Carrier would doubtless opine that it can be hard to be humble when one is as great as he is.DCHindley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:19 amHumbleness is not Carrier's strong suit. DCHSecret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:21 amHe should probably do a PSA right now about the dangers of the sucking your own dick. Geez.It should be noted that I am probably the foremost expert on the historicity debate specifically now,
Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
Tsk tsk. I find disappointing the fact that someone can like the very vulgar joke of Secret Alias against Carrier.
Especially when Carrier makes it clear that he is «probably the foremost expert on the historicity debate specifically now», and not an expert about particular other features of the Christian Origins.
What in your mind does it identify the historicity question with other questions about early Christians?
Especially when Carrier makes it clear that he is «probably the foremost expert on the historicity debate specifically now», and not an expert about particular other features of the Christian Origins.
What in your mind does it identify the historicity question with other questions about early Christians?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
I would thank GDon because he makes me realize a new apologetic tactic by historicists, so fashionable today:
1) they would like «to prove» that Wells gives more plausible view than Doherty.
2) once made the step 1, their next step is to prove that, according to Paul, Jesus lived in a recent time and not in a distant time.
3) hence, they exult and conclude: Jesus existed!
A very strange way to elude the Doherty's view and avoid a direct comparison with it.
1) they would like «to prove» that Wells gives more plausible view than Doherty.
2) once made the step 1, their next step is to prove that, according to Paul, Jesus lived in a recent time and not in a distant time.
3) hence, they exult and conclude: Jesus existed!
A very strange way to elude the Doherty's view and avoid a direct comparison with it.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
What is the purpose of saying someone is the foremost expert on something or recognizing them as such? Where do we find such rankings made? We might rank the best quarterbacks in the NFL or the best hitters in MLB just for fun, but what is the purpose of doing this on a research topic? I've seen books by apologists claiming their authors to be the world's foremost expert on Marian studies and another that said the author was the only biblical scholar with a PhD in biblical prophecy. These claims might have been impressive to their intended audiences, but they made me wonder whether Marian studies was a field of study and who the author's dialogue partners might be and what academic institution grants doctorates in biblical prophecy.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:36 am
Especially when Carrier makes it clear that he is «probably the foremost expert on the historicity debate specifically now», and not an expert about particular other features of the Christian Origins.
In my experience, academic books aimed at academic audiences often have blurbs that claim the particular book makes a specific contribution on a particular topic, and, by implication, the book is worth reading if you're interested in that topic. Claims that a particular author is the world's foremost expert are usually aimed an audience that might not be well versed in the subject themselves and assures them that this author is worth paying attention to and carries a certain authority.
Is this Carrier's point? When people in the media want to interview someone, or someone needs to book a speaker or arrange a debate, Carrier is the go-to guy for Jesus mythicism. The paragraph that follows this suggests Robert M. Price did a poor job debating Bart Ehrman, and is, therefore, not the go-to guy.Carrier: As in, if you needed to call someone, anyone on earth, to ask about a specific argument you heard, right now, who would you call? I cannot honestly think of anyone who’d top that list but me; even other qualified mythicists (who would certainly be on that call list) haven’t taken it to the same degree of being thorough as I have.
ETA: I realize now that I should possibly have said the go-to guy for the historicity of Jesus.
-
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
Carrier has nothing - no-thing - to stand on in regards Historicity:
http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/blog/rich ... -at-gadara
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
Do you think that Richard Carrier is as erudite as Ben Smith? Yes I am sure that Carrier is up to date as anyone on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. But his familiarity reminds me of the way an anti-Semite 'informs' himself about the wiles of 'the Jew.' It's not enough to be informed. You also have to be objective about the information you are receiving. You can't be just scouring the information for new lines of attack. Maybe in 20 years I will care about Richard Carrier. But until then he is another partisan whom I will try and take in small - very small - doses. I don't like prejudice in human beings. It's that simple.I find disappointing the fact that someone can like the very vulgar joke of Secret Alias against Carrier.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
From your link, Dr Carrier writes: "Though minimal mythicism predicts nothing as to when the death occurred, except “in the past.” ". That is consistent with how I've seen him frame the debate. And it doesn't support your view that "Carrier conflates correctly an "earthly Jesus considered lived in the recent past" with a 'historical Jesus'", which would be a big concession on Carrier's part, I think.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:50 am It is really confused the way you would like to attribute to Carrier something he never said.
The answer of Carrier quoted above by me is precisely the answer to the my question, where I asked him what he thinks about the Parvus's mythicist view (in that time Parvus was still mythicist) of a Jesus crucified in Judea in the recent past. Note that it is not precisely the Wells's view about a Jesus died in an undefinite place in a remote past. Carrier answers that he admits the possibility of the Wells's Jesus in a note of OHJ (you probably know which is that note).GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:07 am I have never seen Dr Carrier state things that way. Do you have any reference to where he has written that? Did he define what "recent past" meant in context?
Here Carrier refers to Well's Jesus (earthly but in distant past) more directly:
In OHJ it’s made clear I only defend minimal mythicism (Ch. 3), which makes no elaborate claims like that.
Although minimal mythicism is compatible with any timeline, in OHJ I assume that the “revealed death” occurred in the 30’s AD (in accordance with the “eons” logic we find in later documents like Hermas).
...
