Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"

[jpholding]

@JPH - you self-identify as an apologist. Tekton Education and Apologetics. I didn't give you that label, you gave it to yourself. You have got to be kidding.

I'm not the one who applied a tendentious "duh hah" label to the word "apologist" as a way of evading real argument.

a·pol·o·gist noun 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

Gee. Nothing there about "someone for whom the conclusion precedes the argument." You must be using the Deludo Version of the Dictionary.

Also in the "you've got to be kidding" department: the thread owner versus the site owner? Gosh, I can't imagine how someone would mistakenly come to that conclusion when Tekton is prominently linked.

Um, because you're stupid? By that logic, this forum is jointly owned by Stand to Reason, Perissos Resources, Deeper Waters, Premier Christian Radio, and a few others. That's the boy. Make excuses for your blunder and end up deeper in the cow doody.

While we're in the petty aisle, are their any grammatical errors or typos you'd like to correct? (Such as "biasness?")

No, just the error incarnate that is Y-O-U.

What would ever lead a new visitor to conclude this is a mutual ego-stroking, rather than a legitimate theological debate?

Serious damage to their own self-esteem caused by the realization that they're not as bright or well-informed as they thought they were?

Y'all are nice people, I'm sure, so enjoy your site. Poof.

Didn't you already say you were leaving once, Junior?

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm not the one who applied a tendentious "duh hah" label to the word "apologist" as a way of evading real argument.

a·pol·o·gist noun 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

Gee. Nothing there about "someone for whom the conclusion precedes the argument." You must be using the Deludo Version of the Dictionary.

Perhaps he really doesn't understand the difference between connotation and denotation? IE you're attacking his connotation of the word, not the denotation of the word 'apologist'. Perhaps he simply didn't take English in high school?

Didn't you already say you were leaving once, Junior?

Do we have another DJ?

[Indy]

@Pixie -

JP's position as an apologist is relevant in the context I quoted, because it's clear from the outset that he's going to argue in favor of Jesus's historicity by necessity. Again, that says nothing whatsoever about the validity of his arguments. If you go to an apologetic forum, one should not be surprised to find arguments against Carrier. That's all I said, and if you hold off on getting your heckles up because an atheist used the word "apologist", then it's patently obvious.

Here's what I'm saying: outside the bubble of this forum, Carrier's ideas are gaining traction, because of his pedigree and method. From where most of the people on this board likely sit, based on the authors you happen to put your stock in, it undoubtedly appears that Carrier is being universally thrashed. It may also be a bit of wishful thinking. (Has anyone here cited a source other than the ones they happen to favor? Of course not.) Ignore it if you wish, but Carrier's work will have an impact similar to Ehrman's.

I find it funny when people say "the case is closed" when clearly it is not. What is all this fuss over, if the whole matter is settled? Yes, we can all agree there are some mythicist crackpots, and rightly put them aside, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Ehrman's book raised so much furor for the sole reason that it is not convincing, and people can see that with their own eyes. Your opinion of course may differ, but Ehrman has hardly done his job of persuading the public.

As rational person, I'm sure you agree that neither the number of adherents, nor the length of time which something has been commonly believed, make it true. It wasn't that long ago we all believed that the gospels were authored by the apostles themselves, for example.

Your assertion that "no one outside Carrier's circle takes him seriously" is just plain incorrect. You seem to be calling him "fringe" simply because you've been told many times that the mythicist position is a "fringe" position, but Carrier is anything but.

I have to call it quits for the afternoon, real life beckons. Will check in later, thanks for the loftier debate.

[RumTumTugger]

JPH please tell me this isn't one of those new Toys you said you were bringing for the kids to play with.

[lilpixieofterror]

JP's position as an apologist is relevant in the context I quoted, because it's clear from the outset that he's going to argue in favor of Jesus's historicity by necessity. Again, that says nothing whatsoever about the validity of his arguments. If you go to an apologetic forum, one should not be surprised to find arguments against Carrier. That's all I said, and if you hold off on getting your heckles up because an atheist used the word "apologist", then it's patently obvious.

Gosh, let me try this:

"Richard Carriers position as an Jesus myther is relevant in the context I quoted, because it's clear from the outset that he's going to argue in favor of the Jesus myth by necessity. Again, that says nothing whatsoever about the validity of his arguments. If you go to an atheist forum, one should not be surprised to find arguments against JPH. That's all I said, and if you hold off on getting your heckles up because an atheist used the word "apologist", then it's patently obvious."

Your head comes off yet again and you don't even seem to notice it. Your argument can quickly be whipped around on you as well, so be careful of those swords and no you didn't. You tried to use it as a way to dismiss, out of hand, anything JPH had to say and when that was exposed, you try to shift around that goal post because others saw though your little plan. See, it usually better to admit that you made an error rather then changing up what you said to something else.

Here's what I'm saying: outside the bubble of this forum, Carrier's ideas are gaining traction, because of his pedigree and method. From where most of the people on this board likely sit, based on the authors you happen to put your stock in, it undoubtedly appears that Carrier is being universally thrashed. It may also be a bit of wishful thinking. (Has anyone here cited a source other than the ones they happen to favor? Of course not.) Ignore it if you wish, but Carrier's work will have an impact similar to Ehrman's.

