Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Quid est Veritas?]

That doesn't make what you say a fact. I accept that you have an argument. It may even be a strong one, but I just don't find it convincing.

I also accept that Jesus mythicism is a small minority position. No one has any illusions about this.

At the moment, I'm just looking for defenders of an historical Jesus to make claims or arguments that I can check up on should I decide to wade through Carrier's book. For instance, the claim that Zalmoxis is not a savior deity is something I can follow up on by investigating Carrier's footnotes.



Carrier would agree.



No, it's not why. The reasons have to do with the sort of evidence and arguments that have been presented over the years. Any judgments about probability are based on those. This is something that can change over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nothing here is about fact. Its about probability. On probability at the moment, Carrier's view is far less probable, hence its lack of acceptance.
Please check his sources, you will see his views are ludicrous based on Historical-critical method. If you still feel the way you do thereafter, then we can have a discussion. It seems to me that everyone here has been wasting their time since Atthee the OP stopped posting.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have explained repeatedly that you cannot judge first century texts by these standards or we would have to reject ALL sources for the period. No writer named his sources etc. in this period. Is Caesar supposed to name an quote the captives he interrogated? Must Tacitus present all the Annals word for word? I have no problem arguing with you if you bring something to the argument, but to reargue points that have already been discussed is tedious.

I disagree. The best ancient historians detail their own crudentials, and list the credentials of the people they quote. For instance, Carrier writes:

Our best historian of Alexander is Arrian, who though he wrote five hundred years later, nevertheless employed an explicit method of using only three eyewitness sources (two of the actual generals of Alexander who wrote accounts of their adventures 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 then we have for Jesus, for whom we have not a single named eyewitness source in any of the account of him, much less a discussion of how those sources were used or what their relative merits were. [OTHJ, kindle version]
​

And no, Arrian and his sources do not name every single person in the story or present every thing word for word. Those are straw men. Arrian explicitly names his sources and discusses the historical method and merit of what he is recording.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The fact of the matter is that there are three sets of original material. How inter-related they are, is not the point. All three sets date from at least 70-110 AD which in the period in question, is quite recent for sources for one event. If there were no miracles therein, no historian would have doubted them as sources.

But do we know anything about the sources of your set of material? Are any of them based on known eyewitnesses? Lets look at your three sources, Mark, Q, and John.

Mark makes no mention of himself or his sources. He identifies his account as a "gospel" and it comes across as religious propaganda. How do you know it is intended to be history?

Q is totally hypothetical. It has never been found. We don't know exactly what was in that book if it existed. How can you say you have three good sources, when one of them is hypothetical?

John could be argued as a source, but there are huge problems if what John says is true. For he presents Jesus as making endless grandiose statements about himself--and very little actual moral teaching--which the other writers miss. If Jesus was proclaiming himself as the light of the world, the way, the truth and the life, and presenting a salvation based strictly on belief, how did the other writers miss it? It makes more sense that John made this up on his own years later.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I disagree. The best ancient historians detail their own crudentials, and list the credentials of the people they quote. For instance, Carrier writes:

Our best historian of Alexander is Arrian, who though he wrote five hundred years later, nevertheless employed an explicit method of using only three eyewitness sources (two of the actual generals of Alexander who wrote accounts of their adventures 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 then we have for Jesus, for whom we have not a single named eyewitness source in any of the account of him, much less a discussion of how those sources were used or what their relative merits were. [OTHJ, kindle version]
​

And no, Arrian and his sources do not name every single person in the story or present every thing word for word. Those are straw men. Arrian explicitly names his sources and discusses the historical method and merit of what he is recording.

Do you know anything about Arrian? He wrote 400 years from Alexander's time, but reportedly used texts written at that time. These texts are no longer extant, so we have no way to check them by historical criticism. Therefore, they could have been written at any point of those 400 years, by anyone, and merely ascribed to followers of Alexander. We are merely trusting Arrian's sources based on probability.
Besides, Carrier excluded the gospels based on perceived bias, would this not also apply to accounts written by Alexander's underlings?

So if someone wrote a paraphrase of the gospels in 500 AD and no gospels were extent, it would be the equivalent of Arrian's work. For the gospel of Luke for instance, does claim to work from eyewitnesses and is much closer in time to his subject.

Please read the posts above on Alexander, it has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But do we know anything about the sources of your set of material? Are any of them based on known eyewitnesses? Lets look at your three sources, Mark, Q, and John.

Mark makes no mention of himself or his sources. He identifies his account as a "gospel" and it comes across as religious propaganda. How do you know it is intended to be history?

