It seems to me that Dr. Boyarin basically has the stance that there was nothing stopping the Jewish readers from reading the interpretation of a suffering servant Messiah into the text, because the Jews that became Christians DID do that, while Dr. Kipp is saying that's not the obvious or common way it was being read before the time of Christ, it doesn't appear as an expectation among the readers. But Dr. Carrier wants it to be the expected interpretation because he wants Jesus to be a mythical character to fulfill this interpretation. An uncommon/unlikely interpretation is more likely to be retroactively applied, rather than mythological written.
Yes, exactly. Of course, the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is a thoroughly Jewish interpretation. But, I think it is important that there are no readings of this text which connect the Suffering Servant to the messiah prior to the Christian writings.
I hadn't really made this connection about the expectation of the Davidic kingdom being part of why a purely fictional Jesus is doubtful. It does make sense that if Peter & James et al started this cult around this figure, he probably would have been someone who could have actually assumed the physical throne on Earth. That could still be seen as an angelic being (who is descended from David?) coming down to be the anointed one, but the earliest Christian cult does seem to fit more with a wannabe human king who was really crucified for that political offense. Christian lore seems to be dealing with (doing apologetics for) the embarrassing failure of this human figure, and isn't constructing an idealized version of the messiah from scratch. And as I think Ehrman points out, there's stuff like in Matthew where they're doing roundabout ways of saying that he was born in Nazareth, but really it's like he's from Bethlehem because he went there once... but they have to write the story like that because there was a real guy who wasn't born in Bethlehem, but Matthew has to twist it around the inconvenient facts they can't hide about the real man. Interesting point too about how a messiah could mean a prophet, or anointed priest, and not just a king. That could explain why declaring one's self to be a messiah might be seen as blasphemous instead of just a risky political aspiration. Makes me wonder about the scene in Mark 8:29 where Peter identifies Jesus as "ho Christos," if maybe in an earlier version he was simply "a messiah" meaning a prophet, because immediately after this Jesus starts talking about how they're all going to be crucified together so they don't disappoint the Son of Man. That sounds more like the role of a prophet than a king. Maybe part of the drama between the real disciples that's underlying these tales is that they didn't fully agree with each other on what the messiah was supposed to be or do. That might also fit with Bart's theory (which I usually disagree with) that there was a historical Judas who betrayed Jesus because Jesus sounded like he was giving up on the physical kingdom, and was instead just waiting for angels to bring it about. But then my detail about Jesus in Mark 8 wanting to lead them all into crucifixion conflicts with Bart's other belief that Jesus didn't expect he would fail and be crucified (which I usually agree with). Much to consider. Also... why am I talking about Bart so much right now? I dunno, man. Thanks for the video, Dr. Davis.
It's really telling how Godless Engineer goes so hard after you regarding the whole suffering messiah thing while deceptively ignoring the fact he literally asked Boyarin whether he believed that pre-Christian concept included a dying messiah and straight up said no. Then when he tries so hard to get Boyarin to give him the clip he wanted, to confidently say the whole idea of the messiah reading is pre-Christian and Boyarin straight up says you can't say which came first and for his purposes it doesn't matter. Yet GE still goes that hard against you when these two things essentially confirm the doubt you raise in your critique of Carrier's representation.
It's weird, it's like he's lost track of the argument in a personal vendetta, and not realised how important the "dying" part is for the mythicist thesis, which obviously requires the death to be expected - if that's not expected, then Jesus can't be constructed out of pre-existent messianic concepts. This should be concerning to Carrier, as his rhetoric largely focuses on glossing over the fact that the scholars he cites for all this stuff don't actually support much of his paradigm individually, and he has to cherry-pick all the various parts and *pretend* that they're all compatible - which requires that the arguments used by all those different scholars be compatible, and the more moving parts you require, the less convincing the probabilistic argument becomes
If the description of Carrier's argument about Inanna/Ishtar's descent into the Underworld, he is completely misunderstanding. In the myth, Inanna/Ishtar is stripped of the signs of her status, and once she is completely stripped of her identity, she is killed and hung on a meat hook. Assuming that meat hook is a good translation (can someone from Digital Hammurabi comment?) what is going on is Inanna/Ishtar being degraded from being a deity to being a slab of meat. The redemption comes when she gets her status back.
The golden calf was the anointed one, the sacrifice, and the messiah who led them out of the land of Egypt, from which, after a journey of just a few days' distance, it took 40 years for the two of them, Joshua and Caleb, to cross over.
