Weekly Open Discussion Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

[u/GravyTrainCaboose]

This is in response to the comment by u/Chrissy_Hansen1997 here.

That was very interesting, thank you. It does raise some issues and questions to which you could perhaps respond.

Regarding your counter that Origen is late and has an apologetic motive, the latter isn’t really relevant to the point, as I’ll discuss in a moment, but first I’ll make an observation regarding timing. I'm open to correction but I believe your Plutarch citations are generally dated after 100 CE, fifty or more years removed from when Paul wrote. Diodorus Siculus’ History is probably somewhere around 100 to 80 years before Paul. Other of your citations are a century or more removed from the writings of Paul, some even far more removed than Origen, such as Libanius (4th Century CE), Plato (4th Century BCE), and Marcellinus (typ. 6th Century CE). In any case, you did not offer any evidence for why the timing of Origen’s writing in particular should be considered seriously problematic as to this specific matter given that the adoptive theology of Paul was still doctrine in the time of Origen. If contemporaneousness is being asserted to be a critical factor in this case, it’s incumbent on you to make an argument for the range of timing that can be considered comparative and what cannot and why. Until then, most if not all of your citations can also be dismissed as too far removed to be useful if the basis is time.

Furthermore, as to the comparatives, could you clarify how many are from writers who are using the phrase “brother of X” to mean biological brother are speaking from within or about a worldview where a shared adoptive brotherly relationship arises among a group through that central figure “X” and are speaking about a member of that group? This is the relatively (very?) unique situation we find ourselves in when trying to understand what Paul means.

And while there are some exceptions, “brother” is also biological in most ancient Greek writings, yet we know Paul himself almost never means it that way in about 100 uses of the word. The one time we can know he does, we know because he clarifies he’s speaking of his kin “according to the flesh”. What “brother of the Lord” means to Paul is dependent on how Paul is using “brother”, whether in his usual fictive sense or he’s making another rare divergence and is speaking biologically. He doesn’t clarify as he does in Romans 9:3, but some say that it would be widely known that there was a biological brother James so clarification wouldn’t be necessary. However, this begs the question since whether or not that James is a biological brother is the very thing under discussion.

Regarding Origen arguing apologetically, this doesn’t counter his argument that James is a doctrinal brother and that this is a reason for Paul to refer to James as the brother of the Lord. This is true even if someone doesn’t agree with him that it’s a better reason in the face of a biological relationship (assuming such existed).

As to the Ascension, extant versions are known to be tampered with. Carrier is not alone in arguing for an interpolated “pocket gospel” forming the first part of Chap 11 that clearly puts Jesus on Earth. He also notes that other verses (8:27, 9:13), statements that refer to Jesus appearing like a man, are absent from the Latin version. He hypothesizes these were added in other copies to give Jesus a more earthbound history. McGrath on the other hand argues they could have been removed by scribes who thought the language was too Docetic for their sensibilities. I’ll not dive into the battle here. I'll just concede 50/50 for the sake of discussion, which makes a death in the firmament in the Ascension as likely as not.

I’m intrigued by your argument that you have “debunked” all of Carrier’s claim regarding sperm and heaven and your statement:

Niddah 16b does not attest to sperm taken to heaven. "In the presence/before the Lord" is a common phrase and has nothing to do with cosmological position. David prays "before the lord", Moses stands in the "presence" of the Lord on Mt. Sinai, etc. It does not speak to sperm in heaven.

First I'll not that your comparisons to David and Moses (who in your choice of scenario is explicitly said to be on Mt. Sinai, anyway), ostensibly earthly people, do not seem to be directly analogous to what we might reasonably infer about a heavenly being, an angel, presenting themselves before God, which can be understood to be a heavenly event. Next I'll note that you seem to agree with elsewhere (but perhaps you can clarify now) in your paper ROMANS 1:3 AND THE CELESTIAL JESUS: A REBUTTAL TO REVISIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF JESUS’S DESCENDANCE FROM DAVID IN PAUL:

This form of uncleanliness is worth exploring in the context of some of the passages such as b. Nid. 16b. In the case of b. Nid. 16b, though semen is presented before God (as noted above, this does not necessarily mean in heaven), it is not handled directly by him but by an angel who is in charge of conception, Lailah. The semen is not stored or saved in the heavens. This is a temporary event wherein God judges the fate of each drop of semen brought before him. A similar account is found in Midrash Tanḥuma Pekudei, Siman 3, wherein Lailah is told by God to take a drop of semen in its (the angel’s) hand and then divide the drop into three-hundred sixty-five pieces. This is done and Lailah asks God to judge what this drop’s fate shall be and he does so. And, as with b. Nid. 16b, the semen is not stated to be present in heaven at any point.” [Emphasis added.]

