proudfootz wrote:

Corky wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Byron wrote:
Sorry, did you somehow show that I was wrong?

What would be the point of 'showing' that you were wrong? You'd ignore it. You never say what it would take to show you that you're wrong. It's all for 'show'. Such is bible scholarship. Not falsifiable. Falsifiable is not in the cards, and that is quite what you love about bible scholarship.

The spoons. The spoons. What do they show? Inventing your own criteria is not a way to admit falsifiability.

You know... that is the wonderful thing about biblical scholarship - not falsifiable. Then you add to that people who repeat hearsay from "not falsifiable" sources and suddenly you have historic Jesus.

When one is bound to accept as evidence letters written by a religious fanatic between trips to Heaven & personal visits from ghosts and a handful of badly forged lines jammed into a couple of old history books... let's just say 'falsifiable' don't enter into it.

Yet this is what Ehrman et al think comparable in quantity and quality as the evidence we have for NASA's lunar missions...

Difference being of course that the lunar landings/missions actually happened. We have grainy film of men actually landing and walking on the moon. We have precious little evidence about a HJ.

Stein wrote:I like the new term for myther now circulating out of the R. Joseph Hoffman statement on Carrier and his ilk: mythtic. Even better than myther. That's the term I'll use from now on: mythtic. It has a nice ring.

As you hafta continue this rot, I should indicate Carrier has not minced words: "Hoffman has gone insane." (See Hoffman Madness here.)

I don't mind "mythtic". It goes well to counterbalance those others who have just gotta be right, those who can't contemplate any other possibility, the Jesus hystericists, unable to take a step back from all the woo, who get so aggressive when the historicity of Jesus is shown to be..., well, umm, undemonstrated. Hysterical rants follow about how the hystericist cannot entertain any other views and how the religiously established status quo regarding historical aspects must be right and that we must accept the established dating, rant, rant, rant. Jesus hystericism.

spin wrote:

Stein wrote:I like the new term for myther now circulating out of the R. Joseph Hoffman statement on Carrier and his ilk: mythtic. Even better than myther. That's the term I'll use from now on: mythtic. It has a nice ring.

As you hafta continue this rot, I should indicate Carrier has not minced words: "Hoffman has gone insane." (See Hoffman Madness here.)

I don't mind "mythtic". It goes well to counterbalance those others who have just gotta be right, those who can't contemplate any other possibility, the Jesus hystericists, unable to take a step back from all the woo, who get so aggressive when the historicity of Jesus is shown to be..., well, umm, undemonstrated. Hysterical rants follow about how the hystericist cannot entertain any other views and how the religiously established status quo regarding historical aspects must be right and that we must accept the established dating, rant, rant, rant. Jesus hystericism.

Yes, 'Jesus hystericist' has a nice ring to it and really gives one a clear image of the sort of behavior to expect.

Byron wrote:

No, thought not.

I honestly have no idea what you think you were right about.

Now, just answer the question about comparative figures. You stated something about inconsistency (in fact I think you specifically said Carrier was inconsistent, but I'm happy to leave him out of it). Are you going to back that up, or do I have to ask a 5th time?

Stein wrote:I like the new term for myther now circulating out of the R. Joseph Hoffman statement on Carrier and his ilk: mythtic. Even better than myther. That's the term I'll use from now on: mythtic. It has a nice ring.

Stein

Not going to adopt Hoffmann's 'nutters' or Ehrman's 'non sane historians' or use the example of holocaust denial? I thought your own 'myther scum' was rather quaint too.

What fun to see the HJ side rising above the froth. Lol.

Byron wrote:Archibald wanted a citation of Carrier's myther status: here we go.

I have declared myself a mythicist (maybe not in those exact words, but clearly enough), so he is right to assume that. The error is not that, but in conflating me with all other mythicists (as if I, like them, didn’t take seriously a respect for sound methods and careful attention to documentable facts), or projecting his irrational certainty onto me. I am not certain I am correct. I think there is a realistic possibility some actual Jesus existed, I just consider it improbable on present evidence (which is enough to make me a mythicist; I’m just not “absolutely certain” the way McGrath and Ehrman seem to be).

