• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

#143: Jan. - Mar. 2016 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Carrier brings up that Jesus was created as a replacement for the Temple in Jerusalem. I’ve long concluded this also. In the gospel story, he throws out the moneylenders and then tells the authorities to destroy the temple and he will raise it in three days. The writer even says that Jesus really spoke of himself. So Jesus is the New Temple because the old one was corrupt which was symbolized by the presence of the moneylenders. Carrier delves into it in detail.

The physical Jerusalem temple could not be accepted as the center of Jewish religious life because not only were the priests corrupt but were also under control of the Romans. The temple had no autonomy as a result and so as long it remained under Roman control, the religious lives of the Jews were occupied as much as their land was. There was no freedom. Moreover, there was no hope of gaining that freedom because any military action against Rome was doomed to fail—and indeed those revolts that did take place were all put down. Even if the messianists could be momentarily successful against Rome, Rome would return in full force and put an end to their success. There was, in the air, a feeling that the civil and religious elite among the Jews were corrupt and nothing but Roman lackeys making it impossible to remove them by force because the Romans would never allow it. As long as the temple was corrupt, God would withhold his favor. As such, they could not drive out the Romans. In fact, the occupation of Rome was a punishment from God. As long as this temple system remained, there was no way out.

The only way out of this predicament was to forsake the physical temple altogether and opt for a spiritual temple. To attempt to build another physical temple was to invite disaster. The new temple could not be physical. In this way, corrupt Jewish officials and the Romans they served could not control it. Moreover, the temple was inside you and therefore already built and incorruptible as long as you were pure. All that was necessary was to propose that a great sacrifice had been arranged by God in order to cleanse humanity of all sin and that those who then dedicated themselves to God kept this spiritual temple clean and pure. No sacrifices at the physical temple were needed. The ultimate sacrifice had already been performed. The outward act of dedication to God was to be baptized—the symbolic washing away of sin—and then the eucharistic meal—to “consume” the God so that it became part of you. Then instead of taking orders from priests or governors, they take orders from Christ himself via revelation and visions as well as messages hidden in scripture.

In this way, no money or strife need be employed for ends that were certainly in vain. Here, their victory was already accomplished. To keep this inner sanctum pure other religions already had similar ideas and so their methods would be helpful. The Stoics, for example, who taught that nothing could be done to man by any other that could in any way corrupt the Inner Temple without that man’s consent, were a model. Even the vilest torture could not corrupt that temple. One always had the freedom to choose one’s own way—the only freedom that could never be taken from a man by any other. And as long as a man was pure, God’s promise was binding and active.

The mystery schools provided a blueprint for initiating and progressing new members. The teachings couldn’t be dispensed all at once. One had to be weaned from the teat of this world and onto the teat of the spiritual world—the True Temple. And only after a proper period of weaning could the meat be given.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Except that this invented Christ that emerged didn't have the make-up that would be expected from fervent Jews who wanted a pure Temple. This concept emerging straight from orthodox Judaism, which insisted on a human messiah, seems difficult to imagine. The invention of the Gospel stories, for whatever reason, is itself difficult to imagine. I mean the kind of invention that is implied in your and Carrier's hypothesis, that a writer or writers decided to create a heroic figure, with backstory, to accomplish a defined end. The Gospels read as reports of the accumulated beliefs existing, probably both in written and oral forms, about the brief career of Jesus. As that type of literature, they have verisimilitude. I'm not speaking of the likelihood of the events they depict, just of the mode of the origin and transmission of the stories.

