Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Tree of Life]

Do you agree that there is considerable debate about the authenticity of 1 John?

No. There may be debate over whether or not John the apostle wrote 1 John but it is unanimously agreed that 1 John was written by whoever wrote John's Gospel. That much is obvious.

 

[Athée]

Luke 1:2
John 19:35
John 20:30-31
John 21:24-25

Now they could be lying, but don't say they don't claim to be eyewitnesses themselves or getting their info from eyewitnesses.

It is possible that I misspoke. What I was trying to say is that at no point did the authors of the gospels claim to be eyewitnesses. A separate claim is that they also do not tell us where they are getting thier stories. They do claim to get them from eyewitnesses but they never tell us who these people are or why they should be considered credible sources.
Hopefully that make sense.
In the list of verses cited here, this remains true as far as I can tell.

 

[redleghunter]

You keep blending together your comments about church fathers, the gospels and the epistles and I think this is confusing the case you are trying to make.

Not confusing the matter. If you study the NT and study the unbroken apostolic tradition you would see my point.

At one point we have the Gospel message, at the other later point the Gospel is confirmed in spoken word, written word and deed. There is no other system of dual independent checks and balances in antiquity which comes close to the early church.

The concept of discipleship is ancient to many cultures but mostly employed by the Hebrews. That was the model of the early church and continues today.

 

[redleghunter]

I do think the spread of Christianity, a small Jewish version of the mythic cult fad, into a dominant world religion lasting 2000 years, is amazing. That doesn't mean it is true.

Fads don't last 2000 years.

Ask Britney Spears.

 

[Athée]

No. There may be debate over whether or not John the apostle wrote 1 John but it is unanimously agreed that 1 John was written by whoever wrote John's Gospel. That much is obvious.

I oops I am embarrassed... I just assumed that you were talking about the first passage still. There is no disagreement on 1 John as far as I know. My mistake

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

He does address Alexander in his book and a search of line for Richard carrier evidence Caesar led me to some of his thoughts on that subject.
On Alexander pages 20-23 OHJ

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. In fact, our best historian of Alexan der is Arrian, who though he wrote five hundred years later, nevertheless employed an explicit method of using only three eyewitness sources (two of them actual generals of Alexander who wrote accounts of their adven tures with him). He names and identifies these sources, explains how he used them to generate a more reliable account, and discusses their relative merits. 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. Not even for the anonymous witness claimed to have been used by the authors of the Gospel of John, which claim isn't even cred ible to begin with (that source is almost certainly fabricated, as I'll show in Chapter 10, §7), but in any case we're not told who he was, why we should trust him or what all exactly derives from him. And that's not aiL We have mentions of Alexander the Great and details about him in several contemporary or eyewitness sources still extant, including the speeches of !socrates and Demosthenes and Aeschines and Hyperides and Dinarchus, the poetry of Theocritus, the scientific works of Theophrastus and the plays of Menander. We have not a single contempo rary mention of Jesus-apart from, at best, the letters of Paul, who never even knew him, and says next to nothing about him (as a historical man), or the dubious letters of certain alleged disciples (and I say alleged because apart from known forgeries, none ever say they were his disciples), and (again apart from those forgeries) none ever distinctly place Jesus in history (see Chapters 7 and 11). The eyewitness and contemporary attestation for Alexander is thus vastly better than we have for Jesus, not the other way around. And that's even if we count only extant texts-if we count extant quotations of lost texts in other extant texts, we have literally hundreds of quotations of contemporaries and eyewitnesses that survive in later works attesting to Alexander and his history. 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).

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...
There is more but I don't have Carrier's permission to cite long sections of his book so I had better stop.


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.

His method on Alexander is flawed. If we follow his reasoning, we should exclude biased sources correct? So all the generals of Alexander are excluded. Also, those works are mostly not extant today, so there is no way to apply textual criticism to them, so we do not know whether his generals actually wrote them or someone else wrote in their name.

As to the playwrites and orators you mention, they aren't reliable hostorical sources at all. Oratory as a Greek science was about convincing your audience, so they would say whatever was necessary, which is why we don't trust speeches on aspects of the Peloponessian war for instance. Playwrites wrote for entertainment so will be liberal with the truth, or do you think The Patriot of Mel Gibson is history?
They are anyway not contemparoneous sources at all for much of what Alexander did, about comparable to the gospel accounts. In anyway they have fantastical accounts of interventions by the gods, so by that reasoning we should accept Zeus as real.

As to the premise, it is a false analogy. A king versus a prophet active in a limited locale is not the same. The evidence of Jesus must be weighed against for instance the evidence for Parmendides or Socrates. You will see Jesus' evidence is much stronger than these two (both 2 sources respectively, Xenophon and Plato and maybe Aristophanes) yet their existence is never doubted.
Much history is based on a single source and probability such as battles in the Peloponessian War based solely on Thucydides, certain Pharoahs, Muwatalli III's coup etc. Based on the usual bar we place in historical criticism, Jesus would at least be considered to have existed.

