You would know that if you allowed yourself to absorb the subtitle of his book: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. You are misstating the purpose of the author.
The subtitle is dishonestly misleading. Carrier's book is about demonstrating Jesus' non-historicity, not about the possibility there may be reasons for doubt: http://historical-jesus.info/92.html
For more of my comments on Carrier's "On The Historicity Of Jesus", use this tag {Carrier's OHJ}, go to http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html and past it in the Find box of your browser.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
You would know that if you allowed yourself to absorb the subtitle of his book: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. You are misstating the purpose of the author.
The subtitle is dishonestly misleading. Carrier's book is about demonstrating Jesus' non-historicity, not about the possibility there may be reasons for doubt ...
Not necessarily.
If Carrier's arguments are good; well-argued reasons to doubt can infer probability about non-historicity;
or even deduce such probability (and hence improbability)
Carrier has backed the theologians into a corner by stating that the crucifixion occurred in a sub-lunar realm, not earth. The theologians could easily refute this by going to 1 Thessalonians 2:16, but of course they are very reluctant to do that now because you sound like a Nazi. And both parties desperately want that passage to be an interpolation, for different reasons.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Bernard Muller wrote:Did you read the book?
One thing is certain: the subtitle does not describe the content of the book and Carrier's personal conclusion:
"The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero."
(page 600)
Cordially, Bernard
I lost some respect for Carrier with his wimpy sub-title. Seems like a cop-out, unlike him, perhaps foisted on him by the publishers.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Richard,
I am very surprised about the sub-title: “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt”
Does that reflect the content of your book?
That looks to me to be a change from your ultra-positive position in favor of a mythical Jesus.
Cordially, Bernard
His reply was:
Reply
Richard Carrier says
June 6, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Tsk, tsk, Bernard. Will your delusions never end?
I have never advocated an “ultra”-positive position in favor of mythicism. I have always stated it with caveats and as a preponderance of probabilities, and never as a certainty, nor as something that has been established in the field, but as something that has yet to be. Indeed I have been very meticulous about this. I assume, then, that you have negative hallucinations whenever reading my writings on the subject, and just literally don’t see all the words.
But Carrier did claim in his book to have established the non-historicity of Jesus.
"The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000"
He's calling the "less than 1" a caveat?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Interesting analysis, Bernard. Question: it seems the primary reason people find this suspect is because of the possible reference to 70 CE (although your language analysis is one I need to give some more thought). Why should we take it that Paul died when tradition says he did? Is it not possible he lived to witness the events of 70 CE? One thinks of his quote as one "untimely born" (and I have read your analysis of 1 Corinthians 15, but am not completely convinced that it is an interpolation, though you certainly raise some points worth considering).