Now, you can quibble about whether Carrier is a full myther, given that he allows a "realistic possibility" (generous of him) of HJ, but as he self-identifies as a mythicist, and thinks HJ is improbable, I think it's perfectly fair to call him one.

Well, at last, something to redress the anti-Carrier bombasts. Pointing out that at least Carrier, unlike Ehrman, is rational enough not to express certainty. Good on you Byers. You've redeemed yourself somewhat.

spin wrote:

Stein wrote:I like the new term for myther now circulating out of the R. Joseph Hoffman statement on Carrier and his ilk: mythtic. Even better than myther. That's the term I'll use from now on: mythtic. It has a nice ring.

As you hafta continue this rot, I should indicate Carrier has not minced words: "Hoffman has gone insane." (See Hoffman Madness here.)

I don't mind "mythtic". It goes well to counterbalance those others who have just gotta be right, those who can't contemplate any other possibility, the Jesus hystericists, unable to take a step back from all the woo, who get so aggressive when the historicity of Jesus is shown to be..., well, umm, undemonstrated. Hysterical rants follow about how the hystericist cannot entertain any other views and how the religiously established status quo regarding historical aspects must be right and that we must accept the established dating, rant, rant, rant. Jesus hystericism.

I think we can all agree as to Jesus's hystericity.

archibald wrote:
1. For starters, it's generally agreed that Ancient History doesn't provide strong evidence compared to either current events or more recent history. This has gotta bring the assessment down, for everyone from ancient history.

2. No archaeology. Down another tad.

3. No original texts. down a tad.

4. No primary sources. Down a tad.

5. No secondary sources. Down a tad.

6. No writings by the figure. Down a tad.

7. No contemporaneous references. Down a smidgeon.

8. Most of the evidence not from independent or disinterested sources.

9. Most of the evidence from theologically motivated individuals.

10. Same individuals largely, if not entirely, anonymous to history, and undated. Forgeries commonplace.

11. Earliest independent source has been tampered with and is not contemporary anyway.

12. Figure described as supernatural from the get go.

13. Earliest source contains an odd lack of historical detail.

14. Figure dripping in mythology and supernatural claims.

15. Evidence contains other made up figures and events.

16. Plausible hypotheses that a lot of the texts are allegorical

17. Evidence that texts were routinely amended.....

Do I need to keep going?

Yes, do go on! she said, Archly. Only just, down a tad! Oh, please, yes! Yessssssss!

Bart Ehrman points out in his book that James (being the 'brother' of Jesus) would have known if Jesus didn't exist - but James also saw Jesus after his resurrection. Wouldn't James (being the 'brother' of Jesus) have known if Jesus was resurrected? So, right here, Ehrman has proved the historical resurrection.

As I hasten to get ready for church, thanks to Erhman, I am wondering why I hadn't thought of that myself. After all, when you have further proof, from Ehrman, that the gospels contain extremely early accounts in Aramaic of raising someone from the dead - that's way too early to have been invented later, well, that's proof that it's all real. Because, if it hadn't happened, wouldn't they (James & Co.) have known?

archibald wrote:
1. For starters, it's generally agreed that Ancient History doesn't provide strong evidence compared to either current events or more recent history. This has gotta bring the assessment down, for everyone from ancient history.

2. No archaeology. Down another tad.

3. No original texts. down a tad.

4. No primary sources. Down a tad.

5. No secondary sources. Down a tad.

6. No writings by the figure. Down a tad.

7. No contemporaneous references. Down a smidgeon.

8. Most of the evidence not from independent or disinterested sources.

9. Most of the evidence from theologically motivated individuals.

10. Same individuals largely, if not entirely, anonymous to history, and undated. Forgeries commonplace.

11. Earliest independent source has been tampered with and is not contemporary anyway.

12. Figure described as supernatural from the get go.

13. Earliest source contains an odd lack of historical detail.

14. Figure dripping in mythology and supernatural claims.

15. Evidence contains other made up figures and events.

16. Plausible hypotheses that a lot of the texts are allegorical

17. Evidence that texts were routinely amended.....

Do I need to keep going?