Q is totally hypothetical. It has never been found. We don't know exactly what was in that book if it existed. How can you say you have three good sources, when one of them is hypothetical?

John could be argued as a source, but there are huge problems if what John says is true. For he presents Jesus as making endless grandiose statements about himself--and very little actual moral teaching--which the other writers miss. If Jesus was proclaiming himself as the light of the world, the way, the truth and the life, and presenting a salvation based strictly on belief, how did the other writers miss it? It makes more sense that John made this up on his own years later.

The argument is not how good sources they are or not, but whether Jesus is on probability an historical figure.
These sources and the mileau of the first century is sufficient for Jesus to be highly probable as History. That He existed, not necessarily all the minutiae in the gospels I agree.
If you wish to discuss the historical validity of the gospels otherwise, there is a separate thread on that topic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nothing here is about fact. Its about probability. On probability at the moment, Carrier's view is far less probable, hence its lack of acceptance.

Of course it is about probability. Carrier subtitles his book,"Why we might have reason for doubt". That sounds like a statement about probability, not about absolutes.

Throughout this book and his previous book Carrier outlines his probability calculation. He pulls it all together in his final chapter, which is a strict statistical calculation which concludes--drum roll please--the chance that Jesus existed is less than 0.008%.

Please check his sources, you will see his views are ludicrous based on Historical-critical method.

Have you checked his sources? His bibliography is huge, listing hundreds of sources that come from every imaginable view of Jesus. If nothing else, you should look through his bibliography. That is truly an amazing list of references. And he is not just listing filler here. If you go through his extensive footnotes you will see volumes of commentary on hundreds of his different sources.

Can you list a credible source that Carrier should have included but didn't?

So yes, please check Carrier's sources. If you do nothing else but check his sources, you would need to conclude that this volume must have some value.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Of course it is about probability. Carrier subtitles his book,"Why we might have reason for doubt". That sounds like a statement about probability, not about absolutes.

Throughout this book and his previous book Carrier outlines his probability calculation. He pulls it all together in his final chapter, which is a strict statistical calculation which concludes--drum roll please--the chance that Jesus existed is less than 0.008%.


Have you checked his sources? His bibliography is huge, listing hundreds of sources that come from every imaginable view of Jesus. If nothing else, you should look through his bibliography. That is truly an amazing list of references. And he is not just listing filler here. If you go through his extensive footnotes you will see volumes of commentary on hundreds of his different sources.

Can you list a credible source that Carrier should have included but didn't?

So yes, please check Carrier's sources. If you do nothing else but check his sources, you would need to conclude that this volume must have some value.

I have not read his book, but I watched the lecture posted on this thread. He misrepresented sources, conflated sources and made flat out wrong statements. I too can misuse hundreds of sources and then use my misuse to claim low probability. It means nothing. Please see my above posts for more details.

I am going to look for his book, because from what I have seen of his scholarship so far, he shouldn't even be calling himself an historian. I hope I am mistaken on this point, so I will be following up his sources, I can assure you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you know anything about Arrian? He wrote 400 years from Alexander's time, but reportedly used texts written at that time. These texts are no longer extant, so we have no way to check them by historical criticism. Therefore, they could have been written at any point of those 400 years, by anyone, and merely ascribed to followers of Alexander. We are merely trusting Arrian's sources based on probability.

Any source, no matter how close it is to the event, can be questioned. The original source could be pure bull. The copy we are looking at could be badly corrupted. That applies to everything you have in your ancient sources of Jesus also. Nevertheless, historians are able to look through it all, and pull out historical knowledge.

Arrian deals with named, credible eyewitnesses of Alexander. The gospels give no named, credible eyewitnesses as their source. Carrier continues:

And that's not all. We have mentions of Alexander the Great and details about him in several contemporary or eyewitness sources still extant, including the speaches of Isocrates and Demosthenes and Aschines and Hyperides and Dinarchus, the poetry of Theocritus, the scientific works of Theophrastus, and the plays of Menander. We have not a single contemporary mention of Jesus--apart, from, at best, Paul, who never knew him, and says next to nothing about him (as a historical man) [OTHJ, Kindle version]
​

Carrier goes on to describe many contemporary texts about Alexander that survive only as quotes in other sources, and the great deal of artifacts that survive. All of this together paints a coherent view of Alexander as a historical person.

Carrier discusses Alexander in detail, so before you critique his work on Alexander, would it be too much to ask that you first read what Carrier says?

Besides, Carrier excluded the gospels based on perceived bias, would this not also apply to accounts written by Alexander's underlings?

Where does Carrier exclude the gospel writers because of bias?

the gospel of Luke for instance, does claim to work from eyewitnesses and is much closer in time to his subject.

