Miken
Active Member
As I have stated in other threads, I am tied up with RL. I will respond when and as I can.
Carrier’s PhD dissertation has nothing to do with his claims. As I have discussed more than once, the subject is not at all related.
Peer review at Sheffield Phoenix means that it is about the Bible, that is written well enough to be read and that there is a potential audience willing to buy it. They print things that are all over the place in claims about biblical matters, these things disagreeing with each other, sometimes enormously. The peer review by this publisher does not mean they agree with what is being said or even understand it. This is not like peer review in scientific journals where the proposed article must be grounded in known science or make a very good case for why known science is not necessarily totally correct.
If Carrier said that his views are standard in the field, he is utterly wrong. To hold views that are standard in the academic field one must first know Koine Greek, Carrier does not. Or perhaps he is just lying about the meaning of the Greek in order to sell books.
Nonetheless, all of Paul’s references never go beyond the Three World model familiar to his audience. And equating οὐρανός with outer space is something beyond the comprehension of his audience. This is just Carrier being deliberately provocative to sell books.
Selling books.
I have already addressed all of this in great detail. I am not seeing a response to my big-time criticisms. Carrier is either ignorant of Koine Greek or he is lying to sell books.
It is very obvious what Paul meant by seed. The word σπέρμα is used 44 times in the NT. It refers to plant seed 6 times. It unequivocally refers to line of descent 37 times literally or figuratively outside of Romans. Why should it suddenly mean sperm cells? In addition, Paul is addressing Jewish Christians in Romans. They would understand perfectly well that the messiah is required to be of the House of David and immediately understand what Paul is saying. And one more time, the word Paul uses is NOT manufactured. The word means to become. It is Deponent (active) Voice. It would have to be Passive Voice to be manufactured.
Carrier is either totally ignorant of Koine Greek or deliberately lying to sell books. His claim about how actual sperm cells might be involved sure sounds like he is being intentionally outrageous to sell books.
I am familiar with the works of Ignatius of Antioch. Nowhere that I know of does Ignatius say anything about a change of vocabulary being needed. The sources Ignatius quotes with respect to Jesus being born are from Matthew, who does use the word born. Sounds like just another example of Carrier not telling the truth about his claims.
That Paul’s letters assume that his audience knows about Jesus courtesy of various other missionaries but Paul wants to tell them about the meaning of Jesus as interpreted by Paul instead of them is pretty good evidence that there was a Jesus.
As I have discussed multiple times now, Paul never said Jesus came into being from the sperm of David. The word is simply never used in that sense anywhere in the NT. Being descended from David is exactly what his Jewish Christian readers would expect to hear and would absolutely interpret it that way. Paul being Jewish would certainly mean it that way. Claiming that Paul meant something else and Ignatius wanted it changed is flatly untrue. Conspiracy theory.
Either Carrier is ignorant of Koine Greek or his is lying about the meaning in order to sell books.
As I previously stated, Paul refers to his audiences already knows about Jesus and mentions other belief systems about Jesus being preached that are in opposition to his. It is clear that there really was a Jesus before Paul came on the scene. The spiritual only Jesus theory is nonsense. Can you justify such a theory?
Don’t refer me to a book. This is a debate forum. Present the arguments here so everyone can see them.
Concerning Carrier’s claims about his knowledge of languages, either he is lying about that or he is lying about the meanings which are plainly wrong. I have shown that already but all I am getting in response is ‘but Carrier says’.
Carrier got his PhD and was being funded by his patron followers. From his free blog writings. He told them with donations he would apply his research to the most requested topic. The donations paid off his student loans and the majority of requests were to do a Jesus historicity study.
7 years later and several books he presents all of his findings in the 700 page On the Historicity of Jesus from Sheffield Press. It's been peer-reviewed and has several scholars agree with his conclusions although much of what he's saying is already standard in the field.
In this lecture he's first presenting his finished works.
Carrier’s PhD dissertation has nothing to do with his claims. As I have discussed more than once, the subject is not at all related.
Peer review at Sheffield Phoenix means that it is about the Bible, that is written well enough to be read and that there is a potential audience willing to buy it. They print things that are all over the place in claims about biblical matters, these things disagreeing with each other, sometimes enormously. The peer review by this publisher does not mean they agree with what is being said or even understand it. This is not like peer review in scientific journals where the proposed article must be grounded in known science or make a very good case for why known science is not necessarily totally correct.
If Carrier said that his views are standard in the field, he is utterly wrong. To hold views that are standard in the academic field one must first know Koine Greek, Carrier does not. Or perhaps he is just lying about the meaning of the Greek in order to sell books.
Carrier mentions justifications in at least one lecture. There are 3 upper heavens, an atmosphere heaven, a stellar heaven and a limitless heaven. Kings 8 maybe? He sources a few texts.
Nonetheless, all of Paul’s references never go beyond the Three World model familiar to his audience. And equating οὐρανός with outer space is something beyond the comprehension of his audience. This is just Carrier being deliberately provocative to sell books.
Well it is ridiculous. But he also provided a source that has the body of Adam buried on Mars. I'll have to go back and watch the lecture.
The coslmology and cosmonagy is quite ridiculous and the upper heavens were literally in outer space.
In fact Carrier recently wrote a laymans 200 pg version of his main book called Jesus in Outer Space.
They believed the atmosphere extended way out into space and the celestial temple where Jesus was king was in one of these heavens. I'd have to research his quotes and I really don't care about details like that.
Selling books.
Paul uses a different word for human birth than what he uses for Jesus (see below).
Also Rom1:3 and Gal 4:4 look to be documents that scholarship believes were doctored to fit a narrative, see below..