Sure among the internet where people with zero experience in these ideas who wouldn't know the historical method to save their lives, it lives on quite well. It's' too bad among the scholarly community, nobody takes it seriously, again here is a quote from James Hannam about how seriously it is taken:

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

The Jesus myth thesis is a perfect example of the sort of self refuting crap that passes off as real scholarship in the atheist community. It is amazing the excuses Jesus mythers make up to ignore evidence they do not like (as that article shows). I know you most likely will not read it, but hey... perhaps you can go to hang out with The Rational Response Squad, since real scholars don't take them seriously either and they only get taken seriously on their own corner of the net.

I find it funny when people say "the case is closed" when clearly it is not. What is all this fuss over, if the whole matter is settled? Yes, we can all agree there are some mythicist crackpots, and rightly put them aside, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Ehrman's book raised so much furor for the sole reason that it is not convincing, and people can see that with their own eyes. Your opinion of course may differ, but Ehrman has hardly done his job of persuading the public.

In the scholarly world, it has been settled for about a century now and the only way the position is alive is that a handful of fringe scholars appeal to the public and internet since their ideas are not taken seriously with those that know what they are talking about. Sorry, but I often find the public is very gullible and will believe almost anything that people will sell them. You know, kind of like the myths about how George Washington Carver 'invented' peanut butter or the one that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree when he was younger or one that Banana's grow on trees have been around for some time, even though real historians/scientist have long refuted and rejected these notions. I don't care what 'the public believes' for much of what the public believes is utter nonsense.

As rational person, I'm sure you agree that neither the number of adherents, nor the length of time which something has been commonly believed, make it true. It wasn't that long ago we all believed that the gospels were authored by the apostles themselves, for example.

Too bad that isn't what I said and is instead a strawmen of what I said. Sorry, I said among the scholarly community, the idea is not taken seriously and I even gave you a link to go read for the reasons why (you didn't read it, did you?). It is pretty obvious that you are not here for a rational discussion, but to simply hear what you want to hear and make excuses for your own ignorance. Sorry, the Jesus myth position is a pile of self refuting garbage that is only kept alive because gullible people will believe almost anything that tells them things they like to hear. Isn't it interesting among those that do, it is not taken seriously and the few that should know better, hide out on the web, making 'appeals to the public', instead of among the scholarly community getting their ideas peer reviewed and published?

Your assertion that "no one outside Carrier takes him seriously" is just plain incorrect. You seem to be calling him "fringe" simply because you've been told many times that the mythicist position is a "fringe" position, but Carrier is anything but.

Then you can perhaps explain why my secular college, that used a liberal scholar and very liberal views of the Bible continued to say that Jesus was a real person and didn't even mention the Jesus myth. Perhaps you can explain why Carrier and others like him are unable to be published by publishers like Oxford Press and instead have to go to atheist publishers to get published says a lot. Carrier is not taken seriously by those that know what they are talking about cause sorry, the public is rather ignorant about factual matters like this and there is a reason that skeptics have to go to the gullible public as opposed to scholars like Robert Van Voost or Bart Ehrman to have their ideas out there. Welcome to the ugly side of the information age, where anybody with a crazy idea can get a web site and get their book published by some fringe group.

[Rational Gaze]

I'm pretty sure this guy has said he was leaving on at least three separate occasions now.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Well, my opinion of this forum has been sealed by its owner.

Hi. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm the owner.

Well, not really, but I might as well be since I am the one in charge of Deeper Waters and by your logic then, I'm the owner. Technically, had you read the forum rules, you would know if anyone is closer, it is myself seeing as I'm on staff here. JPH isn't.

The irony of a self-identified apologist and intellectual, arguing by simply labeling everyone else an apologist ("I know you are, but what am I!") and falling back on ad hominems... well, color me unimpressed. I wouldn't expect to persuade the masses with the same debate strategy.

Must not read often. If you read political pieces, they talk about apologists of political viewpoints. What do you think Plato's work of Socrates's trial was? Was it a defense of Christianity? Apologist simply means a defender of a position, any position.

Phoenix - For the record, we were talking about the non-apologist, scholarly community from my first statement, so there's nothing to disagree about on that point. Maybe you misread.

Hence, I mentioned non-apologists and scholars like Crossan and Borg. That would also include Ehrman. Maybe you're just misinformed. Yeah. That's probably it.

I have followed the reactions pro and con, I simply choose not to cherry-pick. e.g. We all know Ehrman and Carrier vociferously disagree, I just don't arbitrarily choose Ehrman as the authority.

Could you demonstrate that we arbitrarily choose Ehrman?

I could just as easily say, "Carrier doesn't think Ehrman's forgone-conclusion idea deserve any credibility, nor do blah, blah, and blah," and you'd surely find it a rather silly statement.

If it was just A vs. B, then yeah. If one side however has the scholary consensus behind them, that's a different matter. In this case, it's Ehrman.

We could make a whole list of who does and doesn't find Ehrman or Carrier's conclusions credible, including Ehrman and Carrier themselves, and it would be a lovely exercise in utter futility.

