Richard Carrier

[Undeceived]

The Jews and Romans portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew (as distinct from the real historical people of that time) react to a story ("let's ignore this and hush it up") rather than responding realistically to terrifying supernatural events

Do you think the chief priests believed the guards about the angel? Would you have?

the characters all somehow just know that Jesus' mission does not involve marching on Jerusalem with his undead army and magical powers to punish them for torturing and killing him

That sort of reaction is not in Jesus' character. Why would the Jews expect vengeance from a man who healed people, told Peter to put away his sword, and walked willingly into his execution?

Provide an example in which early AD fiction-writers produced a work with depth and meaning comparable to the Gospels, which they did not intend to be taken as fact. One example.

The Aeneid http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.html By Virgil Written 19 B.C.E close enough to AD to count? You can google it. After centuries of Romulus and Remus all the Romans became descendants of a Trojan.

http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/110tech/aeneid.html

Based upon what the Roman historians had to say about the earliest beginnings of Rome, it seems likely that a Roman would have seen the Aeneid as a fictionalized account of events which in their broad outline were historically accurate.

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320AncLit/...11verg.htm

When Amulius discovered them, he ordered that the babies be put in a basket and drowned in the Tiber River but instead they floated to safety and, when they washed up on the banks, their cries of hunger attracted a she-wolf. Normally, such a beast would have killed and eaten the children, but the Romans believed the she-wolf to be an animal sacred to Mars and, sensing that these were his divine offspring, it nursed the children instead of devouring them. Thus, the infants were fed literally on the milk of war, a symbol of the martial culture which Rome would later embrace.

Are mere symbols generally included in history? They are one indicator that the Romans would have viewed The Aeneid as fiction. The link above also points out other myths that the Romans could have fact-checked. While we possess few remaining Roman histories, Romans at the turn of the millennium maintained whole libraries of their past. It seems unlikely that any educated person would have believed the story of The Aeneid to be fact. Compare this to 1st century Israel, in which all Jewish were educated, especially in the Torah and prophetic scrolls. The Gospels fulfill prophecies which any Jew could confirm. Most notably, they foretold the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fits the Messianic prophecies exactly. It's hard to imagine a Jew writing a fictional character of such significance and not mean for people to respond. That's like yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Have you read Jewish viewpoints on Christianity? They largely consider the narrative of Jesus a diabolical plot, not some innocent tale that was misinterpreted.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The Jews and Romans portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew (as distinct from the real historical people of that time) react to a story ("let's ignore this and hush it up") rather than responding realistically to terrifying supernatural events

Do you think the chief priests believed the guards about the angel? Would you have?

the characters all somehow just know that Jesus' mission does not involve marching on Jerusalem with his undead army and magical powers to punish them for torturing and killing him

That sort of reaction is not in Jesus' character. Why would the Jews expect vengeance from a man who healed people, told Peter to put away his sword, and walked willingly into his execution?

The Aeneid http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.html By Virgil Written 19 B.C.E close enough to AD to count? You can google it. After centuries of Romulus and Remus all the Romans became descendants of a Trojan.

http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/110tech/aeneid.html

Based upon what the Roman historians had to say about the earliest beginnings of Rome, it seems likely that a Roman would have seen the Aeneid as a fictionalized account of events which in their broad outline were historically accurate.

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320AncLit/...11verg.htm

When Amulius discovered them, he ordered that the babies be put in a basket and drowned in the Tiber River but instead they floated to safety and, when they washed up on the banks, their cries of hunger attracted a she-wolf. Normally, such a beast would have killed and eaten the children, but the Romans believed the she-wolf to be an animal sacred to Mars and, sensing that these were his divine offspring, it nursed the children instead of devouring them. Thus, the infants were fed literally on the milk of war, a symbol of the martial culture which Rome would later embrace.

Are mere symbols generally included in history? They are one indicator that the Romans would have viewed The Aeneid as fiction. The link above also points out other myths that the Romans could have fact-checked. While we possess few remaining Roman histories, Romans at the turn of the millennium maintained whole libraries of their past. It seems unlikely that any educated person would have believed the story of The Aeneid to be fact. Compare this to 1st century Israel, in which all Jewish were educated, especially in the Torah and prophetic scrolls. The Gospels fulfill prophecies which any Jew could confirm. Most notably, they foretold the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fits the Messianic prophecies exactly. It's hard to imagine a Jew writing a fictional character of such significance and not mean for people to respond. That's like yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Have you read Jewish viewpoints on Christianity? They largely consider the narrative of Jesus a diabolical plot, not some innocent tale that was misinterpreted.

You appear to be objecting but I do not see just what you are objecting to. Could you be more specific? I asked if 19 years shy was close enough to AD. You did not ask for anything factual. You wanted something comparable to gospel fiction and I gave you vastly superior fiction in the form of an epic poem.