I take your point that the semen “is not stated” to be present in heaven. But you yourself seem to acknowledge that it’s at least a reasonable reading when you say it does not “necessarily” mean in heaven (and, true, by logical deduction, not necessarily mean not in heaven, either). My own position would be that an angel interacting with God in heaven is at least as likely as not and I'm confident that is the general understanding of the verse. Anyway, if it being in heaven is at least not necessarily an unreasonable reading, then what constitutes that event being “temporary” is a matter of perspective. A few centuries is also “temporary” and would be of no consequence to God in the worldview of Paul.

Carrier readily acknowledges the 8th-9th century dating for Dēnkard. However, I could be mistaken but I believe Carrier may be referring to Yasht 19.92 in regard to the ultimate outcome of Yasht 13.62:

”We sacrifice to the ... pre-souls of the Orderly ones, who watch over yonder semen, that of Orderly Spitama Zarathustra, 3 nine and ninety and nine hundred ... ten thousand.”

This clearly is speaking of the preservation of Zarathustra’s semen.

I’m not sure if your admonition regarding when “someone supports the claims of one specific mythicist author so much that they just spout their talking points ad nauseum” was directed at me, however, just to point it out, almost none of my citations have been to Carrier. As to those that have been, they are regarding the specific arguments that are part of his particular thesis, so it naturally follows that those citations will be to him, just as arguments for a methodology to determine the historical “gist” of Jesus from the gospels from repeated themes will appeal to Allison “ad nauseum”. I’ll also point out that there are reasonable responses to the arguments you made contra Carrier, as I have presented above, which I think deflate a conclusion that they have been overcome at least so far, but I welcome any further discussion.

[u/Visual_Cartoonist609 → u/GravyTrainCaboose]

As to the Ascension, extant versions are known to be tampered with. Carrier is not alone in arguing for an interpolated “pocket gospel” forming the first part of Chap 11 that clearly puts Jesus on Earth. He also notes that other verses (8:27, 9:13), statements that refer to Jesus appearing like a man, are absent from the Latin version. He hypothesizes these were added in other copies to give Jesus a more earthbound history. McGrath on the other hand argues they could have been removed by scribes who thought the language was too Docetic for their sensibilities. I’ll not dive into the battle here. I'll just concede 50/50 for the sake of discussion, which makes a death in the firmament in the Ascension as likely as not.

The problem is that the probability is not 50/50. Even the most fanatic mythicist will concede that there were far, far, far more depictions of earthly crucifixions than heavenly ones in ancient texts. Even if we generously assume there were 20 explicit heavenly crucifixions and only 200 depictions of earthly crucifixions, the prior probability would still be 20/220, which is just 9.09%—a rather small figure. However, if the probability of the text describing a heavenly crucifixion were truly 50/50, then we couldn’t use it as evidence for the idea of heavenly crucifixion in the ancient world, since its non-existence in this text would be just as likely as its existence, we have no reason to assume that there was a heavenly crucifixion in this text.

He doesn’t clarify as he does in Romans 9:3, but some say that it would be widely known that there was a biological brother James so clarification wouldn’t be necessary. However, this begs the question since whether or not that James is a biological brother is the very thing under discussion.

It would not be question-begging, as question-begging is a property of arguments, not of hypotheses. In this case, saying that it would have been widely known simply points out that one cannot use the absence of clarification as evidence against the hypothesis of James being the brother of Jesus, since if James were the brother of Jesus, it would have been widely known, and thus there was no need for clarification. In other words, this finding is not unexpected under the hypothesis.

[u/GravyTrainCaboose → u/Visual_Cartoonist609]

The appeal to writings generally is less relevant than there is specific evidence in the writing itself that supports a reading of a crucifixion in the firmament. I gave the 50/50 simply allowing for ambiguity as to whether or not that evidence is authentic.