I wonder if the same leeway would be granted by PZ if we did the same with evolution. "It doesn't matter if all of the scientific community finds evolution true. So what? We'll go with ID anyway." The reality is consensus does not prove a proposition to be true, but if there is heavy consistence amongst disinterested parties, then we need to see why it is there and consider there could be very good reasons for it.

The only other comment I'll make in regards to yours - and in regards to JP - is that you've both assumed via no evidence that I'm a committed mythicist, and an apologist for said position. Incorrect.

Evidence that we've done this?

My position is that both Ehrman on one side, and committed mythicists in the vein of Doherty, etc. are unjustifiable in the certainty of their stances.

Upon what basis do you say Ehrman is unjustified in his certainty that Jesus existed?

I'm agnostic on the issue, and to me the percentage of certainty - Carrier's whole schtick - is unimportant. When you fill in imaginary blanks, reading in things that are not stated, you show your biases; if I criticize Ehrman's blog post, then I must be firmly in the Doherty camp. If I say Carrier is formidable and thorough, I must be a Carrier fanatic and apologist. (I give you credit for staying on point, and not going adolescent, like JP did.)

Doesn't matter too much if you're not out there for credit. Again, show where this was done.

JP's position as an apologist is relevant in the context I quoted, because it's clear from the outset that he's going to argue in favor of Jesus's historicity by necessity.

Could it be he does so because he finds the evidence conclusive and strangely enough, for a position he holds, he wants to defend that position? Perish the thought!

Again, that says nothing whatsoever about the validity of his arguments.

Good. Thanks for stating that the whole main point now is completely useless. You have to look at his arguments and not why he holds them.

If you go to an apologetic forum, one should not be surprised to find arguments against Carrier. That's all I said, and if you hold off on getting your heckles up because an atheist used the word "apologist", then it's patently obvious.

Mind-reading not going too well? We don't care about the term being used. We care about appeal to bias being used.

Here's what I'm saying: outside the bubble of this forum, Carrier's ideas are gaining traction, because of his pedigree and method.

I suppose being totally run over would be one way of describing gaining traction.

From where most of the people on this board likely sit, based on the authors you happen to put your stock in, it undoubtedly appears that Carrier is being universally thrashed.

This might surprise you, but we actually read outside of our comfort zones. As it stands, I'm reading Crossan right now on the Birth of Christianity. No problem. It's great to go to the bookstore or library and know you can read whatever you want without having to stay in the bubble of atheist biblical studies where you can only read Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Doherty, Barker, etc.

It may also be a bit of wishful thinking. (Has anyone here cited a source other than the ones they happen to favor? Of course not.)

Might as well ask for citing an atheist source that says God exists. We read sources we don't favor and in fact, we quite enjoy it.

Ignore it if you wish, but Carrier's work will have an impact similar to Ehrman's.

No it won't. Carrier will ultimately be a flash in the pan the more he holds to the Christ myth idea.

I find it funny when people say "the case is closed" when clearly it is not.

Clearly, it is.

What is all this fuss over, if the whole matter is settled?

Simple. The position of scholarship is usually far ahead of the position of the layperson. With the internet, masses of people who aren't specialists in fields can suddenly put out information and by lieu of having a web site or blog or what have you are automatically seen as authorities. It doesn't matter if the whole position has been outdated for decades. Everyone is an authority then even if they have no training or background knowledge in the area.

Yes, we can all agree there are some mythicist crackpots, and rightly put them aside, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Ehrman's book raised so much furor for the sole reason that it is not convincing, and people can see that with their own eyes. Your opinion of course may differ, but Ehrman has hardly done his job of persuading the public.

So what? The public that actually cares about truth and doing real study will see that Ehrman's case holds up. I don't expect the Wikipedia and YouTube society to suddenly accept it since fundy atheists there run from the idea that Jesus even existed as if it was the plague.

As rational person, I'm sure you agree that neither the number of adherents, nor the length of time which something has been commonly believed, make it true.

No. It does give it seriously high credibility however.

It wasn't that long ago we all believed that the gospels were authored by the apostles themselves, for example.

Wow. Another statement wrong. Mark and Luke were never seen as apostles. Mark is writing the memoirs of Peter and Luke is a companion of Paul. Now do you want to demonstrate that Matthew and John did not write the others?

[QUOTE} Your assertion that "no one outside Carrier takes him seriously" is just plain incorrect. You seem to be calling him "fringe" simply because you've been told many times that the mythicist position is a "fringe" position, but Carrier is anything but. [/QUOTE]

Reason that this should be believed is?....

[jpholding]

Here's what I'm saying: outside the bubble of this forum, Carrier's ideas are gaining traction, because of his pedigree and method.

Um yeah. He has no job in academia; he's publishing his ideas in this arena with Prometheus Press rather than a reputable academic press; and he's one by one mightily offending serious and respected scholars like Ehrman, Hoffman, and Casey on the atheist side and McGrew and McGrath on the other. If he gets any better "pedigree and method" he'll win the Westminster Dog Show in the flea-bitten mutt category.

Has anyone here cited a source other than the ones they happen to favor? Of course not.