18. Sources written in a language far removed from the alleged original languages. Down a tad.

19. Sources written anonymously, but later given apostolic authorship to cover up this embarrassing fact. Down a tad.

20. Sources written in high literary style with plotting, suspense, developed dialogues, characterization, etc., all in all indistinguishable from Hellenistic novels. Down a tad.

21. Sources with an anti-Semitic bias. Down a tad.

22. Sources who lived in a world of make believe. Down a tad.

Blood wrote:

archibald wrote:
1. For starters, it's generally agreed that Ancient History doesn't provide strong evidence compared to either current events or more recent history. This has gotta bring the assessment down, for everyone from ancient history.

2. No archaeology. Down another tad.

3. No original texts. down a tad.

4. No primary sources. Down a tad.

5. No secondary sources. Down a tad.

6. No writings by the figure. Down a tad.

7. No contemporaneous references. Down a smidgeon.

8. Most of the evidence not from independent or disinterested sources.

9. Most of the evidence from theologically motivated individuals.

10. Same individuals largely, if not entirely, anonymous to history, and undated. Forgeries commonplace.

11. Earliest independent source has been tampered with and is not contemporary anyway.

12. Figure described as supernatural from the get go.

13. Earliest source contains an odd lack of historical detail.

14. Figure dripping in mythology and supernatural claims.

15. Evidence contains other made up figures and events.

16. Plausible hypotheses that a lot of the texts are allegorical

17. Evidence that texts were routinely amended.....

Do I need to keep going?

18. Sources written in a language far removed from the alleged original languages. Down a tad.

19. Sources written anonymously, but later given apostolic authorship to cover up this embarrassing fact. Down a tad.

20. Sources written in high literary style with plotting, suspense, developed dialogues, characterization, etc., all in all indistinguishable from Hellenistic novels. Down a tad.

21. Sources with an anti-Semitic bias. Down a tad.

22. Sources who lived in a world of make believe. Down a tad.

Oooh. My fiendish plan is working. My preciousssssss.....

Corky wrote:As "dejuror" keeps saying - there is no evidence whatsoever for HJ, none, nada, zilch - it's all made up bullshit. I really don't see how "scholars" could possibly be stupid enough to not see it - but then, there are evolutionary biologists who still believe in the god of the Hebrews. Go figure.

And yet you performed a noisy volte-face in favor of HJ. So you should, at the very least, know where those scholars are coming from.

What is this, passion of the deconvert?

archibald wrote:

Byron wrote:

No, thought not.

I honestly have no idea what you think you were right about.

Ehrman not drawing moral comparisons between MJ and Holocaust denial.

Now, just answer the question about comparative figures. You stated something about inconsistency (in fact I think you specifically said Carrier was inconsistent, but I'm happy to leave him out of it). Are you going to back that up, or do I have to ask a 5th time?

Old, archi, old. Way old. I said a few dozen pages back that "comparison" doesn't mean "identical." If you want identical, I don't got it, and have never claimed to. Move on already. I sure am.

archibald wrote:Well, at last, something to redress the anti-Carrier bombasts. Pointing out that at least Carrier, unlike Ehrman, is rational enough not to express certainty. Good on you Byers. You've redeemed yourself somewhat.

What sort of "certainty" has Ehrman expressed? The bolt-iron ontological kind? If he has, I disagree with him on that particular point. It does nothing to invalidate his arguments wholesale.

Byron wrote:

archibald wrote:

Byron wrote:

No, thought not.

I honestly have no idea what you think you were right about.

Ehrman not drawing moral comparisons between MJ and Holocaust denial.

Thought it was about "rationality comparisions", as if 'rationality' was a 'special sauce'.

Byron wrote:It does nothing to invalidate his arguments wholesale.

Clue for you, Byron. Arguments (especially of this sort) do not have to be invalidated 'wholesale'. It's all or nothing for you. Hystericality or miscegecisticism.