Another comment is that I don't see why an invented Jesus is needed in the first place in this proposal. Couldn't a Jesus viewed as living be invested with this role of spiritual replacement for the Temple?
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DWill wrote:Except that this invented Christ that emerged didn't have the make-up that would be expected from fervent Jews who wanted a pure Temple.
In what way?
This concept emerging straight from orthodox Judaism, which insisted on a human messiah, seems difficult to imagine.
It emerged from the Qumran community which was at the center of all the changes that Judaism was undergoing in that period.
The invention of the Gospel stories, for whatever reason, is itself difficult to imagine. I mean the kind of invention that is implied in your and Carrier's hypothesis, that a writer or writers decided to create a heroic figure, with backstory, to accomplish a defined end.
The backstory was already written.
The Gospels read as reports of the accumulated beliefs existing, probably both in written and oral forms, about the brief career of Jesus. As that type of literature, they have verisimilitude. I'm not speaking of the likelihood of the events they depict, just of the mode of the origin and transmission of the stories.
You can say the same about Moses or Mohammad or Buddha or Krishna or Lao Tzu or Quetzalcoatl.
Another comment is that I don't see why an invented Jesus is needed in the first place in this proposal. Couldn't a Jesus viewed as living be invested with this role of spiritual replacement for the Temple?
In what way?
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DWill wrote:Except that this invented Christ that emerged didn't have the make-up that would be expected from fervent Jews who wanted a pure Temple.
what would "Paul" say? "know ye not" :-D
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
or Acts has it this way
Acts wrote:The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
it's all the same motif

holy of holies in the tabernacle
The Holy of Holies, the most sacred site in Judaism, is the inner sanctuary within the Tabernacle and Temple in Jerusalem when Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple were standing.
christ in the temple of your body
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
now please excuse me, i have a crucifixion to be getting on with :lol:

X marks the spot.
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
where else would you find Him? :lol:
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2718 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DWill wrote:The invention of the Gospel stories, for whatever reason, is itself difficult to imagine. I mean the kind of invention that is implied in your and Carrier's hypothesis, that a writer or writers decided to create a heroic figure, with backstory, to accomplish a defined end. The Gospels read as reports of the accumulated beliefs existing, probably both in written and oral forms, about the brief career of Jesus. As that type of literature, they have verisimilitude. I'm not speaking of the likelihood of the events they depict, just of the mode of the origin and transmission of the stories.
Yes, excellent point, I agree, it is very difficult to imagine that the Gospels were invented, given the emotional power and plausibility of the Gospel stories taken at face value (with Jeffersonian amendment). The mythicist argument is that this hypothesis is in fact true even though extremely difficult to imagine. So the hurdle bar that mythicist argument has to jump is the proof that this highly implausible claim about history is in fact more plausible than the conventional wisdom blessed by vast tradition. To jump that hurdle, mythicism must engage with theology.

I am a practicing Christian, and consider that my disbelief in Jesus deepens and clarifies and relevantifies my faith in a purely natural scientific God of the universe. To understand Jesus as allegory for the sun positions human life with respect to our galaxy in an accurate and powerful way. To see that in fact all of the extremely beautiful and wise stories and teachings about Jesus came from early community imagination rather than from memory of events actually serves to deepen their impact. To see that Jesus is imaginary frees him from the shackles of a naïve materialism, enabling us to understand that his imaginary role as mediator, connecting the temporal with the eternal, can be reconciled with modern scientific knowledge.

To see that human psychology and politics are so depraved (using Calvin’s famous Tulip term) as to be able to invent Jesus provides a humbling insight into our weakness and our need for the grace of God for salvation. The fall from grace is the rise of patriarchal monotheism. Belief in the Historical Jesus directly serves the political cultural agenda of this old iron age hierarchical idea of salvation by law. Imagining that the Gospels are literal binds us within the chains of a false delusion. Recognizing the suffering caused by this delusion is in my view the key to human liberation.

The whole story in the Bible of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ can best be interpreted as a useful prediction about the need for human cultural evolution. The emergence of global civilization on the basis of metal and agriculture requires a transvaluation of values, a shift from war and conflict to peace and love as dominant values. The society of the ancient world was so fallen into depravity that the only path for salvation was to imagine a perfect man as world leader.