Of course we have. On Carrier's side: Hector Avalos, also widely regarded as a tendentious nutcase, who is still working out his psychosis from his days as a child evangelist and who also specializes in calling other scholars stupid and in getting his "distinctive" stuff done by Prometheus Press. A handful of fanatic bloggers. And uh....um....

Ignore it if you wish, but Carrier's work will have an impact similar to Ehrman's.

Drop it from a high enough building and that will no doubt be true. It seems in that regard it has already "impacted" your head.

Ehrman's book raised so much furor for the sole reason that it is not convincing, and people can see that with their own eyes. Your opinion of course may differ

It doesn't. Try reading my review posted here. Or is paying attention something you reserve for off times?

As rational person, I'm sure you agree that neither the number of adherents, nor the length of time which something has been commonly believed, make it true. It wasn't that long ago we all believed that the gospels were authored by the apostles themselves, for example.

I still do. And I guarantee you don't have the mental cajones to put together an epistemology of authorship worth shiitake mushroom.

Your assertion that "no one outside Carrier's circle takes him seriously" is just plain incorrect. You seem to be calling him "fringe" simply because you've been told many times that the mythicist position is a "fringe" position, but Carrier is anything but.

Blah blah blah...no, he's fringe. He'll stay fringe until he wises up.

I have to call it quits for the afternoon, real life beckons. Will check in later, thanks for the loftier debate.

Yeah we know. Worship services at Huffington Po.

[jpholding]

JPH please tell me this isn't one of those new Toys you said you were bringing for the kids to play with.

Nope. He found the place because Hamster used a graphic. I would take this one back to Geoffrey for a refund.

[Indy]

@Pixie -

In the scholarly world, it has been settled for about a century now and the only way the position is alive is that a handful of fringe scholars appeal to the public and internet since their ideas are not taken seriously with those that know what they are talking about. Sorry, but I often find the public is very gullible and will believe almost anything that people will sell them. You know, kind of like the myths about how George Washington Carver 'invented' peanut butter or the one that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree when he was younger or one that Banana's grow on trees have been around for some time, even though real historians/scientist have long refuted and rejected these notions. I don't care what 'the public believes' for much of what the public believes is utter nonsense."

I completely agree about public gullibility. And I agree the public has bought into some amateur mythicist crud. But that's what brings us back to Carrier, his level of detail and academic credentials can't be dismissed as amateur mythicist crud.

On the flip side, I could rebut that people are equally guilty of holding onto cultural beliefs, based on really flimsy evidence or utter falsehoods, simply because of their prevalence. So that works both ways.

Sorry, the Jesus myth position is a pile of self refuting garbage

Again, why bother to refute it, then? The problem folks seem not to want to admit is that the evidence for historicity comes down to scant, non-contemporary Christian writings. It's like proving Bigfoot was real via the writings of first-century Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Isn't it interesting among those that do, it is not taken seriously and the few that should know better, hide out on the web, making 'appeals to the public', instead of among the scholarly community getting their ideas peer reviewed and published?

No as surprising as you assert, considering we live in a culture that has been predominantly Christian for the last two millenia, and that most of the scholarship on the issue has been conducted in theological seminaries, where someone who held a mythicist position is guaranteed to get about the same reception y'all are gracing me with.

Perhaps you can explain why Carrier and others like him are unable to be published by publishers like Oxford Press and instead have to go to atheist publishers to get published says a lot.

Is it somehow surprising that in a roughly 80% Christian country, a book that would cause Christians discomfort would require a non-mainstream publisher? To me that seems like a no-brainer.

Welcome to the ugly side of the information age, where anybody with a crazy idea can get a web site and get their book published by some fringe group.

Completely agree, but at the end of the day, the evidence and sound conclusions are what matter. I'm quite happy Ehrman's book was published, because now a much wider audience has learned that the evidence for Jesus is not what they believed it was.



@Phoenix -

Apologist simply means a defender of a position, any position.

Yes. And a religious apologist starts from the vantage point that his religion is true. Therefore, there are no circumstances under which a Christian apologist will cede that a core tenet of Christianity is a fabrication. So why all the hullaballoo? Would folks be obsessing on that statement if I said an atheist apologist starts from the conclusion that God is imaginary, and constructs arguments to bolster his conclusion? If I said, "it's not surprising on a Mormon Apologetics forum, to find people defending the reality of the golden plates," is that somehow offensive, or inaccurate? Seems a bizarre point for folks to go into attack mode over... at least in a venue where I expected people would be tolerant of academic discourse, whatever their personal beliefs.

Could you demonstrate that we arbitrarily choose Ehrman?

Do we really want to get into a game of "my guy's PhD's are better than your guy's PhD's?" I was referring to you dismissing Carrier simply because Ehrman says so, as if his opinion is the be-all and end-all of the matter. Ehrman certainly has great credentials, but it's not like his personal opinion of dissenting scholarship automagically makes it the final say.

If one side however has the scholary consensus behind them, that's a different matter. In this case, it's Ehrman.

