons of the most high”. Jesus uses this Psalm in John 10 to ask why they say he Blasphemes because he calls God his father , when their fathers did. In olden time the word God meant something or someone with power of strength, not the creator of the world. Hence the sun gods the god of thunder ,etc.
He does, and I did. Carrier is arguing that the beliefs existed then, and if they are found in Irenaeus, just this alone is certainly plenty early enough to see that those beliefs were around then about that time.
I think the Irenaeus citations I listed earlier provide you with the very thing you asked, with you claiming that you’ve reviewed those parts, and you’re still not seeing it, saying it’s a very tenuous reading. We’ll let others decide if I’m reading Carrier right about Irenaeus or you, with the link provided here. Not going to lift whole texts here, the link will take care of that for a longer reading, and I think I can get to some of the most pertinent parts in a short amount of space and time here. If I’m misreading it, or Carrier has got it wrong, you or others can enlighten me.
Book I, chapter I, in which the title should give a big clue from the get-go what it is going to be about entitled: “ABSURD IDEAS OF THE DISCIPLES OF VALENTINUS AS TO THE ORIGIN, NAME, ORDER, AND CONJUGAL PRODUCTIONS OF THEIR FANCIED AEONS, WITH THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH THEY ADAPT TO THEIR OPINIONS.” I take it you understand conjugal just fine. And just below that headline it reads: 1. THEY maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon,(4)…” That seems like outer space to me, and Aeons I take to mean, not meaning for a period of time here, but a supreme being or beings.
So you’ve got conjugal productions, in outer space by Aeons.
BTW, the Horn, Carrier debates is actually only about 53 min or so if you skip the intro, and Q&A afterwards, probably far less time than what you spend on the boards each day. I needed to brush up a bit to see if my memory served me well, and found Horn makes the case at the 11:10-11:50 time arguing against the celestial sperm bank, saying they were older Jewish legends which he claims were 300-1,300 years after the time of Christ. My guess is that Horn has other Jewish legends he is focusing on here. I didn’t go any further with the video this time to see Carrier’s response, you can if you want; or not.
I want to cover some other parts concerning Romans 1:3 and Gal 4:4, but need to figure out a way to condense it, since I’ll be mostly culling over those eight pages from Carrier I cited earlier. Will try to get it down to one page or so if I can still get it to read right.
But every single one of these scriptures and quite a bit more Horn brings up in the debate to interrogate Carrier quite extensively; I don’t think there is anything that wasn’t addressed, just not going through it all again myself.
If you like these, read from Brodie and the company he keeps. The book I have only covers some of them, since part of the one I have from him is an autobiography. I personally think this kind of work is what is probably going start driving more of the mythicist movement. Godfrey covering some more of these from Brodie. Robert Price and Thomas Thompson both think the gospels writers borrowed and rewrote essentially a paraphrase of the OT.
Erhman defense is that he thinks it is irrelevant. Brodie kindly critiques his book at the end of his own book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus pages 226-31. He says of his Did Jesus Exist?:
How powerful was this research to him? It caused Brodie many sleepless nights. Besides others research this is was also a specialty of his, and it was this work that convinced him the NT writers weren’t writing history, but simply using the OT to rewrite their stories. He’s no longer a historicist. I’ve read various reports of what has happened to him, not sure what to make of all of it. It does say in this link that Brodie also finds an occasional sympathetic ear among colleagues:
It’ll be interesting to see how all of this plays out the next 10-20 years.
That isn’t really a substantial response to the argument Christopher Price makes. Obviously to determine whether Mark (and the other gospels) are historical, it’s pointless to judge by the standards we’d expect from someone writing in modern-day America. To understand what Mark meant, it’s necessary to grasp how he and his audience understood non-fiction writing.
First of all, “lifting word for word verbatim texts” accounts for only a tiny portion of Mark’s gospel, or any of the others. I would guess that all told, it’s less than 1%. There are many individual episodes (“pericopes”, in the jargon of Bible geeks) where no text is recognized as borrowing from the OT.