"Paul said Jesus “came into being from a woman,” and his surrounding argument implies that by this he meant from the woman “Hagar…an allegory” (Gal. 4:4; see OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we must say Jesus is “from Mary,” not some generic “woman” in an argument about allegorical women. Notably Paul never mentions a Mary. Not in any creed he attests (see OHJ, Ch. 11.4). So why is her name now important to affirm in the creed?
In both places Paul said Jesus was “made” (ginomai) not “born” (gennaô), by choosing the same word Paul uses to signal divine manufacture (of Adam and our future resurrection bodies), and never of human birth, in conspicuous contrast to the word Paul does always use of human birth. Ignatius conspicuously reverses the vocabulary, and insists we now must say “born” (gennaô) not “made” (ginomai). Exactly the same way we know Christian scribes tried doctoring the manuscripts of Paul (in both Rom. 1:3 and Gal. 4:4 at the same time, thus proving they were well aware of the problem I’m pointing out: OHJ, p. 580, n. 91; hence though both words can mean birth, Christians were aware Paul’s usage did not)."
I have already addressed all of this in great detail. I am not seeing a response to my big-time criticisms. Carrier is either ignorant of Koine Greek or he is lying to sell books.
You don't seem to understand Carriers work at all? This is his argument on Romans 1:3
In Romans 1:3, Paul literally writes “concerning His Son, who came to be from the sperm of David according to the flesh.”
Most modern translations do not render these words literally but “interpret” the words to say something else according to each team of translators’ theological assumptions, adding words not in the Greek, or translating words contrary to Paul’s usual idiom.
We cannot answer the question with the data available whether Paul meant “sperm” (i.e. seed) allegorically (as he does mean elsewhere when he speaks of seeds and births, such as of Gentiles becoming the seed of Abraham by God’s declaration), or literally (God manufacturing a body for Jesus from the actual sperm of David), or figuratively (as a claim of biological descent—-even though Paul’s vocabulary does not match such an assertion, but that of direct manufacture). At best it’s equal odds. We can’t tell.
Two (not just one) of those possibilities are compatible with Jesus never having been on earth, and since all three readings are equally likely on present evidence, and that is why Romans 1:3 doesn’t help us determine if Paul believed Jesus was ever on earth.
Nevertheless I count this verse as evidence for historicity, ruling on the upper bound of my margins of error that it’s twice as likely Paul would write this if Jesus was a historical person than if he was not. And that’s quite generous, because…
Notice this is being counted as WEAK evidence FOR historicity.
It is very obvious what Paul meant by seed. The word σπέρμα is used 44 times in the NT. It refers to plant seed 6 times. It unequivocally refers to line of descent 37 times literally or figuratively outside of Romans. Why should it suddenly mean sperm cells? In addition, Paul is addressing Jewish Christians in Romans. They would understand perfectly well that the messiah is required to be of the House of David and immediately understand what Paul is saying. And one more time, the word Paul uses is NOT manufactured. The word means to become. It is Deponent (active) Voice. It would have to be Passive Voice to be manufactured.
Carrier is either totally ignorant of Koine Greek or deliberately lying to sell books. His claim about how actual sperm cells might be involved sure sounds like he is being intentionally outrageous to sell books.
I am familiar with the works of Ignatius of Antioch. Nowhere that I know of does Ignatius say anything about a change of vocabulary being needed. The sources Ignatius quotes with respect to Jesus being born are from Matthew, who does use the word born. Sounds like just another example of Carrier not telling the truth about his claims.
That Paul’s letters assume that his audience knows about Jesus courtesy of various other missionaries but Paul wants to tell them about the meaning of Jesus as interpreted by Paul instead of them is pretty good evidence that there was a Jesus.
This clears up a lot. It's consensus among the historicity field that there are only 7 authentic letters. This is not Carrier's work and is the opposite of a "conspiracy theory". Textual analysis, writing styles and all sorts of literary clues allow experts to see when a work is forged or altered.
Thirteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul.[13] Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[note 2] It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews,[14] but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars.[14][15] The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia
Paul said Jesus “came into being from David’s sperm” (genomenou ek spermatos Dauid, Rom. 1:3; see OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we have to say Jesus came “from the descendants of David” (ek genous Dauid). Conspicuously, precisely the thing Paul never said.
How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus? • Richard Carrier
As I have discussed multiple times now, Paul never said Jesus came into being from the sperm of David. The word is simply never used in that sense anywhere in the NT. Being descended from David is exactly what his Jewish Christian readers would expect to hear and would absolutely interpret it that way. Paul being Jewish would certainly mean it that way. Claiming that Paul meant something else and Ignatius wanted it changed is flatly untrue. Conspiracy theory.
You have clearly spent no time investigating Carriers work since like 2011. He has stated in multiple interviews and debates that he is fluent in the Greek that the NT is written in.
Either Carrier is ignorant of Koine Greek or his is lying about the meaning in order to sell books.
Yes, the gospels which came later were wildly fictitious and created an Earthly story for Jesus.
As I previously stated, Paul refers to his audiences already knows about Jesus and mentions other belief systems about Jesus being preached that are in opposition to his. It is clear that there really was a Jesus before Paul came on the scene. The spiritual only Jesus theory is nonsense. Can you justify such a theory?
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20#reader_B00QSO2S5C
The intro explains what was meant bu upper heavens at the time. Others had mentioned several random passages during debates where he switched to the Greek form and explained what it meant. He said in a video he had to learn Hebrew, Greek - for the NT, Septuigant, histories, as well as several other languages and also reads tablets from Egypt, Syrian, Thracian and other tablets.
Don’t refer me to a book. This is a debate forum. Present the arguments here so everyone can see them.
Concerning Carrier’s claims about his knowledge of languages, either he is lying about that or he is lying about the meanings which are plainly wrong. I have shown that already but all I am getting in response is ‘but Carrier says’.