 

[redleghunter]

Right so Luke is not claiming to be an eyewitness and he is not telling us who his source is for this account he is writing.

Read the passage again. He clearly tells his audience he investigated the eyewitness accounts.

Like the center of military history interviewed me after every combat tour.

Here's one eyewitness quoted by Luke :


Luke 1:

And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. "And His mercy is upon generation after generation T oward those who fear Him . "He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble. "H e has filled the hungry with good things ; And sent away the rich empty-handed. "He has given help to Israel His servant, In remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever." And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

Luke 1:46-56 NASB
http://bible.com/100/luk.1.46-56.NASB

 

[redleghunter]

Right so Luke is not claiming to be an eyewitness and he is not telling us who his source is for this account he is writing.

Pliny was not an eyewitness to Alexander. Why is there a double standard?

 

[Athée]

Yes the shroud is controversial. Not because many claim it was Christ's but that no pious fraud in Medieval times could produce the scientific evidence left by the shroud. I once too just dismissed the shroud as a pious fraud. When presented with the irrefutable evidence the shroud has the image photo copied on the material. In such a manner no scientist has been able to reproduce the effect.

Right so beat case scenario there is an image of a person on this shroud. We have no way of determining that this image is Jesus that I am aware of. Am I mistaken?

Now if I wanted to create a myth, I would write about a handsome king who conquers the known world. Hey that sounds like Alexander.

Lol, I liked this In essence you are suggesting the criterion of embarrassment or of dissimilarity as supporting historicism but I am not sure that it does.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Pliny was not an eyewitness to Alexander. Why is there a double standard?

Indeed.
If we only take eyewitnesses, then most of the American Civil War never happened. This is not how history works, Mr Carrier should know better.
Most of our histories of that war are based on accounts written about 1900. These reconstructed events from documents and personal accounts now lost to us, much like the gospels are reported to have done.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Right so beat case scenario there is an image of a person on this shroud. We have no way of determining that this image is Jesus that I am aware of. Am I mistaken?


Lol, I liked this In essence you are suggesting the criterion of embarrassment or of dissimilarity as supporting historicism but I am not sure that it does.

Why not? Judas as betrayer fits nicely in history, but not Mythos, especially not in a Semitic context which we should expect for a Jesus Myth to be valid.

 

[redleghunter]

It is possible that I misspoke. What I was trying to say is that at no point did the authors of the gospels claim to be eyewitnesses. A separate claim is that they also do not tell us where they are getting thier stories. They do claim to get them from eyewitnesses but they never tell us who these people are or why they should be considered credible sources.
Hopefully that make sense.
In the list of verses cited here, this remains true as far as I can tell.

It was already pointed out the above is inaccurate.

Perhaps you were presented evidence you never knew about or considered before. As I read the threads of others and yours above it looks as if you boxed yourself into a corner.

Here's why. The John Gospel account in three or more areas clearly speaks first person and assuring the reader the events are true.

In Luke he sets out to investigate in the first chapter. In the very same chapter he quotes Mary by stating "Mary said." Then goes on to quote a very personal prayer of the blessed mother of Christ.

So you can claim Luke is lying his tail off and misleading but if so show the evidence for such.

Yet perhaps we need to see an example from you on what was the Strunk and White standard of quoting a source in antiquity.

Show me an example from Pliny since you mentioned him early on.

 

[Athée]

Read the passage again. He clearly tells his audience he investigated the eyewitness accounts.

Like the center of military history interviewed me after every combat tour.

Here's one eyewitness quoted by Luke :


Luke 1:

And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. "And His mercy is upon generation after generation T oward those who fear Him . "He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble. "H e has filled the hungry with good things ; And sent away the rich empty-handed. "He has given help to Israel His servant, In remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever." And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

Luke 1:46-56 NASB
http://bible.com/100/luk.1.46-56.NASB

This is a great example of a possible eyewitness inclusion in Luke. Thanks
I had forgotten about this and may have to revise my position. Unfortunately this passage doesn't give us anything about a historical Jesus.

 

[Athée]

Why not? Judas as betrayer fits nicely in history, but not Mythos, especially not in a Semitic context which we should expect for a Jesus Myth to be valid.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the shroud, maybe you could ask your question a different way?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the shroud, maybe you could ask your question a different way?

I was not speaking of the shroud, but of the statement that the criterion of Embarrassment couldn't be used to establish historicity. If a mythic account was written, we would expect something along the lines of the Osiris myth or Mithras or at the very least a fanciful account like Appollonius of Tyana.
The fact of Judas' betrayal and condemnation by the Authorities is strong circumstantial evidence for historicity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As far as I understand the scholarship acts is Luke 2.0 so let's put that in with the gospels as far as authorship. In the epistles and gospels we have tales of a character that they are portraying as historical. Absolutely this is the case. But this is not the same as having evidence of a historical Jesus.