Second, in America today we have a standard for scholarly writing in history and other fields. Serious academic work is not supposed to contain any poetic devices or anything of that kind. In ancient Roman times, there was no such expectation. Indeed there was the opposite expectation. Anyone who was writing history (or philosophy, science, &c…) was expected to make it a literary work. Thus to point to literary construct as evidence that a work isn’t historical is a misunderstanding.
Third, for similar reasons, the lifting of phrases from older works is not evidence that a work is not historical. This may be a difficult thing to grasp for those of us alive today, but it’s true. Price gives examples from Josephus, Philo, and others. We could list many examples from pagan sources to. Herodotus sometimes employed language from Homer, for instance, yet Herodotus was plainly recording events that he believed to have happened. It would be difficult, maybe impossible, to find anything from ancient times that would qualify as history if we tossed out all documents that used such things.
The gospelers were writing for a group that still viewed itself as Jewish, and about a series of events which they viewed as having tremendous religious significance. In that situation, it would have been very strange if they didn’t employ some references to Hebrew scripture while describing the events of Jesus’s life.
Perhaps the best way to realize how much of it is myth, is for one to just re-read the gospels again for themselves, especially as an adult, and be asking oneself, does this look like the author is writing history, or does it have literary construct written all over it. I recently just did so with Mark again.
I’m not sure getting a lawyer (Christopher Price) is in a better choice to evaluate ancient texts and their languages compared to somebody that has spent their whole life doing so. Someone such as Brodie, e.g…
Encyclopedia Britannica in its article on Historiography:
Criticizing a history or biography from the first century based on post-eighteenth century protocols of historiography simply demonstrates an anachronistic view of the matter reviewed.
History OR myth is a false dichotomy. History and biography written in that period tended to use mythology to explain the history. Showing that an author included mythology in his work simply says nothing about the historicity of the subject matter; it merely indicates that the history was written using mythological tropes and tools.
None of this proves that Jesus was an historical person, but it also fails to actually demonstrate that he was not.
For some, they recognize the mythology as such, but certainly not all. Some still prefer not to know. And those that haven’t yet, maybe or starting to for the first time if they are the slightest bit curious about it. Certainly their method of writing about things is quite different than today’s historical methods with just that, a great deal of mythology being used to tell the story back then. Finding out how the stories were put together, one can still appreciate the stories for the wonderful mythology and story telling it is, and personally find insights as to what inspired the stories, what previous stories were possibly borrowed, and what reasons were used to reconstruct others to create their own in their day. There is power of myth in the stories, and even other truths in it, that may not be historically literally true, but still hold many clues of the time, without one having to weigh in with it as myth or history.
What is right to use of modern history and all of the sciences is to find out many things that may or may not have happened in the past, and what people may have actually existed. Did the walls of Jericho come tumbling down, did Solomon build the massive temple, any evidence of a mass exodus, any evidence of Solomon, or of Moses, David, Jesus, any of the patriarchs, etc, these sorts of things, that many are curious about, and historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and other sciences can have a say and possibly help us determine such things.
I have no problem with any effort to discover the historical, factual truth regarding events portrayed in any scripture.
I do have a problem with people applying post-nineteenth century standards to pre-eighteenth century writings to declare that the earlier writings are clearly false when the reality is that the earlier writings were clearly written using different protocols.
Looking at the paired depictions of Abraham passing Sarah off as his sister certainly indicates that it is probable that one story, (of unknown provenance), made it down to the redactors of Genesis following two traditions that were then both incorporated into the written story. Looking at the pairs of conflicting accounts in the story of Noah is a good indicator that that story is the merging of two traditions. Drawing from the notion that the original tales existed in more than one tradition the idea that this clearly “proves” that neither tale is accurate is silly. We can know that the world wide flood did not occur from massive amounts of historical, archaeological, geological, and other evidence. We can have no definitive statement regarding the existence of Abraham or the accuracy of stories about him from any currently available information.
Similarly in regard to the New Testament: claiming that the creation of a biography that incorporates earlier mythological motifs provides any information regarding the existence of the subject of the biography is without foundation. It is merely an expression of personal faith regarding the traditions of analysis that one brings to the study.