Please be specific in your objection or repeat it in just a few words in case I am just missing it in all your verbiage.

[Undeceived]

I'm looking for a work of fiction/allegory intended to be a work of fiction/allegory but interpreted by others to be fact. This is to back up Lord Privy Seal's argument that the Gospels are misinterpreted fiction/allegory. I am challenging any proponents of the argument to show that such a work is possible-- by providing examples.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I'm looking for a work of fiction/allegory intended to be a work of fiction/allegory but interpreted by others to be fact. This is to back up Lord Privy Seal's argument that the Gospels are misinterpreted fiction/allegory. I am challenging any proponents of the argument to show that such a work is possible-- by providing examples.

As you claim to be a believer the work is the entire orthodox bible as well as all the apocrypha and any similar text of the time frame such as Solomon's control of demons. So we have yours as what you want an equivalent to.

As I posted the Aeneid REPLACED Romulus and Remus and became the believed true origin story of the Romans. Was I not clear? Google it.

Far from your time frame the Iliad, very fictional, became the standard for the ideal Greek as though it were true. Behavior was judged by the standards and virtues of the people in the poem.

There are dozens of stories about the American revolution and the frontier. The more fictional the more Americans try to live up to them and take them as the ideal image of an American. You can find this in every country.

For you specifically we know all the stories of Christian martyrs in Rome are bullshit. We know the myth was invented in the 5th c. AD and embellished thereafter. We know even the Catholic church has admitted that the official list of martyrs is like all there ever were. Yet millions of Christians have been inspired to imitate such behavior even though it was rare and often misrepresented because they believe ALL Christians were like that. As do you.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Do you think the chief priests believed the guards about the angel? Would you have?

Well, let's see. If I had wanted the guards there in the first place because I knew the guy (Jesus) claimed he would resurrect from the dead (how I know this, when his own closest disciples don't remains a mystery )... If at the moment of the guy's death, the Sun winked out (and presumably the stars too), there was a huge earthquake, a horde of dead people crawled out of their tombs and invaded the city, and the Temple veil was ripped from top to bottom... If I knew the guy was just coming off of a career of doing things like walking on water, calming storms, resurrecting dead people and the like...

...then yeah. I would have to say that under those circumstances, the prior probability of the guards telling the truth was pretty high. Likewise, if I read news stories about Superman preventing airplane crashes and stopping supervillains with his laser eyes and wielding superhuman strength, I would not be utterly shocked to find out that he was also bullet-proof and from another planet.

Of course, in the real world, the prior probability (a probability estimate based on background knowledge of the world) of Jesus or anyone else being weighted down with super-powers is vanishingly small. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When we see that nobody but a tiny religious sect (and not even all of them, as attested by the other Gospels and the N.T. Epistles) seemed to notice giant earthquakes and zombie invasions and the sun flicking off like a burned-out light bulb... When that sect's own stories about these astonishing events portray the Jewish leaders responding to the apparent near-destruction of the Cosmos with, "Huh. OK, so how do we spin this? I know--you guys will say you fell asleep!"...

...then the consequent probability (the probability that the "Gospels-are-history" hypothesis is true given the specific for-and-against evidence in the case) also goes down, so that a final Bayesian analysis points to the stories being myth, legend, or mystic allegory rather than highly-accurate news stories.

That sort of reaction is not in Jesus' character. Why would the Jews expect vengeance from a man who healed people, told Peter to put away his sword, and walked willingly into his execution?

That depends on if you're talking about the same "Jesus" who, just days prior, made a whip and drove the money-changers out of the Temple courtyard with such ferocity that he single-handedly cleared an area something like 15 acres in size, and nobody--not the money-changers, not their customers, not the Temple police, not the battalion of Roman legionnaires stationed nearby to respond to disturbances in the Temple--dared oppose him. The same "Jesus" who said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword; who said he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (not even his disciples knew he was speaking metaphorically about his body until later). The same "Jesus" who, in one of his parables, likened himself to a king who ordered that those who would not accept his rule be brought and slain before him. That one? Or do you have a different, unquestionably pacifist Jesus in mind?

Don't forget that the Pharisees are portrayed as thinking Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. How would they know that Tender Jesus Meek and Mild was not an act he was putting on in order to lead the people astray? All the bigtime scary shit that supposedly just happened (the Sun going out, massive earthquake, zombie horde) would not lend the impression of great big huggy bunches of love for everyone, coming right up.