Early Christian imagination was built upon the recognition that the response of ancient society to the presence of such a perfect man would be crucifixion. By imagining the story of Jesus, firstly as Paul’s heavenly descending man of the cross and then as the full Gospel Jesus of Nazareth, the ground was sown for the eventual presence of such a man in a way that would not result in the suppressive way of the cross, but rather a liberating transformation of the world.

Last night at Church we celebrated Maundy Thursday, the Last Supper. This central event within Christian imagination of Jesus involved characters who have a sublime presence within our culture. We had dramatic role plays from Mary Magdalene, Saint Peter, Judas, the Roman centurion who said surely this man was the son of God, Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the mother of James. To imagine now that these deeply complex characters were in fact fictional brings an amazing new depth to the passion story.

I can well imagine that as Christian communities developed their faith, these stories, building upon ancient mythology, provided intense emotional comfort and social bonding. But that is testament more to the power of creative imagination than to any belief that these people were real. The idea that Jesus was the one for all who saves us by the power of his blood is a sublimation of the trauma of the dislocation experienced in the ancient world, not a recollection of actual events.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Robert, when you say that it's the centuries of believing that make it so difficult for almost everyone to consent to the myth hypothesis, you are acting in a high-handed manner. That is not the only possibility here. Many scholars and other knowledgeable observers, including some whom you respect, have accepted the mythic aspects of Christianity yet do not accept that the Gospel of Mark was assembled out of whole cloth to achieve some political end. This writer, supposedly, created not only Jesus but scores of other characters, and his fiction was so good that two later writers picked up on it and recycled much of it. The writer placed all of these characters in a quasi-historical setting alongside some figures who are known to have existed. This is an unlikely enough feat, but readers also have many indications of the scattered provenance of the core gospel story. Nothing fits together quite right; the cut-and paste marks are visible; the contradictions are present; all the hallmarks that have made these works so disputed over the centuries. These are not the Book of Mormon.

But we don't have to rely on the common judgment. Using accepted techniques of textual analysis, scholars have postulated a textual ancestry for the Gospel story. Q is only the most famous example.

Your post reads to me as motivated to believe in the myth hypothesis, because it would be a good thing for Christianity and the world. Whether that is true or not, it doesn't have a bearing on this question, whether the Gospel story occurred through special creation, or whether it accrued. Those who think it's the latter have many reasons for thinking it. They are not swayed by "the emotional power and plausibility of the Gospel stories taken at face value." Who among the group we're talking about takes them at face value?
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:This concept emerging straight from orthodox Judaism, which insisted on a human messiah, seems difficult to imagine.
It emerged from the Qumran community which was at the center of all the changes that Judaism was undergoing in that period.
If this community was the center of change in Judaism, wasn't it about conservative change? Then to come up with a story that takes a large step away from Judaism seems a strange result for such a community to find desirable.

I also wondered about the Greek-speaking Mark's relationship to such a community. Also about how this community felt about Paul not showing any interest at all in the Temple, and wanting gentiles to be included (if they knew about his writings). But I haven't read Carrier, so it's possible he has answers to these questions.

However, without reading Carrier's book, I can have thoughts about the invention of the Gospels. I addressed these to Robert.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Carrier compares early Christianity to the Cargo Cult and the parallels are stunning and adequately answer all the apologists who insist Christianity couldn’t have descended from a fictitious leader.

The Cargo Cult started in the early half of the 20th century in the Melanesian islands. They are apocalyptic in nature and centered around a savior they believe to be historically real by such names as John Frum and Tom Navy. The cultists believe that these saviors would someday return and all the dead would be resurrected. Occasionally, some branch of the cult would hold a historical person to be their savior/founder such as Prince Philip who has never visited the islands and who was himself rather bewildered when informed some of these island people he had never seen and knew nothing about hailed him as both savior and founder. In fact, there is not a single case where a historical person held to be the founder of a particular branch of the cult ever had anything to do with it and, in the vast majority of the cases, knew absolutely nothing about these people or their religion.