Most things we now take for granted about Christianity were once a fringe position, e.g. the idea that Jesus was not actually born on December 25 of 1 A.D. Of course, the idea that Jesus may not have even been a real person is an especially bold propostion, so a scholar really has to put his reputation on the line to advocate for it. It's only in our recent climate of relative glasnost that there's even a willingess to discuss it.

I wonder if the same leeway would be granted by PZ if we did the same with evolution. "It doesn't matter if all of the scientific community finds evolution true. So what? We'll go with ID anyway."

It still comes back to the evidence. If the volume and caliber of evidence for historical Jesus was anything like the volume and caliber of evidence for evolution, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Which answers your next question:

Upon what basis do you say Ehrman is unjustified in his certainty that Jesus existed?

He pretty much admits that extrabiblical evidence is worthless, and makes a case solely on inferences from readings of the NT, relying heavily on Pauline epistles. At this point I'm going to introduce my Clark Analogy:

If we found some letters where a guy says who knows someone who knows a guy named Clark, you'd think Clark is a real person, without much further thought.

If we found some letters from a guy who knows someone whos knows a guy named Clark Kent, who could fly and zap enemies with his laser vision, you'd rightly wonder if Clark was merely a figment of someone's imagination.

If we found letters from five people who mention Clark Kent, who could zap enemies with his laser eyes, and they were all part of the same Superman fan club, you'd still start from a position of incredulity, even though it's five people! Why? Because of the supernatural claims, and the fact they're acquainted and can share a group delusion.

Ehrman approaches Jesus through the Historical Method for Ordinary Humans, and argues that by the same measures we know about Julius Caesar, we know about Jesus, even though the evidence is scant. But he doesn't account for his sources having been written by fanatical authors, who were advancing a religion. He evaluates the writings about Clark Kent the same way he'd evaluate writings about Clark Johnson. It's like saying Joseph Smith was talking about his kitchen plates rather than magical golden plates with a non-existent language.

What he has is a pair of jacks, but he sells it as a royal flush. For the sake of balance, crack mythicists do the same thing - they present what are merely "plausible alternatives" (to explain the origins of Christianity) as if they were determinate conclusions. Lots of hype all around.

"He's going to argue in favor of Jesus's historicity by necessity." Could it be he does so because he finds the evidence conclusive and strangely enough, for a position he holds, he wants to defend that position? Perish the thought!

It goes without saying he can and should advocate for his position. But it also goes without saying that his conclusion is fixed and no amount of evidence or argument will change it. That's the nature of religious apologetics - they're presuppositional. Faith is in the equation. Would you seriously argue otherwise?

So to the point - "it's not surprising that a presuppositional apologist would argue against mythicism." Why is this so controversial? It seems self-evident to me. Meanwhile, in other venues, it's not quite the foregone conclusion it is here. Check out the book reviews on the major booksellers - quite a wide range of opinion, for something that's so "obvious" that only "crackpots" would dare refute it.

Wow. Another statement wrong. Mark and Luke were never seen as apostles...

Yes, we're typing our off-the-cuff thoughts on a weblog, not publishing work for editorial review. Apostle, Evangelist. Mistakes will be made, and I'm sure you get the gist of the statement.



Best regards to you both.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes. And a religious apologist starts from the vantage point that his religion is true.

I believe you mean premise. Yes. I believe my religion is true. Carrier believes his position is true and he starts with that as his premise. So what? Same situation.

Therefore, there are no circumstances under which a Christian apologist will cede that a core tenet of Christianity is a fabrication.

Since Carrier comes believing his position is true, there is no circumstance under which he will cede that Jesus exists. Same situation.

Furthermore, I'll guarantee it, that if you can show Jesus did not rise, I will abandon my Christianity immediately.

[QUOTE} So why all the hullaballoo? Would folks be obsessing on that statement if I said an atheist apologist starts from the conclusion that God is imaginary, and constructs arguments to bolster his conclusion? [/QUOTE}

Yep.

If I said, "it's not surprising on a Mormon Apologetics forum, to find people defending the reality of the golden plates," is that somehow offensive, or inaccurate? Seems a bizarre point for folks to go into attack mode over... at least in a venue where I expected people would be tolerant of academic discourse, whatever their personal beliefs.

No. It's something to automatically play the bias card however. I expect Mormons to defend them. I want them to in fact.

Do we really want to get into a game of "my guy's PhD's are better than your guy's PhD's?" I was referring to you dismissing Carrier simply because Ehrman says so, as if his opinion is the be-all and end-all of the matter. Ehrman certainly has great credentials, but it's not like his personal opinion of dissenting scholarship automagically makes it the final say.

And in all of this, no demonstration that we arbitrarily chose Ehrman.

Most things we now take for granted about Christianity were once a fringe position, e.g. the idea that Jesus was not actually born on December 25 of 1 A.D.

Really? When was that the fringe position? Furthermore, do you even know the reason for the belief that he was born on December 25th?

Of course, the idea that Jesus may not have even been a real person is an especially bold propostion, so a scholar really has to put his reputation on the line to advocate for it. It's only in our recent climate of relative glasnost that there's even a willingess to discuss it.

No. That idea goes back a number of centuries in fact. It's nothing new. What has allowed for it is general ignorance.

