Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote: Carrier hedging his bets?


...

He is to smart NOT to go down with the ship, is what I honestly see.


Looking elsewhere would be his best bet at this point, he is realizing the replacement hypothesis are not up to task.


I wondered if he actually believed his own text.

GakuseiDon wrote: This is not a very truthful statement.

There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.”

I think you are splitting hairs here.


I think of Price and Carrier for the most part knowing they are the only ones who have tried to offer up a replacement hypothesis for the evidence we do possess.


I don't count the others and have little respect for those who attack the current hypothesis of historicity, without even offering an explanation of their own for the evidence.

outhouse wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: This is not a very truthful statement.

There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.[/quot
I think you are splitting hairs here.

I agree. "A couple" can also mean "a few", and seven are definitely few, given the number of NT scholars.

Ulan wrote:

outhouse wrote:

GakuseiDon wrote: This is not a very truthful statement.

There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.[/quot
I think you are splitting hairs here.

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.

GakuseiDon wrote: But Ehrman wrote that there are "a couple of scholars who've argued [Jesus] didn't exist", not "who doubt the historicity of Jesus". Carrier has to be one of the sloppiest readers I've come across.

He is sharp.

It is safe to assume it is on purpose, and out of desperation. His hypothesis has gained no traction, and to me it is not a reasonable hypothesis.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Ulan wrote: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.

Clive wrote:Why doesn't a christ conjured up during rituals fall in the historicity bucket?

From the fact that "Jesus Stories" were written from a Source, it does not follow that the Source was about "Jesus".

Dio, Epitome 64:

"But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since."..."

Will you drink to that?

CW

outhouse wrote:I don't count the others and have little respect for those who attack the current hypothesis of historicity, without even offering an explanation of their own for the evidence.

To get back to this, I think Carrier just went much too far. You probably know that I don't think asking for a replacement hypothesis is a prudent request. I don't really think a "mythicist" theory needs such an elaborate theoretical background. If you just take the possibility that Paul and others before him found Christ in the OT (Stephan doesn't like the "Isaiah" source, but it's actually fully compatible with his "man ish" idea), and upon the fall of Jerusalem, you get a story of a replacement victim, punished for all of Israel's sins, peppered with lots of episodes from many different wannabe messiahs who followed the Messiah 101 guidelines (really, they must have had some kind of handbook in those times). In the end, such a hodgepodge may even explain why it's so hard to pinpoint anything specific in this whole mess, because it's basically a stand-in for many different details of the whole messy history. Lots of cooks, and a whole lot of "Jesuses". The story of a failure, re-interpreted as a victory.

And, funny enough, this even dissolves the "mythicists vs. historicist" borders. Is it still "historicist" if your Jesus is "legion", too?

Ulan wrote:

outhouse wrote:I don't count the others and have little respect for those who attack the current hypothesis of historicity, without even offering an explanation of their own for the evidence.

To get back to this, I think Carrier just went much too far. You probably know that I don't think asking for a replacement hypothesis is a prudent request. I don't really think a "mythicist" theory needs such an elaborate theoretical background.

I would agree with that. An 'elaborate theoretical background' is just not necessary. One can make the decision for ahistoricity in other ways than the one Carrier is so stuck on. Thomas Brodie made that decision without any regard to Carrier and his Bayes' theorem fixation. That the methods or reasoning that Brodie used are rejected as invalid by Carrier - all one can do is shake ones head in disbelief....

Carrier: 'Brodie has come to that conclusion invalidly, from a rather weak series of arguments.'

maryhelena wrote: .. An 'elaborate theoretical background' is just not necessary.

True.

maryhelena wrote:
One can make the decision for ahistoricity in other ways than the one Carrier is 'so stuck on'.

"so stuck on"? or is it just that Carrier has chosen a theme and is sticking to it? for now?

ie. he doesn't want too many battles on too many 'academic' fronts (setting Carrier's abrasive manner aside ....)

maryhelena wrote: Thomas Brodie made that decision without any regard to Carrier and his Bayes' theorem fixation. That the methods or reasoning that Brodie used are rejected as invalid by Carrier - all one can do is shake ones head in disbelief....

Carrier: 'Brodie has come to that conclusion invalidly, from a rather weak series of arguments.'

Brodie's 2012 Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery was, as the title shows, a personal memoir, albeit an important one from someone with a as long a teaching and publishing record as Brodie has ( Brodie has written a number of books about the Bible, with emphases on the Gospel of John, Genesis and the narratives of Elijah and Elisha eg. The Birthing of the New Testament)

Carrier is wrong to 'diss' Brodie as he disses others, but he may have a point about argumentation.