mountainman

Hey aa5874,

Having researched the field for a similar perod I agree entirely with this hypothesis in the field of ancient history. The intriguing question in my mind in relation to the OP in this thread is to what extent Richard Carrier will present this hypothesis as a mention or as a more formal summary.

I shall be interested to determine this.


But, the NT Canon is not all the ingredients in the pudding so to speak. YES it is absolutely critical to explain its chronological authorship in a specific ancient historical context, but it does not represent the full set of evidence with respect to the questions surrounding "Christian Origins".

If you will allow me to add to the NT Canonical writings, the NT Non Canonical writings aka "The Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" then you will receive my full attention. When both sets of literature are added together then we are examining the complete set of evidence available - we cannot just myopically deal with the NT Canon without the context of the NT Gnostic Gospels and Acts, and vice verse.

Apart from this small nit-pick regarding scope of theory you have my agreement in these matters. Both sets of literature represent EVIDENCE which needs to be explained by a theory using some hypothesis. The HJ hypothesis is about to be attacked again by Carrier. Sooner or later scholars and academics who do not consider themselves to be INSIDERS to the HJ Hypothesis being TRUTH will contemplate alternative hypotheses, such as the MJ and the FJ.





There is also the writer Pseudo Paul and the historical author Apollonius of Tyana, who was politically callumnified by the Church Writer Eusebius.



No not zero. Zero specifies that their is a set with zero in it, or possibly something very very small. The correct terminology in logic theory is called the empty set. In database logic is is designated as containing not ZERO, but in fact something called NULL. It is empty!




Yes, this set is quite full and has many elements in it.
In fact there are forgeries coming out of the ears of all the early church writers.
This is indicative of massive data integrity exceptions.
Something stinks with the "orthodox his-story".



NULL on Jesus.
No evidence implies an Empty set.



NULL on Jesus.
No evidence implies an Empty set.



NULL on Paul (and Pseudo Paul).
No evidence implies an Empty set.

However we do have Apollonius of Tyana.
Certainly this author existed at that epoch.
We have a massive inscription and Eusebian attestations within anti-Apollonian polemic.

NULL on the 12 disciples.

However we do have The Twelve Apostles of Plotinus - a sage with a very valid "Holy Trinity".


No, again its NULL on the churches.
No evidence implies an empty set.

It is also NULL on the christian "Church Houses".
None of these have been located by the archaeologists.



NULL on Jesus believers.
Not a peep before Eusebius.




The historicity of JESUS appears to be NULL.
Consequently the hypothesis becomes Jesus was invented at some later date.

I am not offering any prizes for when that later date may have been.
But I will be interested in how Richard Carrier approaches these questions.

Momigliano should be a guide to Carrier.
But time will tell.
Well done aa5874.

mountainman

Ancient historians are the OUTSIDERS and "Biblical Historians" are the INSIDERS.
The field of the former is a superset of the field of the latter.
Ancient history encompasses and circumscribes "Biblical history" and not the other way around.



Look at the job of an ancient historian similar to the job of a detective such as Sherlock Holmes. Someone in a very high place pulled a massive scam about the authenticity of publication of the New Testament Canonical literature, and for many many centuries the scam has been the source of the power, and money and influence of the various "Christian Churches".

The question is of course, how did it all begin?
If Jesus did not exist in a historical context then
when did he appear first on Earth represented as such?

As outsiders, ancient historians can investigate the evidence of frauds which, to insiders, could not even be contemplated, because of the strictures of their conditioned belief systems.

Doug Shaver

The tradition is not nonexistent. The question is whether there is any truth in the tradition. A historian can answer that question.

David Deas

Oh please.

A historian can answer questions about Jesus Christ and early Christianity about as well as an astrophysicist or astrobiologist can answer questions about extraterrestrial life.

Littlejohn

I do not think the comparison it be appropriated...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

mountainman

Oh please?

Doug's quite correct in what he stated.
He's talking about ancient historical truth.


Notwithstanding the perfection of the answer, as a first approximation it seems quite reasonable to have questions in the field of ancient history answered by the ancient historians, and questions in the fields of astrophysics, to be answered in the first approximation by astrophysicists. What you may be failing to understand is that "Biblical Historians" (who have traditionally been tenured to answer these questions in ancient history) are extremely poorly qualified in the field of ancient history. (NB: The field of "Biblical History" is but a small subset of the field of ancient history).

Carrier as I understand it, it attempting a sketch of the historicity of Jesus with reference to the field of ancient history.

Get the drift ?

mountainman

But isn't this largely stated by "Biblical Historians" and/or unqualified apologists who are making representations to the public under the banner of some or another church or "Biblical Institution"? Most ancient historians appear to try and avoid making misleading statements such as this, because they have no vested interest in the selling of church dogma.

Doug Shaver

I have no idea. I've never tried to categorize those who say it. I just know I've heard it said a bunch of times, and not only by Christian apologists.

David Deas

Absolutely not.

"What you may be failing to understand" is the fact that we don't have a single scrap of credible evidence for any historical version of Jesus. Carrier can't sketch anything and neither can any other professional historian without first beginning with historical facts. We don't have any historical facts. "Get the drift?"

Now, Carrier can attack and poke fun at the methods used by Biblical historians just like anybody else can. But he can't tell me anything about the historicity of Jesus Christ any more than anybody else can. There is no such thing as an expert on the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding "[Carrier] can't tell me anything about the historicity of Jesus Christ," you are right. Since he does not believe that Jesus existed, he obviously will not claim to be an expert on the existence of a person who he believes did not exist. Similarly, since Carrier believes that Santa Claus does not exist, he will not claim to be an expert on the existence of Santa Claus.