It still comes back to the evidence. If the volume and caliber of evidence for historical Jesus was anything like the volume and caliber of evidence for evolution, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Which answers your next question:

Obviously, the evidence isn't that good for evolution since so many people disagree. Do you want to go down that road?

He pretty much admits that extrabiblical evidence is worthless, and makes a case solely on inferences from readings of the NT, relying heavily on Pauline epistles. At this point I'm going to introduce my Clark Analogy:

First off, show where he says it's worthless. Second, why should the Pauline references be discounted?

If we found some letters where a guy says who knows someone who knows a guy named Clark, you'd think Clark is a real person, without much further thought.

Correct.

If we found some letters from a guy who knows someone whos knows a guy named Clark Kent, who could fly and zap enemies with his laser vision, you'd rightly wonder if Clark was merely a figment of someone's imagination.

If we found letters from five people who mention Clark Kent, who could zap enemies with his laser eyes, and they were all part of the same Superman fan club, you'd still start from a position of incredulity, even though it's five people! Why? Because of the supernatural claims, and the fact they're acquainted and can share a group delusion.

I don't have a natural/supernatural distinction. I'd have the same requirement. Show me the evidence. Alexander the Great is said to have conquered the world. Can you show me the evidence of the existence of a man who conquered the world in his 30's. By the way, I believe it's also said he was born of a virgin. Sure sounds like a myth to me.

Note also your problem assumes only written testimony and not oral testimony from a community where the events were well known and could be checked for accuracy in a society with highly trained memories as well as that Jesus does not exist in a vacuum but is in direct continuity with the Old Testament before Him.

Ehrman approaches Jesus through the Historical Method for Ordinary Humans, and argues that by the same measures we know about Julius Caesar, we know about Jesus, even though the evidence is scant. But he doesn't account for his sources having been written by fanatical authors, who were advancing a religion. He evaluates the writings about Clark Kent the same way he'd evaluate writings about Clark Johnson. It's like saying Joseph Smith was talking about his kitchen plates rather than magical golden plates with a non-existent language.

Ah. I see. You like to use double standards. Thanks for letting us know. Personally, I don't care if you don't believe in the miracle-working SOn of God right now. Neither does Ehrman. I just care that you realize that Christianity wasn't built entirely around a man the general populace would know never even existed.

What he has is a pair of jacks, but he sells it as a royal flush. For the sake of balance, crack mythicists do the same thing - they present what are merely "plausible alternatives" (to explain the origins of Christianity) as if they were determinate conclusions. Lots of hype all around.

Do name a plausible alternative. It'll be fun.

It goes without saying he can and should advocate for his position. But it also goes without saying that his conclusion is fixed and no amount of evidence or argument will change it. That's the nature of religious apologetics - they're presuppositional. Faith is in the equation. Would you seriously argue otherwise?

Yes I would. If you saw my section of Deeper Waters, you'd in fact know I've written much against presuppositionalism. Once again, I could say the same for atheist apologetics. Why should it be seen that Carrier is open and JPH isn't just because JPH is "religious."?

So to the point - "it's not surprising that a presuppositional apologist would argue against mythicism." Why is this so controversial? It seems self-evident to me. Meanwhile, in other venues, it's not quite the foregone conclusion it is here. Check out the book reviews on the major booksellers - quite a wide range of opinion, for something that's so "obvious" that only "crackpots" would dare refute it.

Yes. The reviews. How many written by scholars? Furthermore, do you even know what presuppositionalism is?

Yes, we're typing our off-the-cuff thoughts on a weblog, not publishing work for editorial review. Apostle, Evangelist. Mistakes will be made, and I'm sure you get the gist of the statement.

Mistakes are made more often by those who are misinformed.



Best regards to you both.[/QUOTE]

[lilpixieofterror]

I completely agree about public gullibility. And I agree the public has bought into some amateur mythicist crud. But that's what brings us back to Carrier, his level of detail and academic credentials can't be dismissed as amateur mythicist crud.

Snake oil salesmen usually look very good if you don't look too much at their claims. He really should know better and the fact he holds to such a position that is contrary to reason and logic does make me wonder if he paid attention in his course work.

On the flip side, I could rebut that people are equally guilty of holding onto cultural beliefs, based on really flimsy evidence or utter falsehoods, simply because of their prevalence. So that works both ways.

And it appears you still haven't read the links I gave you. It's ok, I know Carrier doesn't like mainstream scholarship and it appears you do not either. It is just too bad that while Jesus is regarded as an historical figure by non-Christian scholars, they seem to pretty much ignore the Jesus myth theory. Hummm... I wonder why...

Again, why bother to refute it, then? The problem folks seem not to want to admit is that the evidence for historicity comes down to scant, non-contemporary Christian writings. It's like proving Bigfoot was real via the writings of first-century Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Awe, the old fundy atheist canard of:

"If you don't answer me, it is because you can't, but if you answer me, it must be cause you are 'threatened' by what I say."

