Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth?

[John T]

@ Kapyong,

I could go over your questions one by one but it would be better if you read them from Ehrman in his own words because he deals with so many of them, including Carrier.

I suggest you read Bart D. Ehram, "Did Jesus Exsist?".

As far as the apt comment that Carrier is a "crank exegesis" well, that comes from the Craig vs. Carrier debate. I agree with Craig.

http://youtu.be/BaUd234Q3GU

I have seen enough of Carrier's lectures to know he is not a Biblical scholar and a very weak historian on 1st century Palestine culture. Craig during the debate gave Carrier a brief lecture on how to determine what is the best explanation for given historical facts of that time frame. Most embarrassing.

As far as your links, thanks for providing them. I only gave them a cursory look because I was going to get the book. However, the library doesn't have it, actually the main library doesn't have any of Carrier's books and I'm not about to spend $30 bucks on a book written by a crank exegesis. So, I will need take a closer look at your links.
For that I thank you.

Sincerely,
John T

[perseusomega9]

I do like Ehrman saying that we know Jesus existed, because , look, a story of Jesus raising a child from the dead has got Aramaic words in it.

And Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Case closed, really.

Ireneaus AH Book1, chp 21

3. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of these words, "Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe-into truth, the mother of all things-into Him who descended on Jesus-into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers." Others still repeat certain Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being initiated, as follows: "Basema, Chamosse, Baoenaora, Mistadia, Ruada, Kousta, Babaphor, Kalachthei." The interpretation of these terms runs thus: "I invoke that which is above every power of the Father, which is called light, and good Spirit, and life, because Thou hast reigned in the body." Others, again, set forth the redemption thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives of the light of Christ-of Christ, who lives by the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus: Messia, Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria. The interpretation of these words is as follows: "I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour of truth!" Such are words of the initiators; but he who is initiated, replies, "I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth." Then the bystanders add these words, "Peace be to all on whom this name rests." After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things.

[Solo]

Craig not only called Carrier a "crank exegesis" but proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Craig went on later to say Carrier was his most bizarre opponent to date.

http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2013/12/ ... at-gadara/

PLZ read.

CW

Thanks for the link. I have read some of Carrier's screeds on his blog and Atwill pretty sums up what I saw.

"In closing, I [Atwill] would point out that Carrier’s (PhD) chronic invention of ‘facts’ and insipid analysis shows that his claim to scholastic authority is a sham. Carrier’s analysis is so weak as to beg the question of whether or not he is an anomaly. Are his relentless misstatements of facts, weak literary analysis, outright slander and childish insults indicative of the standards of scholarship taught at Columbia University and other PhD programs?

If so, then academia is not protecting the public from ‘cranks’, rather it’s the public that needs protection from the ‘cranks’ that academic institutions produce.

Joe Atwill

*****************

However, it seems to me both Atwill and Carrier are trying to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, pun intended.

Hi Joe,
an example of "chronic invention of 'facts'" by Carrier would be much appreciated. I do not agree with some of his interpretations but I have not seen him 'inventing' things. Perhaps you could give some example of this ugly habit of the atheist professor.

Best,
Jiri

[John T]

I do like Ehrman saying that we know Jesus existed, because , look, a story of Jesus raising a child from the dead has got Aramaic words in it.

And Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Case closed, really.

Ehrman gives a strong argument (Did Jesus Exist?) that some of the Gospel stories originated in Aramaic but not for the reason mythicists make fun of out of their own ignorance. "There is very little dispute that some of the Gospel stories originated in Aramaic and that therefore they go back to the earliest stages [emphasis mine] of the Christian movement in Palestine. This is clearly shown, as well, by second kind of evidence. Some Gospel passages do not contain Aramaic words, but they make sense only when their Greek words and phrases are translated back into Aramaic....[e.g.] Mark 2:27-28...Ehrman pg. 88.

Sincerley,
John T

[perseusomega9]

So the use of aramaic directly and indirectly in the gospel(s), from a group started in jewish lands, is evidence of a certain historical guy crucified in roughly ad 30 under Pilate?

[Ulan]

It's the same stupid argument as when someone mentions Christians it must mean that Christ was a historical person. As if anyone doubted that Christians exist.

[andrewcriddle]

So the use of aramaic directly and indirectly in the gospel(s), from a group started in jewish lands, is evidence of a certain historical guy crucified in roughly ad 30 under Pilate?

Formally speaking, evidence of the origin of Christianity among Aramaic speaking Jews in Palestine does not establish a historical Jesus.

However, many mythicists do appear to hold a version of Christian origins, in which Christianity (in any form in which we would recognise it) originates outside Palestine among Greek-speaking people.

Hence, evidence of the origin of Christianity among Aramaic speaking Jews in Palestine, is relevant to plausibility of the specific proposals put forth by many mythicists.

Andrew Criddle

[stevencarrwork]

So the use of aramaic directly and indirectly in the gospel(s), from a group started in jewish lands, is evidence of a certain historical guy crucified in roughly ad 30 under Pilate?

And the Hitler diaries are in German, meaning that they must be genuine. Because Hitler spoke German.

Ehrman points out that the story of Jesus raising a child from the dead must go back to the historical Jesus because it has some Aramaic words in it.

I guess Daniel must also go back to an historical Daniel because it has some Aramaic words in it.

Can anybody remember the sentence in Paul where Ehrman says in one part of 'Did Jesus Exist?' that the first half of it is early and in another part of the book that the second half of it is late?

[toejam]

^Though the Hitler diaries are fake, they still contain historical truths about the person they're based on... Indeed, I'm sure one could learn a lot about the historical Hitler just from reading them. Where does Ehrman ever say the gospels are "genuine"? He reasonably concludes like most critical scholars that they are not written by the persons attributed to them.

[spin]

^Though the Hitler diaries are fake, they still contain historical truths about the person they're based on... Indeed, I'm sure one could learn a lot about the historical Hitler just from reading them.

It's good to start with the certain knowledge that the central character exists. You don't have that luxury with the christian literature.

You're merely repurposing stevecarrwork's criticism of claims made regarding language indications in a literary narrative to eke out a tangential claim.

Where does Ehrman ever say the gospels are "genuine"?

That's the fruit of your tangent.

He reasonably concludes like most critical scholars that they are not written by the persons attributed to them.

He nevertheless goes far beyond that fact to connect certain content in the narrative to reality, such as the fact that Aramaic was used, as one might expect blah, blah, blah.

I do love the way that non-historians doing text analysis can spirit out reality from unplumbed literary narrative, as Ehrman does. It's akin to transubstantiation.