Toto

At a recent talk in LA, he said he expected to have it out in 2010.

avi

His web page however, seems more interested in describing forthcoming cinema, than updating his effort to produce an unbiased book on the historicity of Jesus.
http://www.richardcarrier.blogspot.com/

Toto

Email him if you are concerned. He has one blog post on a recent film which is relevant to his work, and I think one earlier post on music, but most of his blog posts are on his philosophical or historical work.

Vinnie

My two cents:

I'd start with the outside sources and work my way in.

Stratify Christian texts with thorough discussions of the more important ones for the questions of historicity. This includes the triple and double tradition material. The relationship between the triple tradition material and the Gospel of John. The relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and John. I would like to see my question on Pauline silence adequately addressed: is the argument from silence impacted in any way since 6 of the 13 Pauline epistles are pseudonymous and are more concerned with imitating Paul rather than the gospels? Other works seem to evince knowledge of some Pauline letters as well. To what degree is this silence predicated on seven works of Paul?

In addition the primary sources need to be analyzed for earlier written documents and sources. That "Mark made it all up from scripture" might win a few converts on the internet, but it won't go far in academia.

How does the mythicist position account for so much (apparently) independent and early material attributed to Jesus? Some of which goes against the theological grain. Is Mark's entire gospel an apology for the shame of the cross? (Gundry). Is the passion in Mark and John dependent or independent? Was there a pre-Markan PN (Brown, Death). After you stratify your sources, since the gospels appear to consist of movable pericopes you should complex them chronologically (Crossan, Historical Jesus). Is there a number of multiply attested traditions? Early traditions? Embarrassing traditions? Early, multiple attested and embarrassing traditions? Discuss the criteria of Meier, Sanders et al. Whether or not the criteria go back to the lips of Jesus, which logically they do not, is somewhat off topic for the question of the historicity of Jesus. For if they go back to the very early church I do not see mythcism as being tenable. You might of course disagree.

Take your own adivice in your review of Doherty and state how a different date to various works impacts your decision, how does a different theory of synoptic relations change things?

Not only that, but if you side on mythicism show how it account for the spread of historicism. Don't merely chronological locate texts, spatially locate them as well. It is often said that the four-fold Gospel was established ca 180 by Irenaeus. But how does a reference in Rome in 180 show the four-fold gospel was established across Christendom--or most of it? Was Rome the hub? Muratorian Fragment also represents Rome if dated to the later second century. Clement of Alexandria also tells us they made it to Alexandria just after Irenaeus at least.

Obviously this is a bit off topic, but I would like to see more concern for spatial locators as opposed to merely chronological ones, as if the Christian church grew linearly in all directions at a constant rate.

I would also like to see a listing of the original followers of Jesus in the first gospel and the references to them in Paul and all other independent works. Why are so many followers of Jesus listed in the context of an HJ independent of one another?

For example, Mark presents Peter as a follower of Jesus (duh). The historicist reads this in Paul while the mythicists says "nuh uh" you are projecting Mark into Paul. Now so lets say we abstain from Paul for a bit and move to Thomas. Well there we find Peter, Thomas, James, Mary Magdalene, all in the context of an HJ as in Mark. Obviously we need to be sure they are the same people but does the attestation here support reading historicity into Paul? We can look at all the names and how they are used up until 150.

I just don't see how, without dating certain works significantly later than its consensus opinion can lead one to mythicism. That has always been my biggest complaint. Doherty dates Mark 85-90. If we can find reason to date all the clearly historical texts further away from the time of Jesus then the mythicist case is more viable as extra time to develop from mythicist to historicity is avaliable. But with Mark writing ca. 65-75 (15 to 20 years earlier than Doherty believes) the only adequate explanation for the plethora of Jesus traditions we have, attested in different sources and forms in different spatial locations, is an HJ with accretions. I still haven't seen a single convincing argument that suggests Mark had to be written after 60 C.E., this of course does not mean it does date that early. This needs to be accounted for. An anonymous Christian, possibly named Mark, writing in Rome or somewhere like Syria, is consistent, in my view with dates anywhere from 55-85. 25 years is neough developmental tme for the traditions in Mark to have taken their shape. Curiously this is how Mark is dated so late, on the basis of an HJ and needed time for the development of oral materials. All the mythcists have, it would seem, is chapter 13 and a ton of literature has gone into that. No one has ever brought forth any convincing evidence why we should date the text past 70 C.E.. I admit that it is a plausible view but dating Mark to 55 c.e. is as well. I still find ca. 70 to be the best overall fit, however. That is my $0.02. Maybe your book will demonstrate that to be incorrect. Maybe it will show it to be correct. Maybe it won't even consider it relevant. In addition, I feel combing through the double tradition and isolating a first-layer and tiny sayings list of a non-extant hypothetical document that somehow is no longer an early sayings list of Jesus by his followers isn't a fruitful exercise either.

