A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Richard Carrier's On The Historicity Of Jesus

Blog of Reason

New Member
Discussion thread for the blog entry "A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Richard Carrier's On The Historicity Of Jesus" by Laurens.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/religion/a-quest-for-the-historical-jesus-part-2-a-review-of-richard-carriers-on-the-historicity-of-jesus/
 

Laurens

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

he_who_is_nobody said:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RichardCCarrier/status/674696725399863296[/tweet]

Hat tip: Collecemall.

Yes, I saw this last night. I wasn't expecting it at all! :mrgreen:

Is there anything anyone would particularly like to see addressed in the next post in this series?
 

tuxbox

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

I've link "A Quest For The Historical Jesus part 1 & 2" on my FB page. I enjoyed reading both of them.
 

Laurens

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

tuxbox said:
I've link "A Quest For The Historical Jesus part 1 & 2" on my FB page. I enjoyed reading both of them.

Cheers. Any suggestions on things I should cover in the next post?
 

he_who_is_nobody

Active Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

Laurens said:
Is there anything anyone would particularly like to see addressed in the next post in this series?

The bizarre nativity story. Such a bizarre story (both biblical and apocryphal) seems like historical revisionism at work, plus Christmas is on its way after all.
 

Laurens

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

he_who_is_nobody said:
Laurens said:
Is there anything anyone would particularly like to see addressed in the next post in this series?

The bizarre nativity story. Such a bizarre story (both biblical and apocryphal) seems like historical revisionism at work, plus Christmas is on its way after all.

Cool I'll see what I can come up with over the weekend :)
 

Laurens

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

he_who_is_nobody said:
Laurens said:
Is there anything anyone would particularly like to see addressed in the next post in this series?

The bizarre nativity story. Such a bizarre story (both biblical and apocryphal) seems like historical revisionism at work, plus Christmas is on its way after all.

I've decided to cover a wider topic of why the Gospels do not count for historical evidence. I can't find much on the nativity that I didn't say in my first post. I'd prefer to cover new ground than go over that again. Apologies.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Active Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

Laurens said:
he_who_is_nobody said:
The bizarre nativity story. Such a bizarre story (both biblical and apocryphal) seems like historical revisionism at work, plus Christmas is on its way after all.

I've decided to cover a wider topic of why the Gospels do not count for historical evidence. I can't find much on the nativity that I didn't say in my first post. I'd prefer to cover new ground than go over that again. Apologies.

Honestly to me, the strongest evidence for historicity lies with Jesus name (Yeshua being so common and the messiah not being called Emanuel), his title (being called "the Nazorin" even though the bible states the messiah would be from Bethlehem), and the bizarre nativity stories that go with this Yeshua of Nazareth that tries to (in my mind) reconcile those contradictions. I agree that none of the gospels are historical, but why would they go out of their way to create such an origin story when they could have easily said Emanuel of Bethlehem was the messiah when they were created? I mean, as Carrier points out, the authors of the gospels were learned men. As learned men, they must have known those basics about a Jewish messiah? Those key contradictions point to the myth that the gospels were written about had a nugget of truth they had to explain away.
 

Laurens

New Member
Re: A Quest For The Historical Jesus Part 2: A Review of Ric

he_who_is_nobody said:
Honestly to me, the strongest evidence for historicity lies with Jesus name (Yeshua being so common and the messiah not being called Emanuel), his title (being called "the Nazorin" even though the bible states the messiah would be from Bethlehem), and the bizarre nativity stories that go with this Yeshua of Nazareth that tries to (in my mind) reconcile those contradictions. I agree that none of the gospels are historical, but why would they go out of their way to create such an origin story when they could have easily said Emanuel of Bethlehem was the messiah when they were created? I mean, as Carrier points out, the authors of the gospels were learned men. As learned men, they must have known those basics about a Jewish messiah? Those key contradictions point to the myth that the gospels were written about had a nugget of truth they had to explain away.

I did cover this in my first post. Essentially it boils down to a prophecy in Isaiah which refers to a branch - 'NZR' in Hebrew, which could be read as Nazorean in Greek. The prophecy is about a branch springing forth from Jesse---David's father---and will bear fruit (Isaiah 11:1). In other words an ancestor of David will appear and do something mega. Matthew refers to this prophecy " There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”" Matthew 2.23 (NRSV). Nazorean doesn't necessarily refer to Nazareth, but it seems that Matthew interpreted it in such a way. Luke is most likely just re-writing Matthew (which I think is more likely than a hypothetical Q document, but I'll get into that in my next post).

I believe it's a fallacy to posit that the Jews had one specific model of a messiah. This is the same fallacy that is used when people say the Jews would never have believed in a dying messiah---something that is refuted by the existence of Christianity itself.

EDIT:
With regards to the name. Yeshua may have been common, but it is the name of one of the major patriarchs (translated as Joshua, but its the same name). It is also referenced in a messianic prophecy in Zechariah 6:
Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua [Yeshua] son of Jehozadak

It's interesting to note that Hebrews refers to Jesus as a high priest. The name Yeshua means Yahweh saves, so it's hardly the last name you would pick for a saviour figure.
 
Top