That still allows a possible ancient death (and hence Paul could be saying “we” in Romans 5 as in “humanity,” not “we” as in his current generation; likewise, he does not explicitly say the visions of Jesus occurred the third day after his death in 1 Cor. 15, only that he rose the third day after; Paul doesn’t actually say how long after that it was before Jesus revealed this). But I don’t see any need to argue for that. And I don’t anywhere in OHJ.
So Romans 5 poses no issue for OHJ.
(my bold) https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-22654
Personally, I don't see that visions count towards determining the 'earthliness' or 'celestialness' of actual proposed beings.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:50 amyou refer specifically to:GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:07 am I'm using the odds that Carrier himself gave, on page 594 of OHJ. You can disagree with the odds if you like, but those are the odds that he himself gives.The Jesus of Revelation is made from sperm and made from a woman… ...only: in heaven. Hence I can't see how you can claim, of grace, that these claims are more probable «only» for a mythical earthly Jesus (beyond if ancient or recent).Made from sperm - best (2/1), worst (1/1)
Made from a woman - best (2/1), worst (1/1)
But lets grant that this is so, that Revelation is an actual example of a celestial being 'made from sperm'. Carrier's odds imply that for every 3 references to a being 'made from sperm', there would be:
1. (at best) two references to an earthly person 'made from sperm' for every reference to a celestial person 'made from sperm'
2. (at worst) one reference to an earthly person 'made from sperm' to every reference to a celestial person 'made from sperm'. 50/50!
Do you agree with those odds that Carrier has given? Because it means that for every 10 examples of 'made from sperm' for an earthly person, there should be 5 examples of 'made from sperm' for a celestial person. Examples of celestial beings 'made from sperm' should be everywhere with those odds!
The idea would be to build a reference class of beings that are said to be 'made from sperm', determine how many were thought to be earthly and how many were thought to be celestial, and see what the odds are from there. I think 2/1 is absurdly low. Personally I think it is more like 100/1 or even 1000/1.
And again, I am talking about 'earthly' here, not 'historical'. Earthly =/= historical.
But what is your guess, Giuseppe? For all the references to 'made from sperm' in ancient literature, how many relate to celestial beings, and how many to earthly beings?
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
In a way, yes. Though I would word things like this:Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:41 am I would thank GDon because he makes me realize a new apologetic tactic by historicists, so fashionable today:
1) they would like «to prove» that Wells gives more plausible view than Doherty.
2) once made the step 1, their next step is to prove that, according to Paul, Jesus lived in a recent time and not in a distant time.
3) hence, they exult and conclude: Jesus existed!
A very strange way to elude the Doherty's view and avoid a direct comparison with it.
1. Using Dr Carrier's odds: if you compare Wells' mythicist theory to Carrier's/Doherty's celestial crucifixion mythicist theory, Wells' mythicist theory that Jesus existed on earth in an indefinite past is stronger (**). Thus the celestial crucifixion theory can be eliminated. Bye-bye, celestial crucifixion theory!
2. The next step is to then compare Wells' theory with minimal historicity, to see which is the stronger theory.
3. If minimal historicity is shown to be the stronger, then exultation begins! And we all have a cheese fondue party.
(**) I've over-simplified this, of course. Each person has a different approach to the Gospels, for example. Wells believes that Q suggests that the Gospels were based on an itinerant Galilean preacher; Doherty believes that there was a Q community, and the Gospels were based on the actions and thoughts of the Q community; Carrier doesn't think that there was a Q source at all and that Mark wrote a 'euhemerised' (sic! very sic!) version of a celestial Jesus. All the Bayesian odds would need to be recalculated before determining which theory is the strongest.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
How does this work? Does it refer to a pre-gospel (+/- prePauline) narrative about [a] Jesus? -- A gnostic narrative?
When?
eta: What do you mean by "pace Wells" ??
What mythicists of the past give [more] credit to the thesis of Marcionite priority?
It's interesting that Carrier does not seem to have commented on his contemporaries' arguments for and views about Marcionite priority.
Re: Richard Carrier about being expert on the problem of historicity
I think that you have fixed perfectly the point of what Carrier is meaning. He is the greatest threat against the historicity of Jesus now in circulation there out. This means that GDon is wrong when he says that Wells's view, and not Carrier's view, is a more serious threat against the historicity. This means that Ben is wrong when he says:Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:57 am What is the purpose of saying someone is the foremost expert on something or recognizing them as such? Where do we find such rankings made?
...
Is this Carrier's point? When people in the media want to interview someone, or someone needs to book a speaker or arrange a debate, Carrier is the go-to guy for Jesus mythicism. The paragraph that follows this suggests Robert M. Price did a poor job debating Bart Ehrman, and is, therefore, not the go-to guy.
(my bold)Wells is, in my humble opinion, the best representative of that school of thought that would regard Jesus entirely as a legend. Fun to read, agree or not.
I have started this thread to specify that Carrier's claim of superiority on Robert M. Price is partially justified, since he ignores the old mythicists that supported the his same view of the Paul's Jesus. But even so, the my point (the only one where I can be possibly of help, here) is that the vast majority of the old mythicists shared the same Carrier's belief about the Paul's Jesus, (beyond if they recognized Paul as genuine or not).
I realize therefore that the Carrier's comment is addressed to the other mythicists, and not only to the his immediate (historicist) interlocutor. He is warning that one should not be (too much rapidly) dismissive about the idea of a celestial crucifixion of the Jesus of Paul.
All here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.