Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/10134
Ehrman went on to say this (before turning to why he thinks his apocalyptic prophet hypothesis is the most likely theory of Jesus, which I agree is most likely true if the core Doherty thesis is false, so I see no need to critique him on that):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/10134
Ehrman went on to say this (before turning to why he thinks his apocalyptic prophet hypothesis is the most likely theory of Jesus, which I agree is most likely true if the core Doherty thesis is false, so I see no need to critique him on that):
Yet Carrier says in OHJ:
page 53/54 of On the Historicity of Jesus - Why we might have reasons to doubt
Unlike the minimal theory of historicity, however, what I have just said
is not strictly entailed. If 'Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity' is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some
scholars have indeed argued-the best examples being R.G. Price and
Gary Courtney).16 But as will become dear in following chapters (especially Chapter 11), such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and thus is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence), and a very low consequent probability (though it
suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard
to explain as well). Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it's very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume its prior probability is too small even to show up in our math. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must
assign it a higher prior or consequent, but that I leave to anyone who thinks
it's possible. In the meantime, what we have left is Premise 1, such that if
that is less probable than minimal historicity, then I would be convinced
historicity should be affirmed (particularly as the 'political fiction' theory
already fits historicity and thus is not really a challenge to it-indeed that's
often the very kind of fiction that gets written about historical persons)
Unlike the minimal theory of historicity, however, what I have just said
is not strictly entailed. If 'Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity' is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some
scholars have indeed argued-the best examples being R.G. Price and
Gary Courtney).16 But as will become dear in following chapters (especially Chapter 11), such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and thus is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence), and a very low consequent probability (though it
suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard
to explain as well). Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it's very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume its prior probability is too small even to show up in our math. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must
assign it a higher prior or consequent, but that I leave to anyone who thinks
it's possible. In the meantime, what we have left is Premise 1, such that if
that is less probable than minimal historicity, then I would be convinced
historicity should be affirmed (particularly as the 'political fiction' theory
already fits historicity and thus is not really a challenge to it-indeed that's
often the very kind of fiction that gets written about historical persons)
(my bolding)
Carrier hedging his bets? Apocalyptic prophet or political fiction.....
Doherty has no Pauline celestial christ figure euhemerized into the gospel Jesus...That's Carrier's theory. Doherty finds a preacher figure in Q - albeit an imagined figure. Wells finds a flesh and blood preacher figure in Q. Carrier has ditched Q - so has lost the earthly element that both Doherty and Wells maintained existed independent from the Pauline celestial christ story.
Earl Doherty on FRDB.
(2) You have little or no knowledge of my case if you think that I am saying that the Gospels, or Mark, are entirely based on historicizing the Pauline Christ. In fact, the Gospels would not ever have been written on such a basis, for in large part they are dependent not on Paul or any celestial Christ but on an historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement of the first century centered in Galilee and represented in the Q document.
I'm beginning to think that Carrier should clearly state his differences with Doherty...
My own objections to Doherty have never been about his celestial christ 'crucifixion' theory. My objection has been the refusal of Doherty to seriously consider Jewish history in relationship to the gospel story. The Jerusalem above - Pauline theology/philosophy - requires a Jerusalem below. Not some imaginary figure of the ''kingdom of God preaching movement'' but flesh and blood historical figures whose lives motivated the gospel writers to write their story.
Ditching Q might well have benefits for gospel research. However, the gospel story is what it is - with or without Q. Consequently, either using Q in support of a theory (Wells and Doherty) or ditching Q to support a theory (Carrier) has no impact upon the gospel story itself. The gospel story remains what it is - a story.
--------------------
Carrier: 'It now seems clear. Historicity can only be defended with lies'.
Oh dear.......
It makes a nice drinking game: take a shot whenever Carrier accuses someone of lying (take a double-shot if he accuses someone of being insane). In that blog post, he accuses Ehrman of lying or being truth-challenged seven times, so: 