Bart Ehrman is interesting in his criticism and trivialization of things, like claiming that Paul advocates for a physical resurrection, when it’s evident in many places that this is not the case. He’s, of course, an expert on what something isn’t. But when you ask him, “Well, what is it then?” “I THINK...” follows, giving you the opinion of an ordinary person, not even that of a professional historian.
Godless Engineer is extremely dogmatic. While debating mythicism, the dude once told me he could be a PhD in History because he got a BA in Engineering. 😅
I kinda immediately dislike the introduction that GE gives, because it's not even Richard Carrier who is interviewing his sources to affirm their support of his work. Why is GE running proxy in this?
That (clicks/views), and because he, like the huge majority of Mythicists, has a deep, emotional investment in this marginal thesis which appeals so much to their antichristian feelings and biases.
@@NathanBTQwhat a bad faith take. He might just have doubt that Jesus existed based on his understanding of the subject. You're just as bad as some Christians when referring to atheists' questions.
@@gabrieledwards1066 The problem is that this specific question has been around for 250+ years, since the times of Dupuis and Volney. It has been already considered and discussed, and the consensus among experts (people with the appropiate academic credentials) is unanimous. The existence of a flesh & blood, 100% natural human who was later exalted and divinized by his followers is the most parsimonious reading of the data at hand. While the various Mythicist models are extremely contrived, filled with ad-hoc reasoning and ideologically-motivated, in the vast majority of cases. On top of that, Mythicism is as well a field filled with amateurs lacking appropiate credentials. It is a academically lost cause which only serves as an intellectual plummet for modern Atheism.
I’m curious on your take on ‘death’ or ‘deaths’ in 53:9. In other suffering servant passages, Jacob is used interchangeably with Israel. Since he was the sole recipient of that name, wouldn’t reincarnation be a more natural way to interpret this passage? Jesus didn’t fulfill much at all of it and ignores the older translation that says after his sufferings, he then sees the light and through his knowledge shares the spoils. Not to mention that he has children and lives a long life. Suffering multiple deaths fits with the description in Rev of that same suffering servant suffering ‘since the foundation’ and having a name no one knows but he himself. The singular language throughout the suffering servant passages that’s directly attributed to Jacob, along with the ‘who will believe our report’ implies in his lifetimes he returned a messenger in each incarnation. Some Jews historically did believe their prophets were reincarnations of past prophets. Instead of trying to make these passages fit Jesus or Israel, maybe see this for what it purports to be that hasn’t yet been fulfilled like the rest of those messianic passages. The idea that it pleased god to watch Jesus tortured is a brutal characterization and the crux of what is so offensive. We have inherited lies from the lying pen of the scribes and it’s no wonder why we’re in this clusterfuck now as a result.
If Cyrus (Kurus) can be called a "messiah" in Isaiah 45:1, it is then possible to imagine that the "suffering servant" from Isaiah 53 could also be understood as a messianic figure. The same prophet describes both situations, which opens the door for a deeper interpretation of Isaiah's understanding of the "anointed one." And Isaiah was popular in messianic movements across all factions. Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
A lot, and I mean a lot of them. I toyed with mythicism some years ago when Carrier's book popped on the scene. It difficult in hindsight to say what the appeal was. I once was listening to a group of christian's talking about atheists, and one of them said something that genuinely surprised me -- not at all common. He stated "The problem with atheists is the lose the religion, but keep the fundamentalism. They continue to judge the bible with the same fundamentalism they were taught growing up. I'm not a fundamentalist, if I applied a fundamentalist approach to the bible -- of course I'd be an atheist." While I think he lost the chase in the second part (I'm paraphrasing him), he was absolutely right in the first part. I came from a line of very hardline Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (they usually preferred to be called Independent Baptists). And much of my early atheism's critique of Christianity was exactly against this fundamentalist strain of the faith. Course, I didn't stop being an atheist, but I came to appreciate that telling some Christians "The flood is demonstrably myth" would have them shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah? Of course it is, what's your point?" I think mythicism is popular among these deconverted fundamentalists exactly because if true, it eviscerates the very core of the religion they've found themself at odds with. It's the coup état, the ultimate weapon. I think in their desire for it to be true, they recede to the same insular defense strategies they learned as fundi christians to protect it, against all evidence.
