Toto

No, if you read the link, I was referring to my own argument. Acharya's source is an anthropologist who accepted some Pygmy legends at face value. This is not a credible source.

spamandham

It would be fun to see Ehrman square off against Carrier, who is almost as contemptuous of the traditional approach to analyzing the Gospels as perhaps Ehrman is of the opposite.

ApostateAbe

OK, that's cool by me.

ApostateAbe

The traditional approach is to interpret the Bible as the perfect and literal truth. I think Ehrman takes the approach that I do--to interpret the Bible literally, but generally not as the truth. It contains some truth, and it would be found by using a set of text-critical criteria. What do you think the approach of Richard Carrier would be? The same, or drastically different? A much more skeptical approach maybe?

Toto

Since Carrier is a trained historian, he uses the standard tools of historical research, which involve treating all sources skeptically. He has already deconstructed and rejected the criterion of embarrassment.

ApostateAbe

If has deconstructed and rejected the criterion of dissimilarity, then he is using only some of the standard tools of historical research. The criterion of dissimilarity is a big one, central to the evaluation of textual claims. Nobody claimed that the criterion of dissimilarity is an absolute law, but that is the premise of Richard Carrier's criticism and rejection. It is really only a guide, the same as evaluating the claims of any politician or salesman, or pretty much any claim, and we use it every day. I figure that Richard Carrier is simply far more skeptical than normal historians or scholars, and he rejects methods that may seem to lead to unsatisfying conclusions.

Toto

You figure wrong.

NT scholars are the ones deviating from the norm, in terms of using methods that do not stand up to rational analysis, just to reach the conclusions they want.

ApostateAbe

I had an argument that you replaced with ellipses. I think looking at the arguments is better than exchanges differences in conclusions.

avi

In my opinion, neither mythicism nor atheism are restricted to Christianity. Inquiries into the origins of several other religions, e.g. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, may also proceed from the vantage point of the atheist: i.e. there are no credible supernatural explanations for anything, and could, potentially, also proceed from the viewpoint of the mythicist: there is insufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate the actual existence, "kata sarka" of either Zarathustra or Siddhartha. For all we know, they too, like Jesus of Capernaum, could be fictional characters.

In the case of the quest to understand the origins of Christianity, how useful is it to label someone as a "mythicist" rather than an "atheist"? For that matter, how useful is it, on this forum, to debate whether or not someone is, or is not, sufficiently rigorous, in conducting a review of the purported accomplishments of others?

Scholarship, if it is performed with discipline, and objectivity, does not depend on the personal beliefs of the investigator. Now, if an archaeologist, (who happens to accept as valid, religious persuasion xyz,) uncovers an object which disrespects his/her personal opinions about xyz, and then, as a result of this disharmonious circumstance, decides to conceal or destroy the object, in order to protect the currently accepted "truth" regarding xyz, then, one has a problem of tainted scholarship.

Investigators reviewing accomplishments of others must be very careful about sources of information, particularly those sources uncovered in the field, under adverse circumstances, whether that adversity is of political, economic, climatological, or health related origin.

One cannot help but wonder, by way of example, why Yale University was in such a hurry to repaint the treasure excavated at Dura Europos, upon its arrival in New Haven?

avi

spamandham

Carrier's approach, is to view the NT the same as we would any other ancient religious text. It is not, and never was intended to record history, in the sense we use the word.

It's a collection of propaganda, myths, legends, and mysticism. The entire NT can easily be seen as derived from the political and religious milieu of the day.

Anyway, if you're interested in a more in-depth perspective from Carrier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOGebAEOU2g

Even if you disagree with him, I think you'll find it entertaining.

If nothing else, I think you'll come away from it with the realization that he's a real historian who applies proven historical techniques and not an advanced apologist with a BA in history from a Bible college.