Byron wrote:
Ehrman not drawing moral comparisons between MJ and Holocaust denial.

That's fine. I don't think he was either, though I do not think the choice of the holocaust denial example was clever, regardless of his intentions. Mainly though, do you disagree that it was a poor example on grounds of comparability generally, as regards amounts of evidence? Because it's not clear yet that you even accept that. You appear to be reading him as saying (I'm paraphrasing here), 'in a world where ridiculous things are believed (eg holocaust denial) it is not surprising that less ridiculous things are believed (MJ)' and I have no idea why you would think that the 'less ridiculous' is implied for the latter, since it's not in what he wrote. You prefer to infer it, yes, but why? The guy concludes that Jesus certainly existed and that virtually every 'sane' historian agrees. It seems entirely consistent for him to think that the two things are as ridiculous as each other. And this is in fact what people normally mean when they introduce comparisons. And if they didn't mean it that way, they should choose examples more carefully, because the average uninformed reader (i.e his target audience) is likely to draw the wrong conclusion about what he meant.

In short: duff comparison. Get over it. Stop defending it. Move on.

Byron wrote:What sort of "certainty" has Ehrman expressed? The bolt-iron ontological kind? If he has, I disagree with him on that particular point. It does nothing to invalidate his arguments wholesale.

He has said that Jesus certainly existed. Good that you are prepared to disagree with him on that, and no, of course it doesn't invalidate his arguments wholesale. I'm not even sure it invalidates them at all. I don't believe I personally said that anywhere. Personally, I don't find it reassuring that he reaches that conclusion, but then I don't find it reassuring when someone is certain of the opposite conclusion either. I wouldn't agree with Carrier either if he thinks there is only a 1 in 5 probability of HJ. To me, it seems we'd have to have much better evidence for MJ for that to be a reasonable position. All we have, IMO, is reasonable grounds to be unsure, or have doubts.

Byron wrote:
Old, archi, old. Way old. I said a few dozen pages back that "comparison" doesn't mean "identical." If you want identical, I don't got it, and have never claimed to. Move on already. I sure am.

I didn't ask you for identical. I asked you for comparative. The point is, you said that people were being inconsistent. In fact, I think this was something you specifically accused carrier of. Could you elaborate?

Personally, I don't believe I'm being inconsistent. I believe that if you offered me any figure at all for whom the nature of the whole evidence was of a par, I would be justified in having doubts about whether he/she existed, purely on an objective assessment of the evidence. This is hardly controversial. Joseph Hoffmann for example appears to have met me half way before he made what appears to be a bit of a recent u-turn:

'With due regard to the complexity of evidence surrounding Christian origins—a subject that has been complicated, in a good way, rather than solved by the discoveries of modern scholarship—I no longer believe it is possible to answer the “historicity question. “ No quantum of material discovered since the1940’s, in the absence of canonical material would support the existence of an historical founder. No material regarded as canonical and no church doctrine built upon it in the history of the church would cause us to deny it. Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer.'

Professor Joseph Hoffmann (Th.M. Harvard Divinity school, D.Phil. Oxford), October 2009

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hoffman1044.shtml

archibald wrote:

Byron wrote:
Ehrman not drawing moral comparisons between MJ and Holocaust denial.

That's fine. I don't think he was either, though I do not think the choice of the holocaust denial example was clever, regardless of his intentions. Mainly though, do you disagree that it was a poor example on grounds of comparability generally, as regards amounts of evidence? Because it's not clear yet that you even accept that. You appear to be reading him as saying (I'm paraphrasing here), 'in a world where ridiculous things are believed (eg holocaust denial) it is not surprising that less ridiculous things are believed (MJ)' and I have no idea why you would think that the 'less ridiculous' is implied for the latter, since it's not in what he wrote. You prefer to infer it, yes, but why? The guy concludes that Jesus certainly existed and that virtually every 'sane' historian agrees. It seems entirely consistent for him to think that the two things are as ridiculous as each other. And this is in fact what people normally mean when they introduce comparisons. And if they didn't mean it that way, they should choose examples more carefully, because the average uninformed reader (i.e his target audience) is likely to draw the wrong conclusion about what he meant.