Yeah, I think this is probably right for a lot of people. The thing is, even if there were plausible, working theories being circulated by scholars about an entirely mythical Jesus, I don't believe this would have much of any effect on the popularity of modern Christianity. Huge numbers of believers that are already convinced of the demonstrable mythological elements already within the Gospels would just adapt to a slightly revised faith commitment to a mythical Jesus. This is why the idea that "Mythicism" is just being suppressed by dogmatic Christian scholars is so stupid-most of them would just become "Mythicist Christians," and move on.
You're on the money. I wrote this a while back: "It is notable [Carrier] cites a significant number of Christian theologians for his exegesis of the texts and has continued to do so on his blog. That Christian theologians would affirm many of the central points of the minimal myth model, when only one of those points markedly deviates from Christian Orthodoxy should not be surprising. It is an open question whether their opinions should have any bearing on the analysis of the history of the first century environment. This I think the one of the primary causes of two phenomena observable in the reception of Carrier’s work: first, the strongly negative assessment by mainstream scholarship, and second, the popularity of his work with former Christians, particularly Ex-vangelicals, who are naturally going to be more used to that mode of thought."
@@grigorigahanI agree as well. A lot of Mythicists (not all of them, of course) are deconverted Fundamentalists. And many others are simply highly antitheistic, virulently antireligion fellas, even without a former fundamentalist past. 😅
(Maybe dumb)Question: my Hebrew is not good, but I know it has this word “et” that is used to indicate a specific thing of a general thing term. So is like “et messiah” than “messiah”? Does my question even make sense?
You are close. The Hebrew particle "et" is an untranslatable word that scholars have identified as the "direct object marker." That's what it does-indicates which word in a sentence is functioning as the object of the verb. Most of the time, the object is definite, but this does not really work in distinguishing "THE messiah" within a developed, Jewish theological construct.
We have really gotten lost in the weeds here. I fully blame GE for this. We are only interested in determining where Christian's came up with the idea of a dying Messiah and we are no further along in answering that question. Historicist's posit that the idea came from a real historical event where a small group of Jews lost their leader figure of a supposed flesh and blood Messiah to a Roman crucifixion. Then, in response to the loss of their leader, performed an exotic Messianic exegesis on the Hebrew scriptures to explain this fact. Mythicists claim that such an exegesis is not all that exotic. Does a lack of scripture that includes a dying Messiah prevent Christians from having come up with idea themselves? If so, we are forced to concede that the story of Moses and the 10 commandments is based on a real historical event where a real Jewish leader carved words on stone tablets on top of a mountain or hypothesize that story of Abraham and Isaac actually happened as described. If Jesus walked didn't walk on water we must seriously consider the idea that someone present to that event mistakenly believed he did. No narrative, or story, or theology can apparently exists without an historical foundation in which that the story is re-imagined for some ulterior motive. Our lack of sources for a dying Messiah prior to Christianity is our only evidence that Christians specifically came up with idea. It does not allow us to say how they came up with the idea.
why on earth would we be "forced to concede that the story of Moses and the 10 commandments is based on a real historical event" or any of the rest of that stuff? That doesn't remotely follow. I'm really confused.
You are missing the point, which is that our models for the origins of Chriatianity need to be based on evidence, and a careful reading of the primary literature. They ought not be concocted of our own demostrably flawed interpretations of the data.
@@simonereadstexts, The point of this discussion is to determine if the ideas that Christians have about Jesus are due to real historical events or not. I understand that's not what this video is about because GE has done a poor job of driving this discussion because we wants to take pot shots at Dr. Kipp.
@@DrKippDavis, this is why I'm saying we have gotten lost in the weeds. This discussion is supposed to be about 1st century Christian usage and interpretation of Hebrew scriptures and not about how many scholars believe "x" about "y". GE had an opportunity to have that discussion with Boyarin and decided to ask a bunch of pointless out of context questions in an attempt to pad is own ego. Now you and Boyarin have wasted your time responding to a disordered mess and we are no more closer to our goal of understanding the Jewish context of Christian Messianic expectations and how that affects their soteriological and eschatological beliefs. This discussion encompasses more than the definition of the word "Christ" and we are still obsessing over the difference between "suffering" and "dying".
