Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 01-16-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Playing along, your major premise 2 is flawed. The report must have been either true (based on observation) or invented. If it is believed to be true but is not, somebody somewhere invented it.

Yes, true, though I was thinking of "report" as meaning "something that someone is reporting". Claims based on original observations would be treated separately.

(ETA) Looking at my revised premise 2: It just doesn't appear tight enough, as "invented or it is believed to be true" doesn't capture everything. But it is still better than the hypothetical apologist's "A report is either invented or it is true". Curse you, hypothetical apologist!!!

aa5874 · 01-16-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Yes, but Carrier is making a non-sequitur. It does not follow from his syllogisms that Jesus was mythological (like Attis); it follows that if Jesus' existence is in question, then the crucifixion provides no evidence of his existence, which is a weaker conclusion.

a) In a context where Jesus' existence is not called into question, I think the criterion of embarrassment might still carry weight--or at least, it isn't subject to the criticism that Carrier levels here.

b) In a context where Jesus' existence is already called into question, then I think Carrier is right that the criterion of embarrassment carries less weight.

With Attis, there is an additional premise along the lines of "Attis is probably a mythological being". One needs to hold a parallel premise about Jesus in order for Carrier's argument to be effective.

But the crucifixion of Jesus is not embarrasing at all to him as described in the Gospels. In gJohn, Jesus appears to be arrogantly awaiting the crucifixion, it would appear that John's Jesus thinks the crucifixion was a most glorius thing.

Look at the last prayer in John 17.

Quote:

These words spake Jesus.....[b]Father, the hour is come, GLORIFY thy Son, that thy Son also may GLORIFY thee..... I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do....

The crucifixion was not an embarrassment at all, based on the story, but to glorify the Son.

An embarrassment would be if Jesus committed suicide, or if he died of a veneral disease or was poisoned by one of his disciples.

It would appear, based on the story, Jesus died the way God wanted him to die, in glory.

However, the criterion of embarrassment produces bogus results. One must first assume, without evidence, that the event occurred, but if you have already assumed the event occurred, the criterion of embarrassment is irrelevant.

In the Gospels, Peter, as the story goes, nearly drowned or began to sink, trying to walk on water towards the water-walker Jesus during a sea-storm.

If it was embarrassing that Peter nearly drowned, therefore Peter was really trying to walk towards the water walker Jesus during a sea-storm. Now, nothing could be further from the truth.

The criterion of embarrassment produces bogus results.

ApostateAbe · 01-16-2009, 05:20 PM

The problem with Richard Carrier's counterargument is that criteria are not absolute laws, and I don't think anybody is claiming that. They only influence probability. A thing embarrassing to the author written by the author is less likely to be a fictional invention of the author, but of course there are exceptions, and you can find exceptions to every criterion. Textual scholarship is not a hard science, and I think Richard Carrier should know better.

Toto · 01-16-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The problem with Richard Carrier's counterargument is that criteria are not absolute laws, and I don't think anybody is claiming that. They only influence probability. A thing embarrassing to the author written by the author is less likely to be a fictional invention of the author, but of course there are exceptions, and you can find exceptions to every criterion. Textual scholarship is not a hard science, and I think Richard Carrier should know better.

If you read the paper at the link, Carrier deals with this objection.

aa5874 · 01-16-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...... A thing embarrassing to the author written by the author is less likely to be a fictional invention of the author, but of course there are exceptions, and you can find exceptions to every criterion. .....

The criterion of embarrassment cannot resolve truth from fiction at all.

If a story is total fiction, unknown to a reader, but there are embarrassing elements in the story, using the ctriterion of embarrassment would produce bogus results.

The criterion of embarrassment is totally useless.

ApostateAbe · 01-16-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The problem with Richard Carrier's counterargument is that criteria are not absolute laws, and I don't think anybody is claiming that. They only influence probability. A thing embarrassing to the author written by the author is less likely to be a fictional invention of the author, but of course there are exceptions, and you can find exceptions to every criterion. Textual scholarship is not a hard science, and I think Richard Carrier should know better.

If you read the paper at the link, Carrier deals with this objection.

It is 39 pages. Exactly where does he deal with that objection?

Toto · 01-16-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you read the paper at the link, Carrier deals with this objection.

It is 39 pages. Exactly where does he deal with that objection?

Start at page 6 (the beginning of one section). I think you will get an idea of his approach within the first 10 pages or so. Read it in conjunction with his blog posts.

I excerpted one section that might have given the wrong impression about the entire approach. It is not a question of constructing syllogisms, but of dealing with probabilities in a more rigorous way than has been used so far in historical Jesus studies.

ApostateAbe · 01-16-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is 39 pages. Exactly where does he deal with that objection?

Start at page 6 (the beginning of one section). I think you will get an idea of his approach within the first 10 pages or so. Read it in conjunction with his blog posts.

I excerpted one section that might have given the wrong impression about the entire approach. It is not a question of constructing syllogisms, but of dealing with probabilities in a more rigorous way than has been used so far in historical Jesus studies.

OK, so I think maybe Carrier is retaining the criterion of embarrassment as a probabilistic tool.

Toto · 01-16-2009, 06:55 PM

He is not retaining it. He is providing tools to evaluate it, and it comes up short.

ApostateAbe · 01-16-2009, 06:57 PM

OK, so if you were to put Richard Carrier's argument briefly in your own words, what would the argument look like?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2009, 05:20 PM	#13
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	The problem with Richard Carrier's counterargument is that criteria are not absolute laws, and I don't think anybody is claiming that. They only influence probability. A thing embarrassing to the author written by the author is less likely to be a fictional invention of the author, but of course there are exceptions, and you can find exceptions to every criterion. Textual scholarship is not a hard science, and I think Richard Carrier should know better.

01-16-2009, 06:55 PM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	He is not retaining it. He is providing tools to evaluate it, and it comes up short.

01-16-2009, 06:57 PM	#20
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	OK, so if you were to put Richard Carrier's argument briefly in your own words, what would the argument look like?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.