Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

leftrightleftrightleft · Mar 31, 2016

The old adage: "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence."

1) The claim that an apocalyptic, wandering Galilean preacher caused some trouble in a Roman backwater, and was crucified is not all that extraordinary. Therefore it does not need some huge mountain of evidence in order to be believed.

2) The claim that a man was born via a virgin as God's incarnate son and was put to death and then raised to life after three days is an extraordinary claim and so should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.

Assume for a moment that #2 is false and #1 is true. Why would we expect anything to be written about this random preacher? We can't compare him to kings and caesars because he wasn't one. He won't have his name stamped on coins, he won't show up in government records, he wouldn't have books written about him by political commentators or historians of the time which were focused on Rome, war campaigns, etc. He would be completely irrelevant to pretty much everyone at the time. Why would we possibly expect contemporary references?

As an example, how many contemporary references can you find to Sai Baba of Shirdi compared to Queen Victoria and Napoleon? Sai Baba of Shirdi was a wandering preacher in a backwater of the British empire in the 19th century...almost nothing is written about him. And why would there be? No one cared except a small group of his followers. And this was in an age with the printing press, daily newspapers, steam engines, etc.

The fact there is anything written about Jesus at all is the surprising part, not the other way around.

anonymous person · Mar 31, 2016

leftrightleftrightleft said:
The old adage: "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence."

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?

leftrightleftrightleft said:
1) The claim that an apocalyptic, wandering Galilean preacher caused some trouble in a Roman backwater, and was crucified is not all that extraordinary.

I agree.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Therefore it does not need some huge mountain of evidence in order to be believed.

Tell that to the historical skeptic.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
2) The claim that a man was born via a virgin as God's incarnate son and was put to death and then raised to life after three days is an extraordinary claim and so should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.

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

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Assume for a moment that #2 is false and #1 is true. Why would we expect anything to be written about this random preacher? We can't compare him to kings and caesars because he wasn't one. He won't have his name stamped on coins, he won't show up in government records, he wouldn't have books written about him by political commentators or historians of the time which were focused on Rome, war campaigns, etc. He would be completely irrelevant to pretty much everyone at the time. Why would we possibly expect contemporary references?

As an example, how many contemporary references can you find to Sai Baba of Shirdi compared to Queen Victoria and Napoleon? Sai Baba of Shirdi was a wandering preacher in a backwater of the British empire in the 19th century...almost nothing is written about him. And why would there be? No one cared except a small group of his followers. And this was in an age with the printing press, daily newspapers, steam engines, etc.

The fact there is anything written about Jesus at all is the surprising part, not the other way around.

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?

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

I think your "middle" category might be a little off. I've heard Carrier's presentations about this. I think of it as the non-fundamentalist Christians like John Dominic Crossan. They believe in the early Christian faith as a commitment to God and the teachings of Jesus. They don't believe that the Bible was presenting literal miracles, but allegorical stories. This corresponds with my own belief. The earliest readers would have known that they were reading symbolic writings, rather than literal stories.

anonymous person · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
I think your "middle" category might be a little off. I've heard Carrier's presentations about this. I think of it as the non-fundamentalist Christians like John Dominic Crossan. They believe in the early Christian faith as a commitment to God and the teachings of Jesus. They don't believe that the Bible was presenting literal miracles, but allegorical stories. This corresponds with my own belief. The earliest readers would have known that they were reading symbolic writings, rather than literal stories.

This hypothesis does not account for the disciple's willingness to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. It does not account for the empty tomb, nor the accounts of people having seen Jesus alive after His burial.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

anonymous person said:
This hypothesis does not account for the disciple's willingness to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. It does not account for the empty tomb, nor the accounts of people having seen Jesus alive after His burial.

Do you really think that no other group has been willing to die for a political cause?

The empty tomb was a parable. It represents the old self dying spiritually after a person is reborn. The old self burns away.

Yes, many people saw visions of Jesus. His idea was so valid and powerful that he was slightly ahead of his time. People were beginning to see his personal vision more clearly after he was gone. To many people, ideas are transformed into something that they can see and feel. To most people, a powerful idea takes the form of a person rather than some abstract theory. So it is natural for people to see visions in a similar way.

bhsmte · Mar 31, 2016

Athée said:
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

I have not read his book, but I have read excerpts of his work.

IMO, I find, it is about 75% likely, that Jesus was a real historical figure. I will say this though, I reserve the right to change my mind, pending further review of his material. Also, Carriers argument, is far more credible than the opposite argument; the gospels are all historically reliable and all they claim, indeed happened.

With that said, there is zero historically credible evidence, to conclude any more than the following about Jesus, with any level of confidence:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

bhsmte · Mar 31, 2016

anonymous person said:
This hypothesis does not account for the disciple's willingness to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. It does not account for the empty tomb, nor the accounts of people having seen Jesus alive after His burial.