Well, I take it you have a problem then. Too fuckin’ bad. Yes, their standard was different. We get it, no one is faulting them for not having the latest historical tools at their disposal. Regardless, you do seem to be faulting one for using more modern methods for discovering more and more of the bible is mythical, and less and less as ever being historical, when for a good part of its history, it was taken for the latter. Since Catholics are generally the last to get it anyway, considering how long it took them to finally decide in 1948 that it was okay to start teaching Adam and Eve weren’t actually historical figures after all, I doubt I’ll be waiting to hear their latest ruling on Jesus historicity either.
I’ve linked to Christopher Price’s articles because they’re available online and succinctly address the questions we’re debating here. In past threads I’ve used sources by Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, N. T. Wright, Craig Evans, and others with academic credentials. Anything that Price says could be found in their scholarly works as well.
You suggest that I re-read the gospels and ask myself whether the author is writing history. I have read the gospels many times and my conclusion is that the authors were writing history, meaning events which they believed to be historical, with a very few exceptions. (The last few verses in Mark, which weren’t in the original text, would be one exception.) The gospel authors often provide specific locations for the events, specific dates or information that lets us determine the dates. They mention Jesus interacting with real individuals (Pilate, Caiaphas, Simon of Cyrene). They provide names for a great many characters. They provide an abundance of physical detail. All of these are properties suggesting a historical record rather than mythological fiction. For any piece of ancient fiction to have these properties would be unprecedented, at least as far as I know.
You can emphasize as much as you want that Mark and other the gospelers employed the Old Testament is selecting their language. That does not prove that the gospels are fiction or myth; it’s a false dichotomy. The influence of Jewish understanding of the OT on the composition of the gospels is not remotely a new topic. What’s called midrash criticism of the gospels has existed for generations and has given rise to a very large body of scholarly work. There have been no new, earth-shattering discoveries recently that would lead us to re-evaluate the mainstream work in this area from a generation or two ago.
This is a central problem - the gospels are written as history (and to 1st C BCE historian standards) but sold as contemporary accounts. I can count on one hand the number of Christians I know who are aware that the oldest Gospel post-dates Jesus’ supposed timeline by more than a whole generation. All the rest think all 4 are contemporaneous with Jesus’ actual ministry period.
This is nonsense. I have not engaged in any of the several separate discussions in this thread regarding claims for historicity. Many of them are cogent. I have noted one specific argument that is utterly flawed: Claiming that an event did not occur because it was described using mythological motifs simply has no basis in reality. Based on that sort of logic, we could deduce that George Washington never existed because Parson Weems told wild tales about his childhood honesty.
Looking at the mythological and literary motifs included in the gospels and drawing the conclusion that the gospels fail to provide evidence for a historical Jesus is a legitimate conclusion. Drawing the conclusion from that that Jesus was simply a literary invention pushes past the evidence into wild conjecture. I am well aware that a very large part of the bible is mythical. I have posted that point on this board numerous times. Acting as though I am defending the overall bible as history is just silly.
I am not sure what the point of this erroneous claim might be. Noting that Adam and Eve might not have been historical persons in 1948 makes the RCC one of the first Christian organizations to do so, hardly the last. Being snide regarding a tangential issue does not actually promote your argument.
They think that the parts before the crucifiction were written before, the parts around it immediately after, and the parts up to the Ascension after that. Most of them likely think the Evangelists started writing as soon as they became Disciples (of course they were all Disciples, they freely mix up up the Evangelists, Disciples, the 12 Apostles & Paul and his Merry Apostles). The only things they think aren’t eyewitness accounts are the Nativity stories (although there, they probably think the Evangelists got them straight from Mary herself , I’ve never asked )
Basically, they consider them to be compiled diaries of eyewitnesses.
And I do know how to spell crucifixion, but I made the typo and now I like it too much to erase it.
I’m not sure how relevant this is to the discussion of this thread. People hold widely different views on these topics from a credulous acceptance of every word as literally true to a different credulity that all the gospels were written in the fourth century as dictated by the bishops at Nicaea. This thread was focused on a more central idea that does look at history, arguing over the places where we can ascertain facts, and pointing to the credulous at either end of the spectrum really has no bearing on this topic.
You mean they think that the gospels (which include accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion) were written during his lifetime (before his crucifixion)?