Heck, even I don’t claim that these Genesis stories that are expansions of Sumerian legend are “just plagiarism”.
Can you really cite anyone who maintains that position? I would think virtually anyone who thinks the Bible used Sumerian texts is also willing to believe that the text was modified and edited here and there.
I wonder if you have over-stated the problem with Panbabylonism …
Wikipedia has a very short blurb on it:
“Panbabylonism is the school of thought that considered the cultures and religions of the Middle East and civilization in general to be ultimately derived from Babylonian myths which in turn they viewed as being based on Babylonian astronomy, often in hidden ways.”
Perhaps you are confusing PanBabylonism with the “Bible-Babel School” ? ? ?
“A related school of thought is the Bible-Babel school, which regarded the Hebrew Bible and Judaism to be directly derived from Mesopotamian (Babylonian) mythology; both are forms of hyperdiffusionism in archaeology.”
“Both theories were popular in Germany, and the height of Panbabylonism was from the late 19th century to World War I. Panbabylonist thought largely disappeared from legitimate scholarship after the death of one of its greatest proponents, Hugo Winckler, according to one author…”
I do agree that Carrier is rather an extremist in his views. That he is “an accredited historian” is a description I am not sure I accept. He has a classics background, but his work seems to be directed in the area of religious skepticism. I have read some of his blogs and heard him on online YouTube-type videos. The idea that Jesus was not a historical figure has been discredited by others.
Strictly speaking Carrier has a Ph.D. in Ancient History (from Columbia) not Classics. He got quite snarky about Bart Ehrman saying he had a Classics degree.
Yeh, the wikipedia site (supplied, I presume, by Carrier and fans) does say PH D ancient history. The online Merriam-Webster def of “classicist” involves being knowledgeable about ancient Greek and Roman civilization, art, literature, ideals. I do not know what the Merriam Webster definition of ancient history is and so, yes, I stand corrected on the nature of his doctoral degree. But – unless the focus was on ancient Mayan history not Roman – I would assume that at the PhD level there is a certain similarity between classics and ancient history. Both fields sound interesting. If Carrier and Ehrman want to split hairs on it, well, both have doctorates and splitting hairs is what PhD candidates do. Thanks for pointing out the exact definition of his doctoral degree, though. But “accredited historian” he is not. He has hooked his star to the wrong sorts of things in that sense.
Art history, archaeology, ideals of the civilization, Greek and Roman history — these are part of the University of Auckland’s definition of an ancient history degree.
Well his thesis was “Attitudes toward the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire (100 B.C. to 313 A.D.)”. I agree the overlap would be considerable with Classics especially given that a few of his thesis advisers were Classics professors. My guess is he was ancient history because that was the department that admitted him.
Carrier certainly has the necessary prerequisites to get a hearing, but, his arguments do not convince his scholarly peers. They don’t convince me either; I keep thinking of GIGO. Note I am convinced Jesus was not divine and that he was executed and stayed dead.
You have read more on Carrier than I have. And that is a heavy duty thesis title – or, as my old college advisor long ago would have said, “How odd that someone should pick such an esoteric subject.”
Nevertheless, an interesting subject at some level.
And you are right – probably depended on the department that admitted him and not much else. It would seem then that he and Ehrman are jousting over trivia (my interpretation)
Evidently all sorts of people visit Biologos. What you believe about Jesus is entirely different than what I believe. Some writers admit that Jesus saw himself at least “touched by the divine” even though these wrtiers do not believe it. I have read a couple Jewish writers who recognize statements of divinity from Jesus – though they themselves do not accept that. Either way, worship of Him as divine sprang up right off and the belief that He rose physically from the dead was part of earliest belief.
Carrier was making a big thing of Ehrman’s mistake; Ehrman thought it was a minor mistake with no effect on his argument that Carrier had many of the necessary prereqs to engage in the argument at the top scholarly level. The error probably got fixed in subsequent printings. My own interest has been because of the realization that so many atheists are making idiots of themselves on this matter; it’s embarrassing.
I quite agree that beliefs about Jesus and divinity arose very early in Christian history.
The fact that Carrier was making “a big thing” of Ehrman’s mistake is indicative of how things work on the internet. And yes, I agree that it does not make them or their side look terribly good
So we agree at least on the timing of belief in Jesus’ divinity – but obviously not on the rest of it. I see that I have a note from – perhaps — Biologos wondering why I have replied to you 3 times and enough altready go talk to someone else!
Well have a nice Saturday…and do give the whole Jesus thing some more thought. People can and do disagree about many things – incl evidently the speed with which the Universe came about – but if you miss the Jesus thing by an inch, you will miss it by an eternity. OK…I realize that was a serious statement. But best wishes.