Empty tombs proves nothing and has other explanations, with the least likely being; someone rose from the dead.

Dying for a belief also proves nothing, people have committed mass suicide following people who claimed to be God. Suicide bombers died for their belief, about getting into paradise. People believe all sorts of crazy things.

Unless someone had the opportunity to question the people that have claimed they saw Jesus, their claims are also meaningless and could be motivated by a strong desire, to create a story.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

bhsmte said:
With that said, there is zero historically credible evidence, to conclude any more than the following about Jesus, with any level of confidence:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Jesus was baptized. I have heard this before. It seems like a more obscure fact compared to the other three major things. Why would this one be so credible?

Tree of Life · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
Jesus was baptized. I have heard this before. It seems like a more obscure fact compared to the other three major things. Why would this one be so credible?

Triple tradition and found in John's Gospel.

civilwarbuff · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
I think your "middle" category might be a little off. I've heard Carrier's presentations about this. I think of it as the non-fundamentalist Christians like John Dominic Crossan. They believe in the early Christian faith as a commitment to God and the teachings of Jesus. They don't believe that the Bible was presenting literal miracles, but allegorical stories. This corresponds with my own belief. The earliest readers would have known that they were reading symbolic writings, rather than literal stories.

The nice part about this is that it does not require any evidence.....only your opinion which makes it really easy to "believe" in....

civilwarbuff · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
The empty tomb was a parable. It represents the old self dying spiritually after a person is reborn. The old self burns away.

The evidence for that?

radhead said:
Yes, many people saw visions of Jesus. His idea was so valid and powerful that he was slightly ahead of his time. People were beginning to see his personal vision more clearly after he was gone. To many people, ideas are transformed into something that they can see and feel. To most people, a powerful idea takes the form of a person rather than some abstract theory. So it is natural for people to see visions in a similar way.

So, you are "proposing" mass hysteria or mass hypnosis.....or just that you have no explanation for what hundreds of people witnessed and therefore write it off as "visions"?

anonymous person · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
Do you really think that no other group has been willing to die for a political cause?

Seems strange that you would think the disciples were out to form a "political startup". These early Christians recorded Jesus as having refused the mob's insistence that He be made King. He even ran away from the people when they tried to make Him go along with them. The disciples record Jesus as having said: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

No where in the New Testament at all do we see anyone saying anything or doing anything that would support the notion that Jesus' followers were preaching Christ crucified for political reasons. The emphasis throughout the teachings of the early church was not that Christianity was to be some sort of political group, but the means by which God brought the Kingdom of God to mankind. In Luke 17:21, Jesus is recorded as having said, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

These are not the words of a man or men who are trying to start some political movement.

Secondly, my point remains. No one willingly dies for something they know to be a lie. Sure people may die for a political cause, but they die believing in the cause. They don't die because they think the cause is groundless or just a lie.

radhead said:
The empty tomb was a parable. It represents the old self dying spiritually after a person is reborn. The old self burns away.

And yet both the Romans and the chief priests of the Jews conspired together to come up with an explanation as to why the tomb was empty.

When they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, “Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” -Matthew 28:12

Jesus' enemies acknowledged the empty tomb. If the account of the empty tomb were merely a parable, then all the Jews would have had to do to refute what the disciples were saying was present Jesus' body. They never did that because the body was gone. Instead, they spent a great deal of time persecuting the disciples, chasing them from town to town and threatening them with bodily injury and death.

radhead said:
Yes, many people saw visions of Jesus. His idea was so valid and powerful that he was slightly ahead of his time. People were beginning to see his personal vision more clearly after he was gone. To many people, ideas are transformed into something that they can see and feel. To most people, a powerful idea takes the form of a person rather than some abstract theory. So it is natural for people to see visions in a similar way.

Hundreds of people do not have the same vision at the same time at the same place of a man who was crucified and then whose body was missing on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion. The fact that Jews did not believe in a bodily resurrection until the end of the age would also count against the notion that they were hallucinating when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after His death. They would not have spoken of eating with Jesus or touching Him. A vision of Him exalted in the heavens in glory would have been a vision more in line with their firmly held belief that no one would be resurrected until the end of the age, not a vision of Jesus walking bodily among them.

bhsmte · Mar 31, 2016

anonymous person said:
Seems strange that you would think the disciples were out to form a "political startup". These early Christians recorded Jesus as having refused the mob's insistence that He be made King. He even ran away from the people when they tried to make Him go along with them. The disciples record Jesus as having said: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

No where in the New Testament at all do we see anyone saying anything or doing anything that would support the notion that Jesus' followers were preaching Christ crucified for political reasons. The emphasis throughout the teachings of the early church was not that Christianity was to be some sort of political group, but the means by which God brought the Kingdom of Heaven to mankind. In Luke 17:21, Jesus is recorded as having said, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

These are not the words of a man or men who are trying to start some political movement.

