Carrier: Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree. "A couple" can also mean "a few"....

It is so confusing when people use "a couple" to mean more than 2. I fail to understand the urge to do so. We have "several" and "a few" and "some" and "a number of" already current.

It's funny that, at school, I only learned the meaning of "a few" for "a couple". It was only when I lived in the US that I noticed that many people seem to use it only for 2.

The best English dictionaries list "a few" only as an informal definition. To me, "a couple" sounds as indicative of the number 2 as "a pair" or "a brace".

[Secret Alias]

Apparently (and with no relevance to the current discussion) my son tells me that in football (soccer) two goals are a brace, three a hat trick and four a turkey. In America a turkey is something bad, in the UK something extraordinary.

[Secret Alias]

Actually I see no evidence of the fact that 4 goals = turkey on line and find instead:

2 = brace, 3 = hat-trick, 4 = haul, 5 = glut, 6 = double hat-trick, 7= haul-trick. 8 = snowman, 9 = triple hat-trick

Don't know why I put my trust in a 9 year old.

[Ulan]

The best English dictionaries list "a few" only as an informal definition. To me, "a couple" sounds as indicative of the number 2 as "a pair" or "a brace".

I can always blame my teachers . Anyway, McMillan lists "a small number of things or people" as "mostly American". Well, who knows. As a student, I did not complain, as German does the same thing, although you don't capitalize the word if you mean "a few" instead of 2.

[outhouse]

You probably know that I don't think asking for a replacement hypothesis is a prudent request.

Yet to determine historicity, the evidence needs to be explained.


Something took place to get the wide variety of evidence we possess. Even if literary, or theologically or mythically or fiction or pseudo history, OR all of the above including pseudepigrapha, allegory, and oral history.

We are all here trying to make something out of this text, a replacement hypothesis is required if you want to address the current historicity of the martyred Galilean.

the possibility that Paul and others before him found Christ in the OT

Which is a possibility if we look at it as a partial hypothesis. Need to be expanded on but it could be a start if you build a good enough case.

[GakuseiDon]

Must admit I'm a little taken aback by Carrier referencing Thomas Brodie after giving Brodie's book a thumbs down.....

Here is Carrier on Brodie's book: Beyond the search for the historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery

That's one of the things that I have liked about Carrier: his willingness to argue against bad ideas on the mythicist side. Too often, mythicism is discussed as though it was one cohesive idea, usually along the lines of Carrier's/Price's. But as I've pointed out many times, the most popular version of mythicism on the Internet is probably along the lines of Acharya S's.

Actually, Carrier introduces a term in his blog post that I think it would be good for us to use on this board where applicable: the "peer reviewed mythicist thesis". It narrows the focus and adds gravitas.

[maryhelena]

Must admit I'm a little taken aback by Carrier referencing Thomas Brodie after giving Brodie's book a thumbs down.....

Here is Carrier on Brodie's book: Beyond the search for the historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery

That's one of the things that I have liked about Carrier: his willingness to argue against bad ideas on the mythicist side. Too often, mythicism is discussed as though it was one cohesive idea, usually along the lines of Carrier's/Price's. But as I've pointed out many times, the most popular version of mythicism on the Internet is probably along the lines of Acharya S's.

Surely your not putting Brodie in the 'bad ideas' category?

Actually, Carrier introduces a term in his blog post that I think it would be good for us to use on this board where applicable: the "peer reviewed mythicist thesis". It narrows the focus and adds gravitas.

'peer reviewed...adds gravitas? Methinks that would work well for historicists scholars...Carrier's mythicist book up against probably hundreds of books by historicists. I really don't see the benefit. How many NT scholars are reviewing Carrier's book in scholarly journals - a book that passed peer review?

[Ulan]

You probably know that I don't think asking for a replacement hypothesis is a prudent request.

Yet to determine historicity, the evidence needs to be explained.

Something took place to get the wide variety of evidence we possess. Even if literary, or theologically or mythically or fiction or pseudo history, OR all of the above including pseudepigrapha, allegory, and oral history.

We are all here trying to make something out of this text, a replacement hypothesis is required if you want to address the current historicity of the martyred Galilean.

Keep in mind that "Galilean" can also just mean "insurrectionist" without relation to the place.

the possibility that Paul and others before him found Christ in the OT

Which is a possibility if we look at it as a partial hypothesis. Need to be expanded on but it could be a start if you build a good enough case.

My point in this particular thread was that I see most "mythicist" hypotheses to explain the evidence fail because they want to pinpoint the explanation on one specific point. In principle, the "historicist" explanation has a similar problem, which is why it never gets past the "martyred Galilean", with the rest of the figure staying out of grasp. This is basically the reason why I pay attention to the "ish" idea, the ideal man, the heavenly Adam. I mention Isaiah, because gMark mentions Isaiah right at the beginning, and here we see the suffering figure, the netser, what Jewish thought thinks is a placeholder for Israel, one person as a stand-in for the whole nation. In Christian thinking this figure is Jesus Christ, and here you have the exact development from the idealized figure to the specific figure, the creation of a person out of an ideal image.

You have this vacillating between the ideal and the specific in many of the texts. Paul has Christ living in himself. He, at this point in time, is the personification of the ideal. And I think gMark is simply the next step: why do so many pericopes resemble figures from Josephus? Of course, you may assume simple literary dependency. But what's if there is more to it, if this dependency is deliberate? If gMark just sees the figure of the messiah in many of those so-called "false messiahs", like "the Egyptian" who prayed on the Mount of Olives? What if all those figures basically presented the heavenly idea of the messiah, and their actions failed because the people didn't listen or believe? The crucifixion could be the same, the single prototype of all those who were crucified in the grand showdown in Jerusalem (and before), which left the temple dead.

Carrier basically stumbled over this stupid idea of the "Jesus" angel. "Jesus" was the name of the mythical founder of independent Israel. Isn't that enough?

[MrMacSon]

"Jesus" was the name of the mythical founder of independent Israel. Isn't that enough?

Yeshua ben Jehozadak/Josedak?

[Ulan]

"Jesus" was the name of the mythical founder of independent Israel. Isn't that enough?

Yeshua ben Jehozadak/Josedak?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ ... s-nets.pdf

The "Egyptian" even tried to replicate the trick from Jericho, this time from the Mount of Olives.