I think if your book rests on a bunch of unconventional datings and peripheral views not in the mainstream, even if you are 100% correct in all that you write, the book will be a complete failure in what you want it to do (bridge the gap).

At any rate, I'll definitely order a copy of it when it comes out. I don't consider it a worth-while pledge. What I find amazing is that so many people will pledge money to show that a guy named Jesus did not exist 2,000 years ago....

This just serves to show neither you or anyone will come up with a perfectly objective method here....and that is not an insult to you or any other scholar. It is a factual statement about 2,000 years of Christian baggage.

Vinnie

just to add to this:

--Mark--Q overlaps and historicity....something worth discussing, this multiple attestation of source and form...
--in the context of stratification of jesus' followers, Meier's and other scholars view of multiple inherited lists of the twelve, to explain divergences, should be discussed as well...as should Sander's view and Crossan's on the twelve and Judas.

Steven Carr

As can be seen from my recent post on mainstream Biblical scholarship, there is a very good reason for why that thesis would not go far in academia.

These guys are desperate to avoid ever even considering that.

As James Dunn would say, Mark could not have made it all up from scripture because bits of Matthew's Gospel are very similar to what Mark wrote.

Steven Carr

Yes , there is a 'plethora' of Jesus traditions.

In other words, the only way you can explain stories of Jesus killing his childhood companions is by positing an historical Jesus?

You seem to be confusing Christianity with Islam.

There is no outbreak of oral stories and traditions about Jesus and his companions the way there is about Muhammad and his companions.

There is not a single even vaguely true story about Jesus which is sourced back to his alleged brother James.

Compare that to the plethora of stories sourced back to Aisha, hundreds of them., thousands on some counts.

And yet few Christians appear even to have bothered inventing stories sourced back to the alleged brother of their Saviour.

And none in the first century.

Almost as though they knew that nobody would have accepted stories sourced back to any James , the church leader who was allegedly the brother of Jesus.


This brother of Jesus became a church leader and still Christians in the first century did not even invent stories about Jesus based on this relationship?

If James the church leader really had been a family brother of Jesus this could never have happened.

Vinnie

This particular sub-forum is filled with people desperate to avoid the obvious. You should focus your efforts on them.

It is not Mark could not, it is Mark did not. For starters, some material appears to occur independent of Mark or is shown through careful analysis of his gospel to have been based earlier written sources or unlikely to have been created by him. In addition, many of the sayings appear to have circulated for a while before taking on their current form. We see slightly different variations in some of the same sayings (apparently) independent of the canonical gospels in the 2d century.

To start easy and simple Steve, have you ever even heard of a Mark--Q overlap? Seriously.

Most critical scholars agree, as do I that Mark is responsible for the string the beads are on. Very few think he made up all the beads and for good reason. Most think he ordered the beads the way he wanted, added some paint to some of them, glitter, decorative designs, etc., and ended with a finished necklace he donated to a persecuted Christian community.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

By definition, Q is stuff which is not in Mark.

I can't find this Q manuscript anywhere. Do you have a JPEG of the parts which overlap with Mark?

Mark couldn't have made it up, because at least 50 years later than Mark, on your dating, other versions of those sayings appear?

And because 50 years after Mark, different versions of those sayings appear, then they must have been circulating before Mark was written?

Do you have any other Christian in the first century who put his name on a document saying he had heard of Judas, Thomas, Bartimaeus, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Simon of Cyrene , Joseph of Arimathea etc etc?

How can Mark not have made it up when those people never existed?

Vinnie

Non sequitur.

Your abuse of logic is stunning. If Christians invent stories to you they write pure fiction. If they don't invent enough stories to you they write pure fiction. I get it, really, I do. Its exactly similar to your textual critical view on the Pauline corpus.

Do you even realize how many Christian voices we do not hear from this poorly documented sect? By the time of Irenaeus there were probably ca. 100k Christians (using stark at 3.4% p.y.). You tell me how much literature we have and how many stories and voices we don't have. Go to Kirby's site and add them all up. Do it by generation (30-60, 61-90, 91-120, 121-150, 151-180). In addition, incorporate the urgent eschatology of the early church which might not make writing seem the most urgent of ideas or needs in an oral culture. We are talking pre-wikipedia here.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Where have you been?

Try reading the synoptic gospels in a synopsis. Its the best working hypothesis that we have, followed closely by Luke knowing Matthew.

Reading comprehension issues. I said they circulated orally before and after the gospels were written. Pay attention, Steve. We aren't at CARM.

A few of them might be fictitious but you certainly will be incapable of demonstrating that. Your logic process has been shaped by too much arguing with fundamentalists. I recommend you take a break from that aspect of internet for about a year.

I suggested Richard stratified the names of the followers of Jesus and see if they are mentioned independently in a historical context. If you feel they were all made up, why don't you do it.

Vinnie