@@jasonrollins6360 Yeah, I can agree with a lot of this, and that is honestly a much more interesting conversation to have. One of the most enjoyable things about reading up and preparing for this stream was returning to 11Q13, and trying to figure out what the hell is going on there. It is NOT a simple text, and it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions. So, I can concede that answering questions about how to read 11Q13 are much more useful than picking at Carrier's definition of "messiah." So, here is where my interest lies ... Carrier claims that there was an early Jewish tradition of a suffer, dying and resurrected messiah that pre-dates Christianity. I emphatically disagree with his claim because there is no evidence for this anywhere until the first Christian writings. He depends on his poor and indefensible readings of early Jewish texts to arrive at the conclusion, and I would very much like for him and others to stop misreading these texts into this ill-fated agenda, and to appreciate them for what they actually are.
2:43:15-ish - Catching up, since I only caught the end of the stream when it was live earlier (legit, this is my bedtime "story" for the night XD), and excellent point re: flesh and blood, especially cause any literal interpretation of that would be _very_ treif. (I remember one year when I was in college, a rabbi literally had to come in and re-kasher a _tablecloth_ because accidentally cut myself while setting the table for the college's kosher/halal co-op. Nothing got on the food, thankfully, but the tablecloth was a mess/def had to be washed.😅)
All mythicists including those who, as historicists, analyzed the NT with the same data analysis that Mark Bilby is in teamwork with Markus Vinzent and Jack Bull, and became mythicists as a result? (they authored Jesus Before Christ)
@@theemptycross1234The less than five living Mythicist fellas with peer-reviewed books, you mean? Besides the academic joke called Richard Carrier, Prof. Thomas Brodie and Prof. Thompson... Who else do you have in mind? 😮
I agree. Those fellas should indeed focus on other issues at hand. Godless Engineer himself has many great videos on themes such as the criticism of religious-driven political agendas. A shame to see that the (academic) lost cause of Mythicism continues to distract the mental energies of many, otherwise talented content creators.
@@Professor_Pink *_"you have 50 comments on his channel"_* You have no idea how many comments I have on any channel, as that data is not accessible. I may have 50 on Kipp's channel, but I am subbed to him. I have none on MythTardbrain's channel for several years as I unsubbed a few years ago as he is so tedious and thinks and argues like a Flat Earther YEC Pseudo-Atheist. {:o:O:} _(Edited for tyops)_
@@Professor_Pink *_"Yes, I do have access to it."_* No you don't, no one can access my history as it's set to private. You CAN see public comments I've made if you go to the actual videos and scroll down. But you won't find any on MythTardbrain's channel les than a few year's old. {:o:O:}
@@Professor_Pink *_"Yes, I do have access to it."_* No you don't, my history is set to private. You CAN see public comments I've made if you go to the actual videos and scroll down. But you won't find any on MythTosser's channel less than a few year's old. {:o:O:}
I’m a follower who learns a lot from you but I have to be honest It’s incredibly painful to listen to you most of the time You drag out every single sentence in as slow a cadence as is humanly possible Your crutch use of the word UHH at least 8 times in every string of a 10 word sentence is absolutely maddening You seriously need to seek advice on how to verbalize your message in a show of intellect deserving of your message It’s freakin torture
It is a valid criticism (too long videos, a bad habit that content creators tend to have). Albeit, those really interested in learning about this theme will listen to it, anyways. There is a button for increasing the speed of the video, after all. 😊
What the actual ef? Literally you’re a rude person.🐯 Unless this is an inside joke and I’m missing some thing, What kind of person is actually leaving a comment like this one? Do better
@@mitzzzu_tigerjones444 Look I'm tired of video discussions lasting three hours or more! So are other people. Most movies are around 2 hours and most panel discussions and lectures 2 hours or less. Likewise I miss a lot if I speed it up to 2x and I'm sure others do too. I'm still skipping this vid.
@Kipp Davis: have you considered the argument that "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naught boy!"?
It seems to me that Dr. Boyarin basically has the stance that there was nothing stopping the Jewish readers from reading the interpretation of a suffering servant Messiah into the text, because the Jews that became Christians DID do that, while Dr. Kipp is saying that's not the obvious or common way it was being read before the time of Christ, it doesn't appear as an expectation among the readers.
But Dr. Carrier wants it to be the expected interpretation because he wants Jesus to be a mythical character to fulfill this interpretation.
An uncommon/unlikely interpretation is more likely to be retroactively applied, rather than mythological written.
Yes, exactly. Of course, the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is a thoroughly Jewish interpretation. But, I think it is important that there are no readings of this text which connect the Suffering Servant to the messiah prior to the Christian writings.
