Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-20-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the course of the past decade, one professional historian named Richard Carrier has taken on the project of writing a book on the historicity of Jesus, and in particular the use of Baysian probability in judging whether Jesus probably existed or not. He will have one peer reviewed book coming out next year on methods, and another later on. You are not an authority; he is. He disagrees with you. The people who call themselves historians and who pontificate on the historical Jesus do not use the same methods as historians in general. They have invented their own methodology, which does not stand up under examination.

Wow. One historian. I think you'll find that that was why I said 'generally'. Is Carrier tenured, by the way? Even he accepts that the MJ case has not survived peer review.

Are you aware of how many historians have actually looked at the case for the historicity of Jesus? Hardly any in recent years. The historical Jesus guild (which is actually doing theology and calling it history) just keeps repeating that everyone agrees that the question is settled that Jesus existed, although none of them can actually explain why.

Quote:

Incidentally, I'm almost sure I saw a vid of Carrier at Skeptikon where he described himself as an evangelist for atheism, and strongly implied that if the 'other side' used dubious methods, it wasn't wrong for both sides.

I am sure you are mistaken. I recall that video, and I know that is not the sort of thing that Carrier would say.

Quote:

And I referred to historians, not scholars. It's hardly my fault if they don't seem to support the MJ hypothesis. Find me a reputable history book which says he was mythical.

Find any book that examines whether Jesus was a historical figure. Dare to examine the question yourself.

Quote:

This doesn't make any rational sense as a response. I think you'll find that my point was factually correct.

I can't locate your original point, so I don't know. I'm sorry the communication did not go through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I see you just rambling on and on .......

Ah yes. The attempted personal put down. Always impressive.

It wasn't meant as a personal put down, just as an observation. The quantity of what you write is exhausting, but you don't include references or sources, and it is difficult to counter vague assertions based on what you are sure all historians think.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am sure you are mistaken. I recall that video, and I know that is not the sort of thing that Carrier would say.

I recall it being posted at ratskep on that basis, and watching it. Skeptikon 3, I think. I should not say what I said without being able to cite it. So I withdraw that.

I am sure he described himself as an evangelist for atheism. But as to how controversial his remarks went, I am not sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Find any book that examines whether Jesus was a historical figure.

That is a fair point, and why I included caveats. Nonetheless, I'm happy to stick to my assertion that historians generally include Jesus in their books as a historical character. I took part in a thread at ratskep where a persuasive material was posted in support of this. Yes, it's true that in this case I am not citing specific sources. But at the same time I am wide open to being shot down. I venture to suggest that the majority of posts here do not contain citations. It's desirable, yes, but I'm not sure if it's necessarily rambling on and on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dare to examine the question yourself.

You're kidding, right? That's exactly what I'm doing here.

Toto · 09-20-2011, 04:55 PM

That video was discussed in this thread by someone who misinterpreted what he said.

Carrier is an evangelist for atheism, but not for mythicism, which he just regards as a hypothesis which might be accepted at some point.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes, really. Lack of first hand accounts is not uncommon in ancient history.

Your making excuses and not providing the sources to your claim Arch...you said there were documentary sources for jesus unless I read your posts wrong.

Right. Documentary sources. First hand accounts. Not the same thing. You are chasing a strawman. This is pretty basic stuff.

What documentary sources are you talking about?

It is NO secret that ONLY one source, "Antiquities of the Jews" that mentioned a character called Jesus Christ and both passages are FORGERIES.

Why can't you say that ONLY one source mentioned the character called Jesus Christ instead of implying that there are more than one source?

In order for you to establish that an historical Jesus was critical for Christianity then you MUST show that the Jesus cult TAUGHT that Men ought to be worshiped as Gods.

There is NO DATA of antiquity that the Jesus cult PROMOTED, ACCEPTED, or encouraged the Deification of human beings.

In the NT, "Paul" OUTPERFORMED Jesus Christ and was NOT DEIFIED.

"1. In the NT, "Paul" preached ALL over the Roman Empire.

2. In the NT, "Paul" was BEATEN with 195 LASHES yet it is NOT claimed that anyone is healed by the Stripes of "Paul".

3. In the NT, "Paul" was STONED almost to death yet it is NOT claimed "Paul" SUFFERED for the Sins of ALL Mankind.

4. "Paul" was CRUCIFIED according to the Church yet there is NO claim that "Paul" was the END of the LAW and abolished circumcision.

What role did HJ of Nazareth play in the development of Christianity and what source of antiquity SHOW that there was an HJ of Nazareth?

mountainman · 09-20-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And I referred to historians, not scholars.

Hi archibald,

The field at present supports two types of historians - "Biblical Historians" and "Ancient Historians" - and one needs to disambiguate theiir claims, their criteria and methodology. The Biblical Historians appear to use many forms of archaic and illogical criteria, which are not used by ancient historians, such as the criterion of embarrasment etc etc etc. (If you want a full list let me know).

