Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Quid est Veritas?]

What is your alternative? To approach this tome from a presupposition that Jesus was historical and not a myth?

What he's doing is noticing an historical pattern that may be recognized elsewhere, and then asking if Jesus fits that pattern better and with greater likelihood than an historical interpretation. I'm not exactly sure how this is not a proper method for historians to follow. He has published a book on historical method, but perhaps that is beyond the scope of this thread.



For now, yes. If his opinion, or something like it, were to become the majority opinion, how would that change your views?


eudaimonia,

Mark

He did not notice a historical pattern. He invented one and then forced Jesus into that mould.
Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic religion has no example of his 'pattern' at all. He tried to synthesise disparate texts to create it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He did not notice a historical pattern. He invented one and then forced Jesus into that mould.

That is false. He talks in detail about the pattern and explains where he got it from. You can say that he "forced" Jesus into that mold, but if the sandal fits...

Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic religion has no example of his 'pattern' at all. He tried to synthesise disparate texts to create it.

What do you mean by "synthesizing disparate texts"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

His argument becomes a self licking ice cream cone as he makes bold proclamations relying on 'it is known or established' when it is not.

He doesn't get into the issue in depth in the video (though he does in his book and some other videos), but he gives a book reference that is not one of his own books.

Specifically, The Power of Parable, by John Dominic Crossan


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That is false. He talks in detail about the pattern and explains where he got it from. You can say that he "forced" Jesus into that mold, but if the sandal fits...



What do you mean by "synthesizing disparate texts"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I saw where he got his 'pattern'. This is false. I know many of those sources and he is forcing things on those texts they never say by taking bits from one and parts of another and going on as if they are related.
There is no other scholar who I have ever come accross that acknowledges this pattern. It is Carrier's alone. Which is why the Christ Myth remains a very minority view, it needs a hypothetical syncreticism from different unrelated and often antipathic groups.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I know many of those sources and he is forcing things on those texts they never say by taking bits from one and parts of another and going on as if they are related.

Can you be more specific here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Incidentally, here is a short clip on some of the reasons why he takes the Gospels to be deliberate symbolic fiction.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

No one really knows who testified to what. All you have is anonymous authors, writing stories 40+ years after Jesus died.

Much of Paul's work predates the gospels and affirm what we are discussing. They are not anonymous by the way.

Secondly, you have given me no reason to think you would affirm that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels happened if only the gospel authors signed their name at the end of their work with the date of its composition falling within a year of the events it recorded.

Even if they were written within a year, with the name of the author included therein, I have good reason to doubt you would all of a sudden believe Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Can you be more specific here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Read my post just after your video. I mention it there.

A quick recap - Hellenistic Jew Philo did not hold to Angelic beings or Archangels but to a demiurge or Logos.
This is then equated to Archangels etc, in the Enochian Literature of the Hassidim or Essene sects.
All of this is then equated with Pagan authors writing out of a completely separate context, such as Euhemerus and his approach and general philosophy.
He also misrepresents a number of gods like Zalmoxis of the Getae as saviour gods (from the 6th century AD by the way, long after Christianity). Romulus as the god Quirinus had no resurrection or salvation narrative but is somehow roped in? It makes no sense.

A theory based on part Greek, Roman, General Pagan, Hellenistic Jew, Traditional Jew and wacko fringe group Jews all mixed together is unlikely in the extreme, especially when much of the material from these groups are misrepresented and taken out of context and frequently just plain wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hellenistic Jew Philo did not hold to Angelic beings or Archangels but to a demiurge or Logos.

Why is that important? Philo's personal cosmology is not at issue.

All of this is then equated with Pagan authors writing out of a completely separate context, such as Euhemerus and his approach and general philosophy.

Euhemerus's personal views are also not at issue. Carrier's argument does not rest on him understanding Euhemerus. He was simply explaining what he meant by Euhemerization.

He also misrepresents a number of gods like Zalmoxis of the Getae as saviour gods (from the 6th century AD by the way, long after Christianity). Romulus as the god Quirinus had no resurrection or salvation narrative but is somehow roped in? It makes no sense.