In short: duff comparison. Get over it. Stop defending it. Move on.

Byron wrote:What sort of "certainty" has Ehrman expressed? The bolt-iron ontological kind? If he has, I disagree with him on that particular point. It does nothing to invalidate his arguments wholesale.

He has said that Jesus certainly existed. Good that you are prepared to disagree with him on that, and no, of course it doesn't invalidate his arguments wholesale. I'm not even sure it invalidates them at all. I don't believe I personally said that anywhere. Personally, I don't find it reassuring that he reaches that conclusion, but then I don't find it reassuring when someone is certain of the opposite conclusion either. I wouldn't agree with Carrier either if he thinks there is only a 1 in 5 probability of HJ. To me, it seems we'd have to have much better evidence for MJ for that to be a reasonable position. All we have, IMO, is reasonable grounds to be unsure, or have doubts.

Byron wrote:
Old, archi, old. Way old. I said a few dozen pages back that "comparison" doesn't mean "identical." If you want identical, I don't got it, and have never claimed to. Move on already. I sure am.

I didn't ask you for identical. I asked you for comparative. The point is, you said that people were being inconsistent. In fact, I think this was something you specifically accused carrier of. Could you elaborate?

Personally, I don't believe I'm being inconsistent. I believe that if you offered me any figure at all for whom the nature of the whole evidence was of a par, I would be justified in having doubts about whether he/she existed, purely on an objective assessment of the evidence. This is hardly controversial. Joseph Hoffmann for example appears to have met me half way before he made what appears to be a bit of a recent u-turn:

'With due regard to the complexity of evidence surrounding Christian origins—a subject that has been complicated, in a good way, rather than solved by the discoveries of modern scholarship—I no longer believe it is possible to answer the “historicity question. “ No quantum of material discovered since the1940’s, in the absence of canonical material would support the existence of an historical founder. No material regarded as canonical and no church doctrine built upon it in the history of the church would cause us to deny it. Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer.'

Professor Joseph Hoffmann (Th.M. Harvard Divinity school, D.Phil. Oxford), October 2009

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hoffman1044.shtml

Obviously, anyone capable of reading my post would know that what is objectionable is not 'moral equivalency' (whatever that's supposed to mean - though of course that is implied).

It's simply trivializing the Holocaust by making it appear the reality of the Holocaust is no more reliable than the 'somewhat more probable than not' existence of an historic Jesus.

But much like child molesters, Ehrman and his defenders can't see what all the fuss is about.

archibald wrote: Mainly though, do you disagree that it was a poor example on grounds of comparability generally, as regards amounts of evidence? Because it's not clear yet that you even accept that.

Ahem:-

Byron wrote:As for the comparison: to necessarily state the obvious, there's a lot more evidence for the Holocaust than there is for Jesus' existence. So Holocaust denial is quantitatively more irrational, by a long shot.

Ethically, there's no comparison: denying the Sho'ah is different in kind to denying Jesus' existence. I don't debate Holocaust deniers, and drawing ethical equivalence would be a foul libel on supporters of a mythic Jesus.

Conversely, the methods that many advocates of MJ employ -- twisting the evidence, libeling scholars, alleging repression-backed conspiracies to conceal the truth, inventing evidence, massively over-reaching the evidence -- are also used by Holocaust deniers, Apollo program deniers, anti-vaxers, and other conspiraloons and woo-merchants. So there are qualitative similarities.

Note: many, not all. It's possible to make the MJ case without these tactics, and I'm not saying that all MJ supporters fall into the woo-merchant category. They don't.

Ehrman's comparison seemed to draw on the methodological similarities. I have no problem with that, because they're there. And of course, it's utterly irrelevant to the slander thrown at Ehrman. Even accepting it arguendo, you don't pull a right from two wrongs.

This recap service is for a limited time only, and the limit's just about run.

In short: duff comparison. Get over it. Stop defending it. Move on.

Perfectly good comparison, albeit unwise, and nope, I'll not stop defending it. I am happy to move on.