This is what Toto is alluding to I think. For example below, the ancient historian Momigliano refers to the "Biblical Historians" as the "insiders" and the "Ancient Historians" as the "outsiders". Do you understand this rationale?

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies

Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

....BTW, there is plenty of documentary evidence. More than for many figures from ancient history. Even the more independent ones are not at all late by the standards of the discipline.

You ought to know your claim is blatantly erroneous.

Why do you make yourself look so bad?

There are HUNDREDS upon Hundreds of writings that described Jesus Christ as some kind of Ghost that was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

Stringbean · 09-20-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

I did not ask for first hand accounts.

Yes you did. I didn't bring them up. You did. :huh:

Oh and I also did not mentionn proof.

You posted this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald
No, I don't actually. Because this is not unusual. You need to apply the criteria consistently.

BTW, there is plenty of documentary evidence. More than for many figures from ancient history. Even the more independent ones are not at all late by the standards of the subject.

I ask you this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean
Really? Are those sources first hand accounts of witnesses who actually saw this jesus on earth? The Bible is not and I repeat is not a first hand account of jesus any investigation into the NT Canon will provide you with enough to realize that even the NT writers knew little if anything about the very man they called jesus. Matter fact the Encyclopedia Biblica puts it rather well:

Quote:

That the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Fact is Evangelists did not know anything of the life of Jesus before his ministry and they completely refrained from inventing a childhood or youth or even an early manhood for him. Why? Because it was not necessary for their purpose.

Do you see anywhere in that posts where I ask for first hand ACCOUNTS? No. I ask if those sources were first hand accounts?

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Right. Documentary sources. First hand accounts. Not the same thing. You are chasing a strawman.

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Your making excuses and not providing the sources to your claim Arch...you said there were documentary sources for jesus unless I read your posts wrong.

So admit that you do not have this documentary evidence because you clearly took my post out of context and tried to turn it back on me. Typical christian tactic, your not christian are you? Not that it matters it don't.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Do you see anywhere in that posts where I ask for first hand ACCOUNTS? No. I ask if those sources were first hand accounts?

Now you're just being confusing.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That video was discussed in this thread by someone who misinterpreted what he said.

Carrier is an evangelist for atheism, but not for mythicism, which he just regards as a hypothesis which might be accepted at some point.

I was thinking of another clip.

This one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df9nKRvlmkY

In the interests of accuracy, I just watched it all, even though it's 1:30 am here and I have to get up at 7.

Although the vid was posted at ratskep with the accusation I mentioned, it does not appear to be in the vid, and I was mistaken.

J-D · 09-20-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are a host of people for whom there is no surviving physical evidence. There are people mentioned in ancient documents who might have existed, but for whom we don't have any surviving physical evidence. If you read standard histories, you will find that real historians are content to say that they might have existed, or they might be mythical or legendary. This includes Socrates. There is more reason to think that Socrates existed than to think that Jesus existed, since there are independent literary sources that mention him, but he could just be a literary figure. No one feels the need to insist that he existed.

The historical accounts I have read all treat Socrates as somebody who actually existed, paralleling the way they treat other historical figures. Most of them refer to the limitations of the evidence, and the consequent difficulties in reaching conclusions on many points, but I have never seen one that treats 'Did Socrates really exist or not?' as an open question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are many figures in ancient history who either left writings or other artifacts, or who were described in neutral or official documents written around the time they lived. And if they didn't, we really don't have any reason to claim that they existed.

For all figures in ancient history, the only evidence that they existed is what is written about them. If we move from your example of Socrates to Plato and Aristotle, we find there are many surviving texts the authorship of which is attributed to them, but the attributions of authorship themselves fall into the category of 'things written about them'. Compare, for example, Psalm 3. Its existence is indisputable evidence for an author (or at least one), but how much weight does it carry as evidence specifically for the existence of David, to whom its authorship is attributed? False attributions of authorship happen. Likewise, the existence of a surviving sculpture (to take the example of one kind of artifact) is indisputable evidence for the existence of a sculptor (or at least one), but the attribution of works to specific sculptors must again fall into the category of 'things written about them'.

The existence of written statements which are not literally true is indisputable, and so, more specifically, is the existence of written statements about named individuals who never literally existed. So the existence of written statements about a person is not automatically sufficient evidence to support the view that that person really existed. But on the other hand, if we can't use written statements about a person as evidence, then we have no means of establishing that any specific individual from ancient history existed. That is not how ancient historians proceed, and I don't see why it should be.

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

09-20-2011, 04:55 PM	#143
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That video was discussed in this thread by someone who misinterpreted what he said. Carrier is an evangelist for atheism, but not for mythicism, which he just regards as a hypothesis which might be accepted at some point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.