Okay, whenever it is I do get around to reading his book, I will pay close attention to just how he knows that Zalmoxis, for instance, is a saviour god. That is a useful check on the quality of his research.

A theory based on part Greek, Roman, General Pagan, Hellenistic Jew, Traditional Jew and wacko fringe group Jews all mixed together is unlikely in the extreme

I can think of no reason why that must be so. It seems to me that he is integrating historical knowledge together to give a consistent picture of what may have happened. That is entirely legitimate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[redleghunter]

What is your alternative? To approach this tome from a presupposition that Jesus was historical and not a myth?

What he's doing is noticing an historical pattern that may be recognized elsewhere, and then asking if Jesus fits that pattern better and with greater likelihood than an historical interpretation. I'm not exactly sure how this is not a proper method for historians to follow. He has published a book on historical method, but perhaps that is beyond the scope of this thread.

He could start by getting a better understanding and grasp of Hebrew, Jewish, Christian theology and history before dismissing it out of hand. The same way Donald Kagan approached the Peloponnesian War.

 

[bhsmte]

Much of Paul's work predates the gospels and affirm what we are discussing. They are not anonymous by the way.

Secondly, you have given me no reason to think you would affirm that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels happened if only the gospel authors signed their name at the end of their work with the date of its composition falling within a year of the events it recorded.

Even if they were written within a year, with the name of the author included therein, I have good reason to doubt you would all of a sudden believe Jesus rose from the dead.

I dont generally buy stories of people rising from the dead, no.

Add in the general historical issues with the gospels and that makes it even more unbelievable.

You want believe it on faith though, knock yourself out.

 

[bhsmte]

Kind of like what you are doing right now?

What story did i write?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Much of Paul's work predates the gospels and affirm what we are discussing. They are not anonymous by the way.

Secondly, you have given me no reason to think you would affirm that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels happened if only the gospel authors signed their name at the end of their work with the date of its composition falling within a year of the events it recorded.

Even if they were written within a year, with the name of the author included therein, I have good reason to doubt you would all of a sudden believe Jesus rose from the dead.

I don't know if Joseph Smith ever signed a copy of the Book of Mormon, but given that the Book's authorship is in much closer proximity to the life of its purported prophet...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why is that important? Philo's personal cosmology is not at issue.



Euhemerus's personal views are also not at issue. Carrier's argument does not rest on him understanding Euhemerus. He was simply explaining what he meant by Euhemerization.



Okay, whenever it is I do get around to reading his book, I will pay close attention to just how he knows that Zalmoxis, for instance, is a saviour god. That is a useful check on the quality of his research.



I can think of no reason why that must be so. It seems to me that he is integrating historical knowledge together to give a consistent picture of what may have happened. That is entirely legitimate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Philo is used as a representation of hellenistic jewish thought from which Christianity arose with Archangels thrown in as if it belongs in there. This is flat out wrong and should thus be mentioned.

Euhemerisation of an Archangel is his whole point, but this is alien to Jewish thought. Again he's roping in Greek ideas not present in the representative population. Thus the Greek philosophic aspect is emphasised, which is unlikely in a Galilean sect.

All those groups being integrated is not correct. It isn't just using 'historical knowledge', its abusing it. It would be as if a sect arose today that used the Bible, the Quran, The God Delusion of Dawkins, the US constitution, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, Auquarian gospel and Dora the explorer as its foundational texts. It is silly to say the least.
Hellenistic Jewry and Greek Philosophy was vehemently opposed by the Hassidim. Both Jewish groups opposed the Pagans. The Essenes withdrew to escape everyone, the Enochian spiritualists looked down on philosophy and so on and so on.
The thesis is nonsense that any form of syncreticism between these groups existed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I dont generally buy stories of people rising from the dead, no.

Add in the general historical issues with the gospels and that makes it even more unbelievable.

You want believe it on faith though, knock yourself out.

What general historical issues do the gospels have? If you ommit the miracles, they would have been accepted as historical texts of the highest caliber.