I love the whole heads I win and tails you lose game that many skeptics try to play. Second, you really are trying that stale 'contemporary' writings card. I hate to burst your bubble, but almost all of the information we have for figures like Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Nero, etc is from later sources! I guess we must throw all of history out the window just keep your skepticism, eh? I'm sorry, there is a reason I treat the Jesus myth theory with such contempt and it is because it is a bunk theory that simply picks and chooses where to be skeptical and where not to be.

No as surprising as you assert, considering we live in a culture that has been predominantly Christian for the last two millenia, and that most of the scholarship on the issue has been conducted in theological seminaries, where someone who held a mythicist position is guaranteed to get about the same reception y'all are gracing me with.

Awe, the "WAAA!!! YOU ARE ALL BIAS!" canard. Too bad our culture now isn't as accepting of Christianity as it was before and the fact that traditional Christian views are being attacked on all sides is an indication of that. Sorry, but the 19th century has quite a bit of Jesus myth idiots out there and the Jesus myth theory seems to have it's roots in the French Revolution. It went on for awhile and became rather popular, but by the beginning of the 20th century, it was burred in the scholarly community once and for all and only seems to exist by a hand full of radicals that seem to hide out on the internet these days that can't get published by actual publishers (many of which, also publish atheist writers that are critical of Christianity themselves). Hey though, if you want to keep playing that victim mentality card rather then debating the facts and just ignore the links I gave you, go ahead. It doesn't make you look good though for I love James Hannam's closing comments on one of his articles I linked you too where he says:

In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did.
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

Who should I believe though, a person who is a history grad, who has one prizes for his work or a skeptic that has a blog and isn't taken seriously outside of his fringe community? Decisions decisions....

Is it somehow surprising that in a roughly 80% Christian country, a book that would cause Christians discomfort would require a non-mainstream publisher? To me that seems like a no-brainer.

It is too bad that many anti-Christian works HAVE been published by mainstream publishers, so do you want to try this again or is throwing up the 'DUH! THEY ARE BIAS!" canard over and over again, all you can produce?

Completely agree, but at the end of the day, the evidence and sound conclusions are what matter. I'm quite happy Ehrman's book was published, because now a much wider audience has learned that the evidence for Jesus is not what they believed it was.

Sorry buddy, but Ehrman reject the Jesus myth and he gets rather upset when Jesus mythers misquote his books and try to make him seem like a Jesus myther. I would figure that he wrote his book specifically against those people that he claims are misquoting his work. Hey though, if you want to keep defending the undefendable, go ahead.

[Indy]

While this is a fun topic, the historicist/mythicist debate has this funny way of going back and forth endlessly. And, I'm outnumbered. So, one more post for me; only so much time to invest in it.

@Twilight - sorry, I don't see someone engaging in apologetics for their own personal faith as "apologetics" for other positions, which is why we usually reserve the term uniquely for religious apologetics. There's a level of personal investiture. We'll have to disagree there. I certainly didn't intend it in a demeaning way toward anyone.

As for Carrier, I take him at his word that he came into the field with the initial belief that Jesus was probably a real person, but no vested interest either way. (Similar to myself.) If you don't, you're entitled, but then you'd have a hard time convincing me you've given him a fair reading.

@Twilight - if we're not arbitrarily choosing who is and isn't authoritative, than come up with a better refutation of Carrier's thesis than "Ehrman says Carrier is discredited." Do you not see what you've done there? It would be the same as trying to discredit a global warming critic simply by saying "Michael Mann says that guy's a crank." It's a lousy argument.

Beyond that, we'd get into a long face-off over credentials and bias, along the lines of "Carrier never worked in academia, and Ehrman has." "So? Because Ehrman has a career in academia, he has institutional bias," and so on, ad nauseum.


@Twilight - you seem to have a thing for intiating tit-for-tats over minutia, seemingly for red herrings. December 25 - do you want to go with Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, Polycarp...? How much time do we have? Here's the point: the things we now consider consensus were at one time considered "fringe." Every deviation from what was the accepted Christian view starts somewhere. Pick a different example if it suits you.


@Twilight - yes, today's proponents are certainly not the first. But there is clearly a new openness of skepticism, that would not have happened during the World Wars / Cold War era. Do you believe that if a qualified academic had doubts about Historical Jesus, he could have gotten any audience at all in the anti-Communist 50's? The Moral Majority 80's? On one hand, the web allows for a lot of crackpots, but on the other hand, it has brought a whole wave of open inquiry that was kept under wraps out into the open. We like academic freedom, right?

@Twilight - please, let's not even begin to compare the case for evolution to the case for historical Jesus. Do we really want to draw a comparison between millions of fossils, radiometric dating, DNA analysis, the geologic column, molecular biology, vestigial structures, pseudogenes, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria vs. a small sampling of letters written by unknown religious fanatics, about someone they never met, decades after that person supposedly lived? (I don't mean "fanatics" in an offensive sense, I mean it academically.)

@Twilight, per Ehrman: "It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day... Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate. It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line." Ehrman's words, and a preface to the argument made solely from the NT.

@Twilight, Alexander is mentioned in thousands of documents, has momuments in his honor, records from conquered Egyptians, his likeness on coins, the Maccabees... if ONLY we had ANYTHING like that in the case of Jesus, there would be no question. (I apologize that I don't follow your comment about oral tradition.)