Excellent sane and cool-headed rebuttal to GE's smearful apologetics.
Atheologetics / Mythologetics :v
I hadn't really made this connection about the expectation of the Davidic kingdom being part of why a purely fictional Jesus is doubtful. It does make sense that if Peter & James et al started this cult around this figure, he probably would have been someone who could have actually assumed the physical throne on Earth. That could still be seen as an angelic being (who is descended from David?) coming down to be the anointed one, but the earliest Christian cult does seem to fit more with a wannabe human king who was really crucified for that political offense. Christian lore seems to be dealing with (doing apologetics for) the embarrassing failure of this human figure, and isn't constructing an idealized version of the messiah from scratch. And as I think Ehrman points out, there's stuff like in Matthew where they're doing roundabout ways of saying that he was born in Nazareth, but really it's like he's from Bethlehem because he went there once... but they have to write the story like that because there was a real guy who wasn't born in Bethlehem, but Matthew has to twist it around the inconvenient facts they can't hide about the real man.
Interesting point too about how a messiah could mean a prophet, or anointed priest, and not just a king. That could explain why declaring one's self to be a messiah might be seen as blasphemous instead of just a risky political aspiration.
Makes me wonder about the scene in Mark 8:29 where Peter identifies Jesus as "ho Christos," if maybe in an earlier version he was simply "a messiah" meaning a prophet, because immediately after this Jesus starts talking about how they're all going to be crucified together so they don't disappoint the Son of Man. That sounds more like the role of a prophet than a king. Maybe part of the drama between the real disciples that's underlying these tales is that they didn't fully agree with each other on what the messiah was supposed to be or do. That might also fit with Bart's theory (which I usually disagree with) that there was a historical Judas who betrayed Jesus because Jesus sounded like he was giving up on the physical kingdom, and was instead just waiting for angels to bring it about. But then my detail about Jesus in Mark 8 wanting to lead them all into crucifixion conflicts with Bart's other belief that Jesus didn't expect he would fail and be crucified (which I usually agree with). Much to consider.
Also... why am I talking about Bart so much right now? I dunno, man. Thanks for the video, Dr. Davis.
It's really telling how Godless Engineer goes so hard after you regarding the whole suffering messiah thing while deceptively ignoring the fact he literally asked Boyarin whether he believed that pre-Christian concept included a dying messiah and straight up said no. Then when he tries so hard to get Boyarin to give him the clip he wanted, to confidently say the whole idea of the messiah reading is pre-Christian and Boyarin straight up says you can't say which came first and for his purposes it doesn't matter. Yet GE still goes that hard against you when these two things essentially confirm the doubt you raise in your critique of Carrier's representation.
It's weird, it's like he's lost track of the argument in a personal vendetta, and not realised how important the "dying" part is for the mythicist thesis, which obviously requires the death to be expected - if that's not expected, then Jesus can't be constructed out of pre-existent messianic concepts. This should be concerning to Carrier, as his rhetoric largely focuses on glossing over the fact that the scholars he cites for all this stuff don't actually support much of his paradigm individually, and he has to cherry-pick all the various parts and *pretend* that they're all compatible - which requires that the arguments used by all those different scholars be compatible, and the more moving parts you require, the less convincing the probabilistic argument becomes
@@simonereadstexts Agreed. It's so much easier to just admit yeah Carrier misrepresented the dying part and move on lol.
If the description of Carrier's argument about Inanna/Ishtar's descent into the Underworld, he is completely misunderstanding. In the myth, Inanna/Ishtar is stripped of the signs of her status, and once she is completely stripped of her identity, she is killed and hung on a meat hook. Assuming that meat hook is a good translation (can someone from Digital Hammurabi comment?) what is going on is Inanna/Ishtar being degraded from being a deity to being a slab of meat. The redemption comes when she gets her status back.
The golden calf was the anointed one, the sacrifice, and the messiah who led them out of the land of Egypt, from which, after a journey of just a few days' distance, it took 40 years for the two of them, Joshua and Caleb, to cross over.
Bart Ehrman is interesting in his criticism and trivialization of things, like claiming that Paul advocates for a physical resurrection, when it’s evident in many places that this is not the case.
He’s, of course, an expert on what something isn’t. But when you ask him, “Well, what is it then?”
“I THINK...” follows, giving you the opinion of an ordinary person, not even that of a professional historian.