Actually no, Luke does not claim to work from eyewitnesses, and at any rate does not name one eyewitness that was a source. Luke writes:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [Luke 1:1-3]
​

So Luke's source is his own "perfect understanding of all things from the very first". He does not tell us where he got this perfect understanding from.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The argument is not how good sources they are or not, but whether Jesus is on probability an historical figure.
These sources and the mileau of the first century is sufficient for Jesus to be highly probable as History.

How can you establish that Jesus is probably historical, without establishing that your sources are probably good? I would think that is important.

That He existed, not necessarily all the minutiae in the gospels I agree.

True.

But do we have credible sources that have good agreement on the basics for Jesus?

If you wish to discuss the historical validity of the gospels otherwise, there is a separate thread on that topic.

You referring to the thread that has devolved into a discussion of whether people with "spiritual evidence" are infallible when they make statements about the Bible?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Any source, no matter how close it is to the event, can be questioned. The original source could be pure bull. The copy we are looking at could be badly corrupted. That applies to everything you have in your ancient sources of Jesus also. Nevertheless, historians are able to look through it all, and pull out historical knowledge.

Arrian deals with named, credible eyewitnesses of Alexander. The gospels give no named, credible eyewitnesses as their source. Carrier continues:

And that's not all. We have mentions of Alexander the Great and details about him in several contemporary or eyewitness sources still extant, including the speaches of Isocrates and Demosthenes and Aschines and Hyperides and Dinarchus, the poetry of Theocritus, the scientific works of Theophrastus, and the plays of Menander. We have not a single contemporary mention of Jesus--apart, from, at best, Paul, who never knew him, and says next to nothing about him (as a historical man) [OTHJ, Kindle version]
​

Carrier goes on to describe many contemporary texts about Alexander that survive only as quotes in other sources, and the great deal of artifacts that survive. All of this together paints a coherent view of Alexander as a historical person.

Carrier discusses Alexander in detail, so before you critique his work on Alexander, would it be too much to ask that you first read what Carrier says?


Where does Carrier exclude the gospel writers because of bias?


Actually no, Luke does not claim to work from eyewitnesses, and at any rate does not name one eyewitness that was a source. Luke writes:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [Luke 1:1-3]
​

So Luke's source is his own "perfect understanding of all things from the very first". He does not tell us where he got this perfect understanding from.

Please read the above posts. You are merely rehashing points already made and answered.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How can you establish that Jesus is probably historical, without establishing that your sources are probably good? I would think that is important.


True.

But do we have credible sources that have good agreement on the basics for Jesus?

You referring to the thread that has devolved into a discussion of whether people with "spiritual evidence" are infallible when they make statements about the Bible?

The topic of this thread is not the accuracy or not of the gospels. Even if they were alarmingly inaccurate, their very existence makes the existence of a first century Galiliean prophet called Jesus of Nazareth very probable, as the existence of such prophets saying similar things in the area are well attested and there is no compelling reason to make another one up. Also three separate sets of material regarding this person.

I was unaware that thread had so degenerated. I was not willing to wade through 500 posts so I never read it, just took it at face value. I feel if you respond to a thread you must have read everything that came before hand so that repetition of arguments does not occur, as this makes it then exceedingly difficult for any worthwhile discussion to take place as we all just keep going in circles.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The topic of this thread is not the accuracy or not of the gospels. Even if they were alarmingly inaccurate, their very existence makes the existence of a first century Galiliean prophet called Jesus of Nazareth very probable, as the existence of such prophets saying similar things in the area are well attested and there is no compelling reason to make another one up.

The fact that there was a first century Galilean prophet named Jesus is very likely true. Jesus was a very common name, with about 1 man in 26 having that name. If a Nazareth existed, then we would estimate there was one Jesus of Nazareth existed for every 26 men in that city. So to say Jesus of Nazareth was historical is pretty obvious. Did the Jesus described in the gospels exist? That is a different question.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The fact that there was a first century Galilean prophet named Jesus is very likely true. Jesus was a very common name, with about 1 man in 26 having that name. If a Nazareth existed, then we would estimate there was one Jesus of Nazareth existed for every 26 men in that city. So to say Jesus of Nazareth was historical is pretty obvious. Did the Jesus described in the gospels exist? That is a different question.

That is not the topic of this thread. The topic here is Carrier's interpretation that he was wholly mythical which you have just confirmed you disagree with as well.

 

[doubtingmerle]

John clearly claims to have been written by an eyewitness. Check those verses again.

Uh, where does John claim to written by an eyewitness? John claims that an unspecified "disciple whom Jesus loved" testifies to these things, but he does not name that disciple, nor does he specifically quote that disciple as a source.