The earliest texts we have date within several decades of when Jesus is supposed to have lived. Not the Gospels, but the letters of St. Paul. And, yes, I'm aware that there is dispute over the authorship of a number of the Pauline epistles, but there is a consensus on some of those letters. So dealing solely with the non-disputed letters Paul is clearly aware that, within the Christian community, an actual Jesus existed.

I know that it can be popular to suggest Paul has in mind a purely "spiritual" Jesus, the problem is that this doesn't fit the actual content of the relevant texts, significantly 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and Galatians 4:4.

So let's set the Gospels aside. The very earliest material we have reflects a belief in the ancient Jesus movement of Jesus being an actual person. That in and of itself doesn't settle the issue of an historical Jesus, but that is clearly evidence in favor of an historical Jesus: that the furthest back we can go historiographically shows us a community of Jesus-believers for whom Jesus was an actual person within living memory.

I'm not going to argue that the Gospels were written by their traditionally ascribed authors--because I doubt they were--but the Gospels do continue the argument of the ancient Jesus movement believing in an actual Jesus. The Gospels are the story shared and circulated within the Jesus movement set down to writing.

To that end, these things are evidence. Whether or not the evidence is ultimately true is another question. But they certainly are evidence.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Athée]

His method on Alexander is flawed. If we follow his reasoning, we should exclude biased sources correct? So all the generals of Alexander are excluded. Also, those works are mostly not extant today, so there is no way to apply textual criticism to them, so we do not know whether his generals actually wrote them or someone else wrote in their name.

As to the playwrites and orators you mention, they aren't reliable hostorical sources at all. Oratory as a Greek science was about convincing your audience, so they would say whatever was necessary, which is why we don't trust speeches on aspects of the Peloponessian war for instance. Playwrites wrote for entertainment so will be liberal with the truth, or do you think The Patriot of Mel Gibson is history?
They are anyway not contemparoneous sources at all for much of what Alexander did, about comparable to the gospel accounts. In anyway they have fantastical accounts of interventions by the gods, so by that reasoning we should accept Zeus as real.

As to the premise, it is a false analogy. A king versus a prophet active in a limited locale is not the same. The evidence of Jesus must be weighed against for instance the evidence for Parmendides or Socrates. You will see Jesus' evidence is much stronger than these two (both 2 sources respectively, Xenophon and Plato and maybe Aristophanes) yet their existence is never doubted.
Much history is based on a single source and probability such as battles in the Peloponessian War based solely on Thucydides, certain Pharoahs, Muwatalli III's coup etc. Based on the usual bar we place in historical criticism, Jesus would at least be considered to have existed.

This was really well said!
I think what Carrier would say so that we should be skeptical of such sources not that we discount them entirely. So I would agree that we don't take what they all said as the truth about Alexander. They do lend support for his existing though. And yes the gospels and epistles lend this same kind of support for the historicity of Jesus, which is why it is the consensus opinion in the field that Jesus did exist as a historical person. The difference could be that in the case of Alexander there doesn't seem to be a plausible case that he was a myth that explains so much of the data (please read Carrier's book, it will make this much easier for all of us!) and we would still need to account for the physical evidence of Alexander that remains. For Jesus the myth hypothesis is not entirely implausible and we don't have any physical evidence to close the case for us.

 

[redleghunter]

Right so beat case scenario there is an image of a person on this shroud. We have no way of determining that this image is Jesus that I am aware of. Am I mistaken?

Science can't figure out how ancient sources had the technology to "photo copy" the human image. Which scientists rightly conclude they have no clue. Which lends to the shroud image of divine nature. If you are curious about scientific research on solving mysteries look at the sources I linked.

Lol, I liked this In essence you are suggesting the criterion of embarrassment or of dissimilarity as supporting historicism but I am not sure that it does.

Look at other historical accounts. The hero is always strong , a political or military leader. By all accounts Alexander never picked his nose and was perfect. Why include embarrassing accounts about the first martyrs and leaders of your church?

At the very least we see the authors are honest in reporting the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

[Athée]

I was not speaking of the shroud, but of the statement that the criterion of Embarrassment couldn't be used to establish historicity. If a mythic account was written, we would expect something along the lines of the Osiris myth or Mithras or at the very least a fanciful account like Appollonius of Tyana.
The fact of Judas' betrayal and condemnation by the Authorities is strong circumstantial evidence for historicity.

Oh shoot the expand button on quotes... Now it makes a lot more sense.
So I guess I would ask how we know Judas' betrayal is a fact, and if it is a fact how does this related to the criterion of embarrassment?

 

[redleghunter]

Indeed.
If we only take eyewitnesses, then most of the American Civil War never happened. This is not how history works, Mr Carrier should know better.
Most of our histories of that war are based on accounts written about 1900. These reconstructed events from documents and personal accounts now lost to us, much like the gospels are reported to have done.

Yes given his intellect and education I am embarrassed for him.

He clearly approached this book not in a Simon Greenleaf or Sir William Ramsay method of investigation but by presuppositions Jesus is a myth.