Godless Engineer is extremely dogmatic. While debating mythicism, the dude once told me he could be a PhD in History because he got a BA in Engineering. 😅
I think you mean Bachelor of Science, not Bachelor of Arts.
I kinda immediately dislike the introduction that GE gives, because it's not even Richard Carrier who is interviewing his sources to affirm their support of his work. Why is GE running proxy in this?
For clicks.
That (clicks/views), and because he, like the huge majority of Mythicists, has a deep, emotional investment in this marginal thesis which appeals so much to their antichristian feelings and biases.
@@NathanBTQwhat a bad faith take. He might just have doubt that Jesus existed based on his understanding of the subject. You're just as bad as some Christians when referring to atheists' questions.
@@gabrieledwards1066 The problem is that this specific question has been around for 250+ years, since the times of Dupuis and Volney. It has been already considered and discussed, and the consensus among experts (people with the appropiate academic credentials) is unanimous.
The existence of a flesh & blood, 100% natural human who was later exalted and divinized by his followers is the most parsimonious reading of the data at hand. While the various Mythicist models are extremely contrived, filled with ad-hoc reasoning and ideologically-motivated, in the vast majority of cases. On top of that, Mythicism is as well a field filled with amateurs lacking appropiate credentials. It is a academically lost cause which only serves as an intellectual plummet for modern Atheism.
I’m curious on your take on ‘death’ or ‘deaths’ in 53:9. In other suffering servant passages, Jacob is used interchangeably with Israel. Since he was the sole recipient of that name, wouldn’t reincarnation be a more natural way to interpret this passage?
Jesus didn’t fulfill much at all of it and ignores the older translation that says after his sufferings, he then sees the light and through his knowledge shares the spoils. Not to mention that he has children and lives a long life. Suffering multiple deaths fits with the description in Rev of that same suffering servant suffering ‘since the foundation’ and having a name no one knows but he himself.
The singular language throughout the suffering servant passages that’s directly attributed to Jacob, along with the ‘who will believe our report’ implies in his lifetimes he returned a messenger in each incarnation. Some Jews historically did believe their prophets were reincarnations of past prophets.
Instead of trying to make these passages fit Jesus or Israel, maybe see this for what it purports to be that hasn’t yet been fulfilled like the rest of those messianic passages. The idea that it pleased god to watch Jesus tortured is a brutal characterization and the crux of what is so offensive. We have inherited lies from the lying pen of the scribes and it’s no wonder why we’re in this clusterfuck now as a result.
If Cyrus (Kurus) can be called a "messiah" in Isaiah 45:1, it is then possible to imagine that the "suffering servant" from Isaiah 53 could also be understood as a messianic figure. The same prophet describes both situations, which opens the door for a deeper interpretation of Isaiah's understanding of the "anointed one."
And Isaiah was popular in messianic movements across all factions.
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
I have no dog in this fight, but, I am genuinely curious to know what percentage of mythicists are deconverted fundamentalists.
A lot, and I mean a lot of them. I toyed with mythicism some years ago when Carrier's book popped on the scene. It difficult in hindsight to say what the appeal was. I once was listening to a group of christian's talking about atheists, and one of them said something that genuinely surprised me -- not at all common. He stated "The problem with atheists is the lose the religion, but keep the fundamentalism. They continue to judge the bible with the same fundamentalism they were taught growing up. I'm not a fundamentalist, if I applied a fundamentalist approach to the bible -- of course I'd be an atheist." While I think he lost the chase in the second part (I'm paraphrasing him), he was absolutely right in the first part. I came from a line of very hardline Independent Fundamentalist Baptists (they usually preferred to be called Independent Baptists). And much of my early atheism's critique of Christianity was exactly against this fundamentalist strain of the faith. Course, I didn't stop being an atheist, but I came to appreciate that telling some Christians "The flood is demonstrably myth" would have them shrug their shoulders and say "Yeah? Of course it is, what's your point?" I think mythicism is popular among these deconverted fundamentalists exactly because if true, it eviscerates the very core of the religion they've found themself at odds with. It's the coup état, the ultimate weapon. I think in their desire for it to be true, they recede to the same insular defense strategies they learned as fundi christians to protect it, against all evidence.
Yeah, I think this is probably right for a lot of people. The thing is, even if there were plausible, working theories being circulated by scholars about an entirely mythical Jesus, I don't believe this would have much of any effect on the popularity of modern Christianity. Huge numbers of believers that are already convinced of the demonstrable mythological elements already within the Gospels would just adapt to a slightly revised faith commitment to a mythical Jesus. This is why the idea that "Mythicism" is just being suppressed by dogmatic Christian scholars is so stupid-most of them would just become "Mythicist Christians," and move on.
