Chaucer

Oh? Purposefully? Really? Now I wonder just what the mods will have to say about that. I'm dealing with a lecturer who comes off as possibly playing fast and loose with the facts, whether intentionally or carelessly, and so you attempt to deflect from the OP by upping the stakes and suggesting point-blank that I'm actually the deliberate premeditated liar here, which I've been careful not to say of Carrier.

Cute distraction, but no cigar.

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

I am not of the opinion that we should hold back our contempt for unlikely ideologically-motivated distortions and outright falsehoods, not even for the sake of having a laugh. Such as Carrier's speech is what I expect to find in Michael Moore videos or church sermons or political ads. But, that is not what we do. We stand for reason and truth. And Richard Carrier advanced one blithering fallacy and falsehood after another. I am appalled.

hjalti

Do tell! What falsehoods would that be?

Toto

Document this or retract it.

So far, Chaucer has been unable to.

ApostateAbe

On the contrary, I think Chaucer has done well.

I'll start with Carrier's assertion that the Talmud is the best evidence for Jesus outside of the New Testament.

First, there is an implied fallacy, inherent to the way of thinking among mythicists, which is that the text of any historical document that was canonized in the New Testament counts for no historical evidence pertaining to the life of Jesus. They believe this because of the prejudice of anti-Christianity. Historians make conclusions about the life of Jesus by making the best sense of the historical evidence--Christian or not, canon or not. Richard Carrier and his ilk apparently do history by discounting the historical value of anything that has Christian bias or even just possible Christian bias.

Yes, even just possible Christian bias, because the possibility of maximum Christian interference or other possibilities makes historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the New Testament without value. That is the way Richard Carrier and his fans think. Or else I can't explain how Richard Carrier thinks that the accounts of Jesus in the "James, brother of Jesus," writing of Josephus, the pre-interpolated Testimonium Flavianum writing of Josephus (per the writing of Origen), the writing of Pliny the Younger, the writing of Tacitus, the writing of Suetonius, and the writing of Mara bar Sarapion count as worse evidence for the historical Jesus than the Talmud.

Carrier does acknowledge "earlier references," and he dismisses such accounts as, "They either repeat what Christians were telling them, Christians who were just riffing on the New Testament, or they were actually fabricated by Christians themselves." Does he actually think that the Talmud's account of Jesus provides better evidence for the historical Jesus than the writings of Josephus? When Josephus wrote about the martyrdom of James, it was most certainly repeating what Christians had said, but it had nothing to do with the New Testament. The story of the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus is not found in the New Testament. The writers of the Talmud, in much the same way, would be basing their claims on what Christians have said.

It is all evidence for the life of Jesus. Why? Because nobody in history took a non-existent Jesus as a possibility.

And then we move on to Paul, which is where Carrier advances preposterous lies instead of fallacies. He said that Paul wrote nothing of the life of Jesus. It is a falsehood that is very common among mythicists, and Richard Carrier, having a Ph.D. in history, knows better than that. He, like a blithering idiot that he is not, claimed that Paul "failed to note one physical trait or personal quality of Jesus." I will once again repeat this list, which is normally reserved for the misinformed. According to Paul, Jesus was:

• "born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
• "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
• "I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
• "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
• "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
• "You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
• "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Toto

On the contrary, Carrier gives the Christian canon its due. Along with most Christian scholars, he sees little historical value in the gospels.

You are incorrect if you think that historians naively accept the Bible as a historical source, just because it's there.

I can't tell what you mean here.

Carrier has written extensively on most of these sources. :huh:

Carrier has an article in progress demonstrating that the story of the martyrdom of James does not mention Christ and is not about the brother of Jesus Christ.

??

Chaucer already listed this, and I showed that Carrier was correct. Carrier did not say that Paul says nothing about the life of Jesus. He did say that Paul says nothing about a physical trait or personal quality of Jesus, and this is correct. You list does not list any personal identification of Jesus or describe him in any way.

From an early post in this thread You're just wrong.

Steven Carr

ABE
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

CARR
Wait for Ehrman's book,where he points out how that cannot be used as evidence of what Jesus said.

Or at least, he discounted it in a private correspondence with me.

ApostateAbe

I wouldn't expect to find it in Ehrman's book, but I agree with it principally. If we are trying to pin down the historical Jesus, then we generally shouldn't rely on Christian myths where Jesus is portrayed as a prophet who predicted his own surprise capture and execution. That would fail the criterion of dissimilarity.

However, that is very much a different topic from the question of whether or not Paul described any of the human qualities of Jesus.

ApostateAbe

Toto, you are more familiar with Richard Carrier's work than I am. I didn't fathom that Carrier would dismiss each of those passages as merely visions and stylized creeds. Maybe you can give me an example passage in any of the writings of Paul about any topic besides Jesus that is definitely not a "vision" or a "stylized creed."

Toto

If you didn't fathom this, you are too unfamiliar with the field to criticize anyone. You have no business spewing out the insults that you do.

They are few and far between, but Paul's mentions of Peter would qualify. (Whether they are true is another matter.)