You "know" that Jesus is the Prince of Peace, that he would never have wanted to get revenge against the people who killed him (well, aside from torturing them for eternity...), because at that point in the story he's being the archetypal dying-and-rising Redeemer, not a ruthless, all-conquering Dark Lord. As a Christian, you were taught all that stuff about Jesus before you ever pick up a Bible. You "know" that he lives in Heaven, so he obviously didn't crush the Roman Empire and raise up a gigantic black tower with a flaming eye on top from whence to reign, seated on his Throne of Bone. The original audience of the Gospel of Matthew would also know all that stuff, before reading the Gospel or having it read to them.

But the characters in the story wouldn't know that stuff, realistically. Just like the Jedi Council in the Star Wars prequels didn't know that Chancellor Palpatine as a Sith Lord plotting to kill them and take over the Galaxy, even though pretty much every single person sitting in the theater did know.

So, when we see Jewish leaders portrayed acting on future Christian doctrines about Jesus and understandings of Jesus' mission and intentions as if they're an unquestionable given--the way only future Christians like yourself would see them--it's obvious that we're looking at a literary anachronism. When we see Jesus' own inner circle of disciples not understanding these things no matter how plainly he explains it to them, when we see them worrying about food a short time after they supposedly saw him manufacture tons of food out of thin air, we can tell that we're looking at an allegorical literary device, not a realistic human reaction.

This is only hard to see if you're convinced that goodness, virtue, and a hopeful eternity are only available to you if you can convince yourself and others that the Gospels are CNN reports. Like the Book of Genesis: any other time you read a story with characters like a man named Dirt, a woman named Mother, and a talking animal, you normally don't have trouble figuring out whether it was written as myth/allegory, or as a scientific treatise on natural history.

Take the red pill, Neo. You know you want to. Free your mind!

---

I'm looking for a work of fiction/allegory intended to be a work of fiction/allegory but interpreted by others to be fact. This is to back up Lord Privy Seal's argument that the Gospels are misinterpreted fiction/allegory. I am challenging any proponents of the argument to show that such a work is possible-- by providing examples.

What you're looking for is the concept of "euhemerization," the later interpretation of myths as history. This is named after the Greek philosopher Euhemeros, who taught that the Greek gods and goddesses were historical people (kings, queens, renowned warriors, etc.) who were later deified, and that the myths themselves had a historical basis. Rather like the way most non-apologist New Testament scholars think Jesus was an ordinary man (apocalyptic prophet, Jewish fundamentalist revolutionary, faith healer/magician, Cynic-influenced proto-hippie sage, take your pick) who was later shrouded in layers of myth and legend and transformed into a deity by Christians. Dr. Carrier rejects this theory, arguing that Jesus, like Zeus, was a mythical divine figure from the start, without a historical man as the origin of the mythology.

Edit: I should also point out that Dr. Carrier specifically mentions euhemerization in the OP video. If you had watched it, you would have already been provided with examples.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

OTOH, the guy could rise from the dead but could not get out of the tomb with an angel to let him out.

[Tonus]

OTOH, the guy could rise from the dead but could not get out of the tomb with an angel to let him out.

I like to think that in the anime for the NT, Jesus fashions a mystical whip out of the bones of his sacrificed carcass, lashes the boulder (smashing it into millions of tiny fragments that liquefy the Roman guards standing outside) and then uses his laser vision to etch "JESUS WAS HERE" on a slab of rock that happened to conveniently be lying nearby.

And then later, when he met the disciples and Thomas asked to see the holes in his hands, he snapped his neck with a swift and graceful move and then resurrected him. And everybody had a huge laugh at Thomas' expense, because what kind of pussy would doubt Jesus like that???

[A_Nony_Mouse]

OTOH, the guy could rise from the dead but could not get out of the tomb with an angel to let him out.

I like to think that in the anime for the NT, Jesus fashions a mystical whip out of the bones of his sacrificed carcass, lashes the boulder (smashing it into millions of tiny fragments that liquefy the Roman guards standing outside) and then uses his laser vision to etch "JESUS WAS HERE" on a slab of rock that happened to conveniently be lying nearby.

And then later, when he met the disciples and Thomas asked to see the holes in his hands, he snapped his neck with a swift and graceful move and then resurrected him. And everybody had a huge laugh at Thomas' expense, because what kind of pussy would doubt Jesus like that???

I like it. Feel like writing a gospel?

[Minimalist]

I'm looking for a work of fiction/allegory intended to be a work of fiction/allegory but interpreted by others to be fact. This is to back up Lord Privy Seal's argument that the Gospels are misinterpreted fiction/allegory. I am challenging any proponents of the argument to show that such a work is possible-- by providing examples.

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Sp-Tl/Te...liam.html/


http://www.bergonia.org/History/Atlantis.htm


http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Ho-Iv/Holy-Grail.html

These should give you a start.

People believe lots of stupid shit.

Noted purveyors of said stupid shit include....