You're on the money. I wrote this a while back:
"It is notable [Carrier] cites a significant number of Christian theologians for his exegesis of the texts and has continued to do so on his blog. That Christian theologians would affirm many of the central points of the minimal myth model, when only one of those points markedly deviates from Christian Orthodoxy should not be surprising. It is an open question whether their opinions should have any bearing on the analysis of the history of the first century environment. This I think the one of the primary causes of two phenomena observable in the reception of Carrier’s work: first, the strongly negative assessment by mainstream scholarship, and second, the popularity of his work with former Christians, particularly Ex-vangelicals, who are naturally going to be more used to that mode of thought."
@@grigorigahanI agree as well. A lot of Mythicists (not all of them, of course) are deconverted Fundamentalists. And many others are simply highly antitheistic, virulently antireligion fellas, even without a former fundamentalist past.
😅
(Maybe dumb)Question: my Hebrew is not good, but I know it has this word “et” that is used to indicate a specific thing of a general thing term. So is like “et messiah” than “messiah”? Does my question even make sense?
You are close. The Hebrew particle "et" is an untranslatable word that scholars have identified as the "direct object marker." That's what it does-indicates which word in a sentence is functioning as the object of the verb. Most of the time, the object is definite, but this does not really work in distinguishing "THE messiah" within a developed, Jewish theological construct.
We have really gotten lost in the weeds here. I fully blame GE for this. We are only interested in determining where Christian's came up with the idea of a dying Messiah and we are no further along in answering that question. Historicist's posit that the idea came from a real historical event where a small group of Jews lost their leader figure of a supposed flesh and blood Messiah to a Roman crucifixion. Then, in response to the loss of their leader, performed an exotic Messianic exegesis on the Hebrew scriptures to explain this fact. Mythicists claim that such an exegesis is not all that exotic. Does a lack of scripture that includes a dying Messiah prevent Christians from having come up with idea themselves? If so, we are forced to concede that the story of Moses and the 10 commandments is based on a real historical event where a real Jewish leader carved words on stone tablets on top of a mountain or hypothesize that story of Abraham and Isaac actually happened as described. If Jesus walked didn't walk on water we must seriously consider the idea that someone present to that event mistakenly believed he did. No narrative, or story, or theology can apparently exists without an historical foundation in which that the story is re-imagined for some ulterior motive.
Our lack of sources for a dying Messiah prior to Christianity is our only evidence that Christians specifically came up with idea. It does not allow us to say how they came up with the idea.
why on earth would we be "forced to concede that the story of Moses and the 10 commandments is based on a real historical event" or any of the rest of that stuff? That doesn't remotely follow. I'm really confused.
You are missing the point, which is that our models for the origins of Chriatianity need to be based on evidence, and a careful reading of the primary literature. They ought not be concocted of our own demostrably flawed interpretations of the data.
@@simonereadstexts, The point of this discussion is to determine if the ideas that Christians have about Jesus are due to real historical events or not. I understand that's not what this video is about because GE has done a poor job of driving this discussion because we wants to take pot shots at Dr. Kipp.
@@DrKippDavis, this is why I'm saying we have gotten lost in the weeds. This discussion is supposed to be about 1st century Christian usage and interpretation of Hebrew scriptures and not about how many scholars believe "x" about "y". GE had an opportunity to have that discussion with Boyarin and decided to ask a bunch of pointless out of context questions in an attempt to pad is own ego. Now you and Boyarin have wasted your time responding to a disordered mess and we are no more closer to our goal of understanding the Jewish context of Christian Messianic expectations and how that affects their soteriological and eschatological beliefs. This discussion encompasses more than the definition of the word "Christ" and we are still obsessing over the difference between "suffering" and "dying".
@@jasonrollins6360 Yeah, I can agree with a lot of this, and that is honestly a much more interesting conversation to have. One of the most enjoyable things about reading up and preparing for this stream was returning to 11Q13, and trying to figure out what the hell is going on there. It is NOT a simple text, and it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions. So, I can concede that answering questions about how to read 11Q13 are much more useful than picking at Carrier's definition of "messiah."
So, here is where my interest lies ...