 

[bhsmte]

What general historical issues do the gospels have? If you ommit the miracles, they would have been accepted as historical texts of the highest caliber.

The biggest issue with the gospels, are no contempory external sources to corroborate the stories, amongst other things.

Historians, who apply the historical method properly, rely heavily on independent contemporary accounts.

 

[redleghunter]

The biggest issue with the gospels, are no contempory external sources to corroborate the stories, amongst other things.

Historians, who apply the historical method properly, rely heavily on independent contemporary accounts.

We have discussed this matter quite a few times. Which independent contemporary accounts from antiquity confirmed the historical accounts of Alexander's generals and camp followers? If you could also point us to the manuscript evidence for these independent contemporary sources and if they too were eyewitnesses would help as well.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is not that old at all. In fact, it originated with Truzzi in '78 and it is demonstrably false. That simply means that I can show you that such a position is not true.

If I show you that it is false, will you abandon it?

Yup. I'm using the recently devised definition of @durangodawood in another thread when he said:

"An extraordinary claim is one that, if true, requires one to reframe your whole outlook on life. Or one that demands a revolution of the common understanding of how the world works."

So, for a non-believer, the resurrection is an extraordinary claim because it would require them to change their whole outlook on life. Extraordinary claims require a greater body of evidence because you want to be certain that the claim is correct before you change your world view.

Tell that to the historical skeptic.

Because the claim is not extraordinary, little evidence is necessary to reasonably believe it could have happened.

For example, if someone tells you that they fart butterflies in the morning and show you a picture of it, I'm pretty sure you're going to seriously scrutinize that photo for photo-shopping.

If someone tells you that they eat Cheerios in the morning and show you a picture of it, you probably won't scrutinize the picture for more than an instant, nor would you be suspicious that it is photo-shopping and he really was eating Shreddies.

Why? Because, if someone can fart butterflies, then that changes many things that you know and understand about human anatomy, butterflies, etc. However, someone eating Shreddies instead of Cheerios is pretty irrelevant to your worldview and so doesn't require more than a simple photo (or even just word of mouth) to be believed.

Why a different level of scrutiny than any other historical claim?

Because it is extraordinary. People don't wake up and start walking around 3 days after they had died. If such a thing happened, it is extraordinary and would require a re-working of my worldview. Because of this, I treat the claim with more scrutiny than I would other claims. For example, the claim that Jesus was crucified does not require a re-working of my worldview; crucifixion was a common form of execution in the Roman empire and would not be out of the ordinary at all.

Surprising to you because you think he was just an apocalyptic, wandering Galilean preacher who caused some trouble in a Roman backwater, and was crucified.

Tell me, why do you think this man's followers were so persuaded that He had risen from the dead and was the Messiah that they were willing to die for this belief? Why would they die for something they knew was a lie?

Why do you think His tomb was found empty by women on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion?

Why do you think people claimed to have seen Him alive afterwards?

Why do you think that billions of people claim to be His followers?

I would like to answer these questions, but I believe they belong in a different thread. This thread is talking about whether or not the historical Jesus existed, not whether he was divine/God/saviour.

<Staff Edit>

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The biggest issue with the gospels, are no contempory external sources to corroborate the stories, amongst other things.

Historians, who apply the historical method properly, rely heavily on independent contemporary accounts.

Do you apply this same level of scrutiny to other historical figures?

Why would you expect a contemporary historian to mention some Galilean preacher in a Roman backwater who got executed? And why would you expect a contemporary historian to write a detailed account of this preacher's life to the same level of detail as the Gospels?

If the Gospels were devoid of anything miraculous, they would be considered amazing historical records. Some of the most phenomenal historical records ever found containing amazing amounts of detail. But simply because they contain a few miracles, mythologizations, and exaggerations, you'll throw the baby out with the bath water and assume none of it is true?

 

[redleghunter]

Do you apply this same level of scrutiny to other historical figures?

My question as well and has been on several occasions in these types of threads.

The entire history of kings, emperors and military conquerors is conducted by the dewy eyed court or camp followers or their generals/subordinates.