 

[bhsmte]

Uh, where does John claim to written by an eyewitness? John claims that an unspecified "disciple whom Jesus loved" testifies to these things, but he does not name that disciple, nor does he specifically quote that disciple as a source.

Correct.

Furthermore, John is considered the least credible of the gospels by many scholars, for a variety of reasons.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is not the topic of this thread. The topic here is Carrier's interpretation that he was wholly mythical which you have just confirmed you disagree with as well.

Uh, actually the comment about 1 in 26 men being named Jesus comes from Carrier. Carrier acknowledges that many men were named Jesus in those days.

Carrier has an entire chapter on what it would mean to say that Jesus existed. According to him, to say that Jesus existed means that there was a man named Jesus who had followers who continued after his death as an identifiable movement; whom was claimed by some followers to have been executed; and whom was worshipped after his death by some followers as divine. A man named Jesus who lived in that time that does not meet all 3 criteria would not qualify to Carrier as saying that Jesus existed. This then is the point Carrier chooses to evaluate. Was there a man in history who met all 3 criteria?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Uh, actually the comment about 1 in 26 men being named Jesus comes from Carrier. Carrier acknowledges that many men were named Jesus in those days.

Carrier has an entire chapter on what it would mean to say that Jesus existed. According to him, to say that Jesus existed means that there was a man named Jesus who had followers who continued after his death as an identifiable movement; whom was claimed by some followers to have been executed; and whom was worshipped after his death by some followers as divine. A man named Jesus who lived in that time that does not meet all 3 criteria would not qualify to Carrier as saying that Jesus existed. This then is the point Carrier chooses to evaluate. Was there a man in history who met all 3 criteria?

You acknowledged a first century Galilean Prophet Jesus of Nazareth. By the Criterion of Embarrasment, everything else becomes probable. Again, read the above posts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

More issues...

He's essentially claiming that the Gospel authors are knowingly lying. It's not just that they're unknowingly recording legend, or copying an original legend (like the literary dependence theories would suggest), but that they know that Jesus was not an historical figure but they're going to go ahead and claim he was anyway. They are then going through the trouble to make precise historical connections to make their lies seem plausible and appear as actual history. And this wasn't just one author - this was several Gospel authors independently weaving their webs of lies in order to "control doctrine".

On top of this, this would mean that whoever penned Matthew's Gospel, for instance, was a liar and fraud yet somehow had the ethical wherewithal to come up with the stunning ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. This just doesn't seem to fit.

Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical. This is an incredibly complicated theory. It's much simpler to accept that there was such an historical person as Jesus even if we don't accept that he was divine in any way.

Well, no Carrier is not saying that the gospel writers were lying. He is saying that we don't know the intent of the gospel writers. But he offers that a likely motive is that they came from the same type of mythical view of Christ that he claims for Paul, and that they found that a story of Jesus written as though it happened on earth was a convenient way to teach the mythical concepts of a mythical Jesus. So Mark wrote his story. Matthew liked it and added material. Luke liked it and gave it a better veneer of historicity. John liked it and completely rewrote it to portray Jesus on a grandiose scale. But all were just writing a parable or a historical novel to be used as a teaching tool. Perhaps it was all an innocent parable. Perhaps it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. We don't really know, because nobody really talks about the gospels until after about 120 AD. Then we get a growing consent that these books are historical. That does not mean that they were considered historical when they were first written.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You acknowledged a first century Galilean Prophet Jesus of Nazareth. By the Criterion if Embarrasment, everything else becomes probable. Again, read the above posts.

I have read most of this thread, but don't have time to respond to all of it.

Please read On the Historicity of Jesus, which is the topic of this thread, and its predecessor, Proving History. Carrier discusses the argument from embarrassment at detail in chapter 5 of Proving History. Does he answer your concerns there?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have read most of this thread, but don't have time to respond to all of it.

Please read On the Historicity of Jesus, which is the topic of this thread, and its predecessor, Proving History. Carrier discusses the argument from embarrassment at detail in chapter 5 of Proving History. Does he answer your concerns there?

As I said, I have not yet read the book but will do so if and when I see a copy.
However, his is a minority view in his field, with the vast majority of his peers disagreeing with him. From what I have seen from the few lectures and so forth posted here, I have seen serious historical errors and misrepresentation of sources that I am very familiar with. So I shall read what he wrote, but I doubt very much its quality as to veracity and scholarship. That being said, I shall comment further on this topic only once I have read the text in question, in deference to the original OP. I doubt this thread will still be active then however, as it has been walking in circles for a while now.