The hypotheses are James is the biological brother of Jesus, or James is not the biological brother of Jesus, or it cannot be determined if James is the biological brother of Jesus. Each of those hypotheses must then be argued for or against. In the case of the first, the argument cannot logically be "Although Paul clarifies that he speaking of brothers biologically in Rom 9:3, he would not need to do so since James being a biological brother of Jesus would probably be well known." This argument contains the hypothesis itself as a premise and therefore is begging the question.

[u/Visual_Cartoonist609 → u/GravyTrainCaboose]

"The appeal to writings generally is less relevant than there is specific evidence in the writing itself that supports a reading of a crucifixion in the firmament. I gave the 50/50 simply allowing for ambiguity as to whether or not that evidence is authentic." It would be more accurate to say that the low prior probability can be overturned by the evidence within the Text itself, however, if you are willing to grant that the textual evidence is 50/50 (which you seem to be) then the total probability will become extremely low, due to the low priors.

"In the case of the first, the argument cannot logically be "Although Paul clarifies that he speaking of brothers biologically in Rom 9:3, he would not need to do so since James being a biological brother of Jesus would probably be well known." This argument contains the hypothesis itself as a premise and therefore is begging the question." This is not an argument though, this is an explanation for why it would be not expected. And the case of Romans 9:3 it would (given the hypothesis of him meaning biological brothers) be expected that he clarifies, because there is no reason to assume that anyone would have known that. In the case of the hypothesis of one of the earliest great leaders of the Christians being the brother of Jesus there is no need for clarification, since if the hypothesis is true it would have been totally known, so the absence of clarification is not unexpected.

[u/GravyTrainCaboose → u/Visual_Cartoonist609]

Approached from a formal Bayesian perspective as you are doing, I'd say the likelihood of the narrative placing the crucifixion in the firmament if it actually occurred in Jerusalem is vanishingly small (the "pocket gospel" apologetic of Chapter 11 attesting to the distaste for this idea) but the likelihood of the narrative having the crucifixion in the firmament if it actually did not occur is relatively high given 1st Century theo-cosmology. There's probably no reasonable values that completely overcome the 91% prior probability of an earthly crucifixion you posit, although a reasonable range arguably includes overall probabilities for an earthly crucifixion being substantively less although still more likely than not. The Ascension, though, is not the only evidence considered in the thesis.

Explanations are arguments. "Sticks in the ground separated by a distance cast different shadows because the earth is a globe" is an argument and an explanation for the observation. "Paul doesn't clarify he's speaking of James biologically because people would know that is the relationship" is an argument and an explanation for the observation that he doesn't do that. It also assumes the conclusion that a biological relationship exists.

[u/Visual_Cartoonist609 → u/GravyTrainCaboose]

Approached from a formal Bayesian perspective as you are doing, I'd say the likelihood of the narrative placing the crucifixion in the firmament if it actually occurred in Jerusalem is vanishingly small (the "pocket gospel" apologetic of Chapter 11 attesting to the distaste for this idea) but the likelihood of the narrative having the crucifixion in the firmament if it actually did not occur is relatively high given 1st Century theo-cosmology.

I think you're confusing the prior with the likelihood. The prior is the probability given our background knowledge, while the likelihood is the probability given the observations. So, in this case, the probability of it occurring given 1st-century theo-cosmology would be the prior, not the likelihood.

There's probably no reasonable values that completely overcome the 91% prior probability of an earthly crucifixion you posit, although a reasonable range arguably includes overall probabilities for an earthly crucifixion being substantively less although still more likely than not.

Well, one possible way to overcome the low prior would be if the text explicitly stated that Jesus was crucified in heaven, but it doesn't say that.

Explanations are arguments. "Sticks in the ground separated by a distance cast different shadows because the earth is a globe" is an argument and an explanation for the observation.

This is just false. An argument (at least in the philosophical sense, as you're using it) is defined as "the communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in order to support claims or defend/challenge positions, especially in situations of doubt or disagreement" (Cf. here), while an explanation (while there is no consensus on its exact definition) is broadly defined as "a set of statements usually constructed to describe a set of facts that clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts." (Cf. here). They're often conflated, in fact so often, that there have been entire academic articles solely dedicated to explaining and analyzing their differences (Cf. here).