The Cargo Cult in its earliest manifestation appears to have started in the Papua territory during an uprising and soon spread through the South Sea Islands and particularly in Melanesia. These cults were charismatic and apocalyptic. We find definite parallels to the American Indian phenomenon of the late 19th century called Ghost Dancing which ended in the terrible incident at Wounded Knee in December of 1890. Although its founder, Wovoka, spread his teachings to a number of plains tribes, the Lakota brand was millenarian and apocalyptic where great changes were expected, where great wrongs would be righted and all the dead warriors would return from the dead.

The Cargo Cult also was also given to speaking in tongues, prophesying, receiving secret communication from God and, of course, powerful visions. Scholars who have studied the cult extensively have documented several instances were things prophesied or envisioned were then believed to have actually occurred in about 15 years time.

Cargo Cults and Ghost Dancing cults arise from three factors:

1. In racially and/or culturally fragmented or divided societies.
2. Agrarian societies and especially feudalistic ones and especially when the system is forced by one culture on another such as an occupying army.
3. Societies in which their normal channels of military-political power is met with crushing defeat or in a series of defeats and no longer meets the needs of that people.

We saw the same thing in the American civil rights movement, which was millennial at its root. It also brought great change unlike the Ghost Dance cult and the reason is that American blacks marched and demonstrated and targeted the destruction of laws that held them down. There was little expectation of supernatural interference, no deus ex machina, whereas the Ghost Dance sought a supernatural remedy—that the dance itself had the power to bring change. Today, we see the same thing in radical Islam. Like the American civil rights movement, they do not seek supernatural remedies but shoot (pun intended) for very real goals in very real ways. As a result, they are likely to bring about some of the changes they desire.

Christianity also started with all three of the above conditions met as these other cults did. The prior probability of a Christian-type religion arising under these three conditions is extremely high. We could expect something like it even if we had never heard of the religion.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 5: Background Knowledge (Context) (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DWill wrote:
DB Roy wrote:
DWill wrote:This concept emerging straight from orthodox Judaism, which insisted on a human messiah, seems difficult to imagine.
It emerged from the Qumran community which was at the center of all the changes that Judaism was undergoing in that period.
If this community was the center of change in Judaism, wasn't it about conservative change? Then to come up with a story that takes a large step away from Judaism seems a strange result for such a community to find desirable.
Not at all. They found it desirable precisely because it broke from traditional Judaism which they viewed at having ceased to exist because of the Roman occupation. The people turned to the Essenes BECAUSE they offered a different type of Judaism. there can be no doubt that early Christians heard about the Teacher of Righteousness and needed a similar savior-founder to give their new brand of Judaism a pedigree. Apologists are always yammering that Christianity came first and other religions copied. Well, the Essenes came before Christianity and the similarities are too much to chalk up to coincidence. One copied fro the other.
I also wondered about the Greek-speaking Mark's relationship to such a community. Also about how this community felt about Paul not showing any interest at all in the Temple, and wanting gentiles to be included (if they knew about his writings). But I haven't read Carrier, so it's possible he has answers to these questions. However, without reading Carrier's book, I can have thoughts about the invention of the Gospels. I addressed these to Robert.
The gospels are not about Jesus. They are about the communities that wrote them. That's why they never worried if their Jesus was different from other communities' views. Their gospel explains to its followers WHY they exist by presenting their Jesus as a template for them to believe in and follow. Whether this Jesus really existed and whether he was accurately portrayed was the last thing they cared about. We know this is true simply because Jesus couldn't be like all four in the gospels because each had a different character and said and, evidently, believed in different things. Whatever kernel of truth they may ever have been to a gospel incident was freely bent and refashioned by a certain community to have it present Jesus the way they wanted him presented to its believers and members. So why bother with real incidents at all? Why bother with a real savior-founder at all?
Post Reply

Return to “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - by Richard Carrier”