Carrier claims that there was an early Jewish tradition of a suffer, dying and resurrected messiah that pre-dates Christianity. I emphatically disagree with his claim because there is no evidence for this anywhere until the first Christian writings.
He depends on his poor and indefensible readings of early Jewish texts to arrive at the conclusion, and I would very much like for him and others to stop misreading these texts into this ill-fated agenda, and to appreciate them for what they actually are.
2:43:15-ish - Catching up, since I only caught the end of the stream when it was live earlier (legit, this is my bedtime "story" for the night XD), and excellent point re: flesh and blood, especially cause any literal interpretation of that would be _very_ treif. (I remember one year when I was in college, a rabbi literally had to come in and re-kasher a _tablecloth_ because accidentally cut myself while setting the table for the college's kosher/halal co-op. Nothing got on the food, thankfully, but the tablecloth was a mess/def had to be washed.😅)
While I can't stand MythVision, Jobless Engineer is a Prize Buffoon.
But I do like Dr Kipp, so let's see how long I can stand this. 🤣🤣
{:o:O:}
Godless Engineer and other mythicists are walking examples of Dunning Krueger.
all mythicists? including the ones that have proper credentials and publish about their mythicist position under peer-review?
Exactly. If you don't even know how to ask the question, you shouldn't be in the conversation.
All mythicists including those who, as historicists, analyzed the NT with the same data analysis that Mark Bilby is in teamwork with Markus Vinzent and Jack Bull, and became mythicists as a result? (they authored Jesus Before Christ)
@@theemptycross1234The less than five living Mythicist fellas with peer-reviewed books, you mean? Besides the academic joke called Richard Carrier, Prof. Thomas Brodie and Prof. Thompson... Who else do you have in mind?
😮
I agree. Those fellas should indeed focus on other issues at hand. Godless Engineer himself has many great videos on themes such as the criticism of religious-driven political agendas.
A shame to see that the (academic) lost cause of Mythicism continues to distract the mental energies of many, otherwise talented content creators.
Not a fan of GE. Too arrogant, and likes to spout nonsense.
*I...* *CAN'T...*
*STAND...*
*MYTHVISION!*
{:o:O:}
Bro, I get it, but you have 50 comments on his channel. At some point, you just gotta stop visiting the channel.
@@Professor_Pink
*_"you have 50 comments on his channel"_*
You have no idea how many comments I have on any channel, as that data is not accessible.
I may have 50 on Kipp's channel, but I am subbed to him. I have none on MythTardbrain's channel for several years as I unsubbed a few years ago as he is so tedious and thinks and argues like a Flat Earther YEC Pseudo-Atheist.
{:o:O:}
_(Edited for tyops)_
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 Yes, I do have access to it. And you have plenty of comments that aren't years old.
@@Professor_Pink
*_"Yes, I do have access to it."_*
No you don't, no one can access my history as it's set to private. You CAN see public comments I've made if you go to the actual videos and scroll down. But you won't find any on MythTardbrain's channel les than a few year's old.
{:o:O:}
@@Professor_Pink
*_"Yes, I do have access to it."_*
No you don't, my history is set to private. You CAN see public comments I've made if you go to the actual videos and scroll down. But you won't find any on MythTosser's channel less than a few year's old.
{:o:O:}
I’m a follower who learns a lot from you but I have to be honest
It’s incredibly painful to listen to you most of the time
You drag out every single sentence in as slow a cadence as is humanly possible
Your crutch use of the word UHH at least 8 times in every string of a 10 word sentence is absolutely maddening
You seriously need to seek advice on how to verbalize your message in a show of intellect deserving of your message
It’s freakin torture
3 and a half hours! The length is ridiculous; who's going to watch all that. Do better next time.
I did
It is a valid criticism (too long videos, a bad habit that content creators tend to have).
Albeit, those really interested in learning about this theme will listen to it, anyways. There is a button for increasing the speed of the video, after all.
😊
@@NathanBTQJust… No.
What the actual ef?
Literally you’re a rude person.🐯
Unless this is an inside joke and I’m missing some thing,
What kind of person is actually leaving a comment like this one?
Do better
@@mitzzzu_tigerjones444 Look I'm tired of video discussions lasting three hours or more! So are other people. Most movies are around 2 hours and most panel discussions and lectures 2 hours or less. Likewise I miss a lot if I speed it up to 2x and I'm sure others do too.
I'm still skipping this vid.
Yous talk some pish