Switch89

Take the time to read this post carefully:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=135968

The crux of it is that Carrier quoted Josephus in a way which could easily mislead his readers (though he may not have intended it that way). In fact, the evidence that Carrier was actually being intentionally misleading is that the misquotation just so happens to support the theory Carrier was advancing. You'll see what I mean. What do you guys think?

I'm not in favor of recklessly accusing others of fraud, especially not Carrier, whom I believe is an honest individual. Still, this incident does need explanation. I've tried emailing Richard, but he has not responded.

Solo

Turkel most likely is bed-wetting but to avoid libelling him let's just say he has trouble holding his pee when he is dreaming.

The idea that Carrier should return his doctorate because JPH dreamed up a conspiracy against him is a case in point.

Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

James Holding is not in a position to call anyone dishonest.

Toto

That Theology Web thread could not be posted here, with its accusations of dishonesty and its verbal mud wrestling style of name calling. JP Holding refuses to post on this board - perhaps because if he can't libel someone, he would have trouble with his argument?

And what is his charge - that Carrier selects out 2 parts of Josephus that support his case? I'm not going to read that entire thread to find out what the problem with that could be.

Johnny Skeptic

Do you believe that James Holding is an honest individual?

Do you believe that any of Holding's writings need explanation? If so, can you give an example?

ApostateAbe

For any of you who may take my opinions more worthy of your time than Holding's (I wouldn't blame you for thinking ill of Holding), then I can confirm that Holding is perfectly correct in his particular criticism of Carrier. Carrier misquoted Josephus, replacing a very long passage of Josephus with "[and]," and misleading the readers into thinking that Jewish law compelled a blasphemer to be buried dishonorably for one full day, when actually a criminal was to remain at their place of stoning for one full day. I have seen incidents like this before, and it is something that a scholar would do only by being consciously dishonest. Holding wins. If you don't want your enemies to win the arguments, then choose your scholars based on the strength of their reasoning, not based on their sympathies nor their conclusions.

darstec

A few things. First distinguish between criminal and blasphemer. They are not equal. Second, some sources say the blasphemer is to be stoned then hung on a stake until carrion eat their eyes and strip their bones.

But most importantly, it was impossible for anyone in the first century CE to blaspheme. In order to do that, only a Hebrew could commit the offense. The name of god had to be uttered in front of three witnesses in Hebrew. That presents major problems. For one the Tetragrammaton is NOT the name of god (despite modern Jewish claims to the contrary) but merely one of his attributes. And another stumbling block was that the true pronounciation of Hebrew was entirely forgotten by the first century CE. It was like Coptic in the 18th century -- entirely forgotten. The best they could do back then is mindless rote recitation of Hebrew like those in the US did during Mass with Latin. Most prayed the rosary because they could not quite make out the sounds.

ApostateAbe

Thank you, yes, I was indeed careful to distinguish between "blasphemer" and "criminal," and Carrier was the one who seemingly melded those two subjects of punishment together in two passages that do not actually belong together in a single quote. Carrier makes it seem as though only the blasphemer is the subject of punishment throughout the misleadingly merged passage, which is one of Holding's points of criticism.

The points you make about the difficulty of punishing anyone for blasphemy may also be good points, too, but such a criticism would also seem best applied to the theory of Carrier, and it is probably a topic for another thread. My model of Jesus is that he was killed not for a religious crime but merely on the fearful whim of the notoriously violent Pontius Pilate.

Toto

1. Carrier may take a week or two to answer email.

2. It is not generally considered misquoting to use ellipses. I don't see the confusion that you claim, although it is possible. Carrier quotes Josephus to show that the dead bodies of condemned criminals [in various situations] needed to be taken down by sunset, and he used two examples from Josephus' writing, removing irrelevant material. A reader might misinterpret that to mean that a criminal that was taken down needed to be reburied after a day, but I don't see Carrier interpreting Josephus that way. It probably would have been clearer to format the quote differently, but I can't see how that makes Carrier guilty of all the sins that JPH claims.

aa5874

But, would not your model be based on lies? No Gospel story in the NT Canon made such a claim.

Here you are criticising Carrier but have introduced a model of Jesus that is wholly unsubstantiated.

Your model of Jesus is just a total waste of time.