Secondly, my point remains. No one willingly dies for something they know to be a lie. Sure people may die for a political cause, but they die believing in the cause. They don't die because they think the cause is groundless or just a lie.

And yet both the Romans and the chief priests of the Jews conspired together to come up with an explanation as to why the tomb was empty.

When they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, “Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” -Matthew 28:12

Jesus' enemies acknowledged the empty tomb. If the account of the empty tomb were merely a parable, then all the Jews would have had to do to refute what the disciples were saying was present Jesus' body. They never did that because the body was gone. Instead, they spent a great deal of time persecuting the disciples, chasing them from town to town and threatening them with bodily injury and death.

Hundreds of people do not have the same vision at the same time at the same place of a man who was crucified and then whose body was missing on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion. The fact that Jews did not believe in a bodily resurrection until the end of the age would also count against the notion that they were hallucinating when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after His death. They would not have spoken of eating with Jesus or touching Him. A vision of Him exalted in the heavens in glory would have been a vision more in line with their firmly held belief that no one would be resurrected until the end of the age, not a vision of Jesus walking bodily among them.

All you have to confirm hundreds of people saw Jesus, is a story, written by anonymous authors.

Men can write anything they wish, in stories.

civilwarbuff · Mar 31, 2016

bhsmte said:
All you have to confirm hundreds of people saw Jesus, is a story, written by anonymous authors.

Men can write anything they wish, in stories.

Kind of like what you are doing right now?

anonymous person · Mar 31, 2016

bhsmte said:
All you have to confirm hundreds of people saw Jesus, is a story, written by anonymous authors.

Men can write anything they wish, in stories.

And they chose to write about events for which they would later testify to at their own expense. They wrote about things for which they were willing to die for and did die for.

Now if you want to think they wrote all of these things down and subjected themselves to being totally ostracized from their society, persecuted and chased from town to town, whipped, beaten, stoned, decapitated, thrown to lions, burned like candles, and numerous other devices all intended to get them to retract and recant this lie they knew was a lie, then fine.

I don't think that is a defensible position to hold to. You may.

I think you have to believe all of this because you can't allow that what they recorded actually happened. It would totally undermine the "knowledge" you have come to acquire. It would point you back to that worldview which you abandoned. That worldview which you want to distance yourself from for some reason which reasons knows nothing about.

anonymous person · Mar 31, 2016

It is true, men can write anything they want to in stories.

It is also true that when a man is put to the test and his life is on the line, he will admit that it was all a story so that he might live to see another day.

bhsmte · Mar 31, 2016

anonymous person said:
And they chose to write about events for which they would later testify to at their own expense. They wrote about things for which they were willing to die for and did die for.

Now if you want to think they wrote all of these things down and subjected themselves to being totally ostracized from their society, persecuted and chased from town to town, whipped, beaten, stoned, decapitated, thrown to lions, burned like candles, and numerous other devices all intended to get them to retract and recant this lie they knew was a lie, then fine.

I don't think that is a defensible position to hold to. You may.

I think you have to believe all of this because you can't allow that what they recorded actually happened. It would totally undermine the "knowledge" you have come to acquire. It would point you back to that worldview which you abandoned. That worldview which you want to distance yourself from for some reason which reasons knows nothing about.

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

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

If you would read the gospels with spiritually opened eyes you would understand that the entire story was a parable. The tomb. The resurrection. The entire thing.

Why would you think that every political movement needs to have an earthly "king"? Are you joking? Jesus's own vision of a kingdom refuted that. Open you eyes!

Quid est Veritas? · Apr 1, 2016

People have got off topic. This thread was on whether Jesus existed.

Now, the only reason the gospels are discounted as history is because of their miraculous nature. If they had been mundane, then everyone would happily have seen it as true based on multiple attestations etc.

Its the same way historians today doubt Horatius at the milvian bridge or Marcus Scaevola and his hand in the fire. Its why we doubt Ney's heroic speech following his "Merde" at Waterloo and all those hundreds of near misses of Washington in the American War of Independance.

People are too quick to dismiss what is not normal. Sometimes miraculous things happen. Sometimes people are brave or heroic. This modern world is just too jaded and removed from our past to understand anymore.

Eudaimonist · Apr 1, 2016

redleghunter said:
Carrier is no doubt a genius and knows Greco-Roman antiquity well---he's an expert, but clearly approaches this tome from a presupposition Jesus was not historical and was a myth.

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.

His thesis is a minority opinion on the historical Jesus.

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

eudaimonia,

Mark

Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Contributor

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

I believe in life before death!

Similar threads