Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Athée]

............and it is not an opinion.

I was not referring to your belief that Christianity is true. You specifically said that it was Carrier's book that justifies not taking him seriously. This means as far as I can see that there is a relevant criticism of his book that will lead to not taking him seriously. That is, there is an argument carrier makes, a citation he misuses, a fallacy, a flaw or something similar that should lead us to soundly conclude that Carrier is not to be taken seriously. Could you provide this element for our consideration. You may be correct but it is hard to evaluate it without having the actual claim to evaluate.
Thanks again

 

[Athée]

Another recommendation in you studies is Harvard Law professor Simon Greenleaf. Older book but he approaches the Gospel accounts from a lawyers perspective. The book is free and online :

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Did Carrier mention Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay who took the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostle, went on expedition to prove Luke was a fraud but through excavation confirmed many previously disputed historical claims?

Let me know if William Ramsay is in Carriers book.

Ramsay has his works on line and are free too:

https://archive.org/details/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft

Honestly it is a huge book and I don't remember... I will see what I can find. That said did this archeologist discover evidence of the historical Jesus or did he find archaeological evidence that verified elements of the setting in which the Jesus story is set?

 

[redleghunter]

Unlike Jesus, we have over half a dozen relatively objective historians discussing the history of Alexander the Great (most notably Diodorus, Dionysius, Rufus, Trogus, Plutarch and more)...
Lest one complain that these historians wrote 'too late', this is actually of minor significance because, unlike Jesus, they still had contemporary and eyewitness sources to work from.

Let's start there. How many of the original manuscripts of the sources above exist today? Zero. What is the earliest manuscript evidence for all those sources of antiquity? One source Pliny rewriting accounts 400 hundred years later.

So we have eyewitnesses, then camp followers and generals of Alexander collecting the accounts. Then those pieces of paper decayed, some kept in the library of Alexandria, then 400 years later Pliny writes a history book on a group of history books.

Now what is the earliest manuscript evidence of the works of Pliny? 850AD. 750 years later from Pliny, add 350 years from source to Pliny. That's a lot of time.

Now how many manuscript copies exist ? 7 total.

Now compare with the NT and other works of antiquity :


http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-top...and-the-quran/the-bibles-manuscript-evidence/


https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

 

[redleghunter]

That alone is quite a great deal more than we have for esus, for whom we have not a single named eyewitness source in any of the accounts of him, much less a discussion of how those sources were used or what their relative merits were.

That is if one impeaches the Gospel and epistles eyewitnesses.

Which is obviously what Carrier is doing. Which is very convenient for his theory and why no other credible historian or NT scholar takes his conclusions seriously.

 

[redleghunter]

And even that is not all. For Alexander we have contemporary inscrip tions and coins, sculpture (originals or copies of originals done from life), as well as other archaeological verifications of historical claims about him. For example, we can verify the claim that Alexander attached Tyre to the mainland with rubble from Ushu-because that rubble is still there and dates to his time; the city of Alexandria named for him dates from his time...

Other than coins the same and more exists for Jesus Christ. I'm sure you are familiar with early Christian art, literature, theological works. And Jesus left us with one thing Alexander never could. A 2000 year old church of followers of Christ endures and grows.

I already gave you the links to Ramsay so Carrier is refuted on the issue of archeology.

 

[redleghunter]

We have not even one such for Jesus (e.g. even Paul never once quotes anyone he identifies as an eyewitness or contemporary source for any of his information on Jesus).

That's inaccurate see 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[redleghunter]

For example, we can verify the claim that Alexander attached Tyre to the mainland with rubble from Ushu-because that rubble is still there and dates to his time; the city of Alexandria named for him dates from his time...

Yes this was recorded in the TaNaKh before Alexander was born. Alexander fulfilled that prophecy.

 

[Tree of Life]

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

Very charitable to call the Christ Myth view a "main camp". More like a fringe movement. Bravo on your ability to identify your own bias! But, even though your an atheist, why is the Christ myth view most emotionally attractive?

 

[Athée]

That is if one impeaches the Gospel and epistles eyewitnesses.

Which is obviously what Carrier is doing. Which is very convenient for his theory and why no other credible historian or NT scholar takes his conclusions seriously.

Is it impeaching the gospels to say that we don't know who wrote them? That whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses? That the authors don't tell us where they are getting thier stories and how they use these sources. It would seem to me those are all just statements of fact.
As for the epistles they don't talk about a historical Jesus at all that I am aware of. Maybe I am overlooking something though.

 

[Athée]

Very charitable to call the Christ Myth view a "main camp". More like a fringe movement. Bravo on your ability to identify your own bias! But, even though your an atheist, why is the Christ myth view most emotionally attractive?

Lol, very charitable indeed! I had that same though as I was writing it but I post from my phone and didn't want to go back and change it :/
Why emotionally satisfying... I do T know that it is more or less emotionally satisfying than a euhemerized Jesus but as I said earlier it would validate my non-belief which makes confirmation bias something to be wary of as I read Carrier.