[Ehrman] has said that Jesus certainly existed.

Yes, he said, "Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed," in the 'Huff. Post' article. I think I already covered this. Depends what Ehrman means by "certain." If it's "ontological surety," then I disagree with that particular comment: if it's "proof beyond reasonable doubt" (or "highly probable," if you prefer), then I don't. "Certain" has a range of meanings, which is why most folks don't spend the best part of forever subjecting an op-ed piece to forensic scrutiny. Suffice to say Ehrman is confident of Jesus' existence, as am I: the precise degree of confidence has no bearing on the evidence or the merits of his argument. This is all a distraction.

Just like Hoffmann. I couldn't give a rat's ass what he did or didn't believe. This isn't authority top trumps.

The only thing that matters for MJ advocates is producing a MJ scenario that better fits the evidence than HJ. This they consistently fail to do: even Carrier, by far the best MJ has got, is reduced to fragmented pedantry and nitpicking. Hyper-skepticism is no substitute for a hypothesis backed by research.

proudfootz wrote:Obviously, anyone capable of reading my post would know that what is objectionable is not 'moral equivalency' (whatever that's supposed to mean - though of course that is implied).

It's simply trivializing the Holocaust by making it appear the reality of the Holocaust is no more reliable than the 'somewhat more probable than not' existence of an historic Jesus.

But much like child molesters, Ehrman and his defenders can't see what all the fuss is about.

Oh classy.

Done with this.

Byron wrote:

Corky wrote:As "dejuror" keeps saying - there is no evidence whatsoever for HJ, none, nada, zilch - it's all made up bullshit. I really don't see how "scholars" could possibly be stupid enough to not see it - but then, there are evolutionary biologists who still believe in the god of the Hebrews. Go figure.

And yet you performed a noisy volte-face in favor of HJ. So you should, at the very least, know where those scholars are coming from.

What is this, passion of the deconvert?

Good question, actually. I do know where these 'scholars' are coming from and therein lies the problem. Those in whom they put their trust are not 'scholars' - nor are they historians in any modern sense of the word. Some, like Paul of Tarsus, were out and out con-men and probably of the dangerous sort - and that's not to say that the rest of the 'apostles' weren't cut from the same cloth. Josephus was also a religious con-man of another sort, but a con-man none-the-less, and he had no qualms repeating hearsay - even ridiculous hearsay. Tacitus, his source is either Josephus or Xians or both and just like historians of today, he had no reason to think that Jesus didn't exist.

Then, all of a sudden, Bart Ehrman gave us a good reason or two to think that Jesus didn't exist. When Bart is so fond of saying that "James would know if he had a brother named Jesus or not" - oh yeah, well, duh, of course - but James would also know if he had a brother who was resurrected from the dead and was a witness to said resurrection. I don't know if this flew right over the head of Ehrman but by his reasoning, he has just proved the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus by the same argument. Then Ehrman makes the claim of Aramaic passages from an early Palestinian source in the gospels that would have only been a couple of years after Jesus' death. One is about a resurrection from the dead. This would rule out the possibility of later myth-making by the church - this puts the myth right up front, right at the beginning of the story.

So, now you are left with explaining how the miracles were already in place before they had time to invent them later. That leaves only two possibilities: 1. the stories were true and Jesus existed or 2. the stories were an invention at the beginning and Jesus was just as mythical as the stories. A third possibility is that Ehrman doesn't have a clue and must never have met a religious con-man in his life.

Byron wrote:I can't know for sure short a telepath -- got one to hand? -- but given Carrier's mono-focus on anti-theism, and his producing junk methodology with Bayes' (plug garbage in, get garbage out), that'd be my conclusion as well.

Carrier equivocates on overdrive, but his view does seem to boil down to "Jesus didn't exist."

That's a strange objection to Carrier's proposed method (and an objection he deals with in his book). Basically you are saying that it's junk because the deciding factor in the conclusions is the subjective judgmend of the person who uses the methodology. Ok, if that makes a methodology a "junk methodology", then I must ask you if you know of a historical methodology that doesn't also have this flaw?