Toto

The context of the quote was that Carrier had reviewed Doherty's book in detail and decided that it passed the test of creating a prima facie case for the non-existence of Jesus. In that context, the burden shifted to the historicist side to come up with a theory that performed better.

We're not talking about Ultimate Truth here, and no one will use any of these theories to cure diseases.

Barefoot Bree

No need to snap at me, Toto. I'm not trying to Wedge things in that don't belong. (In fact, I agree with Doherty.) I'm asking a question about methods and practices.

I am confused at this apparent difference between how I see things presented in the science forums vs here in BC&H is all. Among historians (people I don't hang out with as a rule, so I'm completely in the dark as to how they operate), are theories commonly taken singly and proven or disproven on their own merits alone, or are they more commonly held in competition, only to be knocked out of the top spot by another more robust theory? Is the only, or even the most common, way for someone who disagrees with Doherty's theory to refute it by means of presenting a more robust alternative, or can they simply knock holes in his theory on its own (if any exist to be knocked)?

jgoodguy

Records of anything from 1st Century Judea? Civil records of Jerusalem? Civil records of any major Roman City? The contents of a single ancient library? Written records are fragile and need copying to be maintained. What we have left are what the monks thought worthy of maintaining and that was almost destroyed by the vikings and religious wars.

Be it 1% or 3% or 5%, we have very little left of ancient records. This is why the Historical Jesus and the Mythical Jesus will remain informed speculations by some very smart people. There simply is not enough evidence to connect the dots.

spamandham

Carrier is not saying that Doherty is right because HJ is wrong. He's saying Doherty's argument is more coherent than competing HJ propositions. Nothing more.

spamandham

So are many of the rest of us. Kinda sad really.

GakuseiDon

I think there have been sufficient problems found with Doherty's theory to show that it cannot stand, the main one being that there is no evidence that people back then thought the way that Doherty proposes they thought. (Google Bernard Muller's review of Doherty's theory for a good look at the problems. I've ordered Doherty's new book, and I plan to have my own review of it out by early next year.)

But Doherty being wrong doesn't prove a HJ, nor disprove mythicism. It just invalidates Doherty's specific mythicist theory.

Steven Carr

How can we be sure that Paul did not think there was a Jerusalem above us, mirroring the earthly Jerusalem?

Roger Pearse

This is the point at which we must enter a demurrer. MJ is not wrong because we can't know anything about history. We do NOT think this. However small our sources compared to what existed, they are good, and the modern world itself is built upon the rediscovery of the literature of that period.

No, MJ is wrong because (a) history says it is wrong and (b) it acknowledges this, looks for excuses to ignore history, and then appeals to what sources do not say, instead of what they do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

None of our sources say Elvis Presley was renowned for his tap-dancing.

Real historians scoff at the idea that Elvis did not wow audiences with his tap-dancing. This is an argument from silence, they say.

If Paul writes that the authorities only punish wrong doers, and that the authorities have no terror for the innocent, then clearly a real historian concludes that Paul taught that Jesus was whipped, beaten, flogged, mocked , and crucified by the authorities.

Toto

I don't know what I said to give that impression. :huh: But I think you have taken a quote from Richard Carrier out of context. It makes sense in the particular case of Carrier's review of Doherty's theory, but not as a general statement of the way historical proof works.

Historians can rarely talk about proving or disproving a theory, especially in ancient history. Historians cannot run experiments, and generally do not have the sort of hard data that scientists have. Often the only material they have are documents that are about as honest and reliable as campaign literature in the US.

Instead, modern historians talk about the "best explanation" of the data. The standard reference is Inference to the Best Explanation (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Peter Lipton.

"Best explanation" implies that you are going to be comparing different possible theories or explanations of the data that you have. But there will be cases where no theory is a very good explanation of the data, and you have to remain agnostic.

I don't know how else to explain it. I am not sure how the discussions in EC are different.