 

[redleghunter]

This is absolutely true but the number of manuscripts does not in any way tell us about the veracity or the quote of the original from which they were derived.

Why must the NT only be held to this standard. See the point?

25,000 vs 7

7 tells me there are not enough copies to conduct proper textual criticism. So I throw out Pliny as a fraud made up by some monk in a 9 th century monastery with too much time on his hands.

 

[Athée]

That's inaccurate see 1 Corinthians 15.

1 cor 15 specifically does not say that he got the creed from anyone. We can assume that he did or that he got it the by relation, that passage doesn't tell us either way. However, the rest of the epistles only ever give relation and scripture as sources for Paul's knowledge so I don't see why, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that we would reason 1 cor 15 as being different from all his other experience.

 

[Athée]

Yes this was recorded in the TaNaKh before Alexander was born. Alexander fulfilled that prophecy.

You might be referring to the prophecy that tyre would be destroyed... But of course it never was

 

[Tree of Life]

Anyway, in partial response to the Christ myth view, just examine some of the work of form and redaction criticism as they relate to the criterion of dissimilarity. While I do not agree with the criterion of dissimilarity, it certainly shows that Jesus seemed to say and do a lot of things that have no parallel either in Judaism or in the early church (and certainly not in paganism).

If sayings are ascribed to Jesus that have no parallel in the OT, the early church, or paganism then where in the world did they come from? Couldn't have been Jesus himself, could it?

 

[Athée]

Other than coins the same and more exists for Jesus Christ. I'm sure you are familiar with early Christian art, literature, theological works. And Jesus left us with one thing Alexander never could. A 2000 year old church of followers of Christ endures and grows.

I already gave you the links to Ramsay so Carrier is refuted on the issue of archeology.

I just don't see how this is the case. First I have nowhere advanced a position from carrier dependant on archaeology. I was responding to the claim that there is more or as much evidence forJesus as for Alexander or ceasar.
So we have physical items bearing the name and likeness of Alexander that date to his time which as you said we do not have for Jesus. You mentioned art but I am unaware of Christian art dating from the time of Jesus that has his name and likeness. If we did it might settle this debate!

 

[redleghunter]

Honestly it is a huge book and I don't remember... I will see what I can find. That said did this archeologist discover evidence of the historical Jesus or did he find archaeological evidence that verified elements of the setting in which the Jesus story is set?

Yes he verified the historical markers, geography political leaders of the Gospel accounts, Acts of the Apostles and epistles of Paul.

Have you read the NT? If so how do you claim eyewitnesses are not quoted in the Gospel accounts, Acts and Epistles?

 

[redleghunter]

Is it impeaching the gospels to say that we don't know who wrote them? That whoever wrote them were not eyewitnesses? That the authors don't tell us where they are getting thier stories and how they use these sources. It would seem to me those are all just statements of fact.
As for the epistles they don't talk about a historical Jesus at all that I am aware of. Maybe I am overlooking something though.

The early church fathers separated by decades not centuries knew the authorship of the Gospel accounts and epistles. The only one in dispute being Hebrews.

Here is the testimony of the earliest church historians and theologians :

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-church-fathers-and-their-testimony.htm

 

[Athée]

Yes he verified the historical markers, geography political leaders of the Gospel accounts, Acts of the Apostles and epistles of Paul.

This is what I am saying. The evidence of place names, political leaders etc does not by itself constitute evidence for historicity. We could imagine a future culture excavating the ruins of new York and finding names, dates and other elements that are mentioned in the spiderman comics. This does not say anything about spiderman being a historical figure.
This kind of evidence could go either way. It could be the case that Jesus was real and so as they wrote about him they got those details right because he actually did go to those places and have those interactions. Or it could be the case that people who knew those places, names and features were the ones mythologizing the character Jesus and included those elements to lend a veracity to thier fiction.

Have you read the NT? If so how do you claim eyewitnesses are not quoted in the Gospel accounts, Acts and Epistles?

I have I agree that the epistles have eyewitness accounts but they also don't have a historical Jesus. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and we never know who the sources of the stories are.

 

[redleghunter]

As for the epistles they don't talk about a historical Jesus at all that I am aware of. Maybe I am overlooking something though.

They do extensively. The heart of Acts and the epistles is Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again. Refer to 1 Corinthians 15 once more.

 

[redleghunter]

1 cor 15 specifically does not say that he got the creed from anyone. We can assume that he did or that he got it the by relation, that passage doesn't tell us either way. However, the rest of the epistles only ever give relation and scripture as sources for Paul's knowledge so I don't see why, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that we would reason 1 cor 15 as being different from all his other experience.

Refer to the book of Acts. There is much interaction between the apostles.


Luke quotes from Peter, Paul, James, Phillip and many more disciples.

Have you read Acts and the testimony of the apostles?