@Twilight, how is affording higher scrutiny to people making claims of supernatural phenomena a "double standard?" It seems to me that in matters that don't involve one's own religion, it would simply be "common sense." Not all claims are equal. I tell you I have a brother Dave, you have little reason to doubt me. I tell you I won Powerball five times, and you approach it with doubt. I tell you I know a guy who walked on water and rose from the dead, you think I might be nuts, and probably think there was no such person in reality, miracles or not. Common sense in any other context.

@Twilight, I'm not claiming the populace would know this person never existed, that's a straw man, and is absurd. It only takes one person to convince others that the messiah came, was crucified, and disappeared. That person may even have convinced himself. From there, exponentiation. Seems like a long shot? The LDS has grown to 14 million in 150 years, and its origin was Joseph Smith's lone word that he was visited by an angel who gave him some plates that no one else ever saw. And this was in what we consider "modern times." (Mormon apologists, anyone?)


@Pixie - I assure you Carrier did his course work. How hasty we are to write him off, eh? Do we think UC Berkeley and Columbia hand out advanced degrees in Ancient History to people who haven't paid their dues? (@Twilight, this is what I mean by "arbitrary." "I don't agree with him, therefore, he's unqualified.") Your later comment about "history grads vs. skeptics with blogs" comment tells me that you're not even aware of what Carrier's credentials are. You simply have a stereotype about mythicists.

@Pixie - as to Hannibal, et al, the "non-contemporary" matters in all cases. But in the case of Hannibal, we have mounds of evidence that we don't have for Jesus. Do we have writings from mutiple independent populations conquered by Jesus and his armies? (Refer to Alexander comment above.) For as much as historicists complain about the echo-chamber arguments of mythicists, that's a pretty blatant echo-chamber argument amongst the historicist crowd, and a really weak one. "Self-refuting", to borrow your word.

@Pixie - as to mainstream vs. secondary publishers, you're still positing an argument from popularity. So, what about the evidence?

Parting thought: Ehrman discusses in Jesus, Interrupted how he traveled to parts of Scandinavia where the general populace believe Jesus is a fabricated figure. What do we suppose this tells us? Do we think that populations of Swedes have formed this opinion because of a bunch of Internet Conspiracy Theorists, in denial of the supposedly strong historical case for Jesus? I find that rather doubtful. The evidence is the same here as it is in Sweden, yet we have different prevailing beliefs. Answer: our cultural traditions influence our beliefs a lot more than we think, even when we're trying to be academic and impartial.

Off to bed, gotta work and take care of kids tomorrow. Best regards.

[lilpixieofterror]

@Pixie - I assure you Carrier did his course work. How hasty we are to write him off, eh? Do we think UC Berkeley and Columbia hand out advanced degrees in Ancient History to people who haven't paid their dues? (@Twilight, this is what I mean by "arbitrary." "I don't agree with him, therefore, he's unqualified.") Your later comment about "history grads vs. skeptics with blogs" comment tells me that you're not even aware of what Carrier's credentials are. You simply have a stereotype about mythicists.

Considering how his theory is mocked and rejected by atheist and Christian alike, I wonder how much he actually paid attention. Anyway, I'm well aware that Carrier is one of the few Jesus Mythers that actually has a relevant degree. It's too bad that he is on the scholarship fringe with his theory and basically is the AiG of the historical community. Sorry, but there is a reason even many skeptics find the mythicists position laughable.

@Pixie - as to Hannibal, et al, the "non-contemporary" matters in all cases. But in the case of Hannibal, we have mounds of evidence that we don't have for Jesus. Do we have writings from mutiple independent populations conquered by Jesus and his armies? (Refer to Alexander comment above.) For as much as historicists complain about the echo-chamber arguments of mythicists, that's a pretty blatant echo-chamber argument amongst the historicist crowd, and a really weak one. "Self-refuting", to borrow your word.

Wrong because again, you didn't read the article and links I gave you and just repeating what you heard without question, huh? Here is what James Hamman says about the evidence for Hannibal:

In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the sceptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colourful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists).
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

Of course, it is designed to mock because the Jesus myth is a mockery of history that just makes up it own standards now you're rant about Alexander really shows your ignorance cause it is funny really, the fact that Christianity exist and nobody from the time period rejects that a real man named Jesus existed and at least was said to have done some of the things Christians believe he did doesn't count as evidence against your bunk theory, but the same evidence that you present about Alexander's existence suddenly counts as evidence! This is one of the funny things about Jesus mythers, their theory is total bunk and uses special pleading to make it's case. Maybe somebody centuries later made up this legendary character they called 'Alexander' and simply attributed conquest to this character. It is really amazing to watch Jesus mythers inconsistently apply their own standards and being blissfully unaware of when they do this. Sorry dear, but Jesus, Christians, and Romans all continue to mention a man named Jesus really existed and was the founder of the Christian religion and exactly zero evidence exist that shows otherwise. There's a reason your hero is a laugh stock among the scholarly world and is only taken seriously by no-nothings like you.

@Pixie - as to mainstream vs. secondary publishers, you're still positing an argument from popularity. So, what about the evidence?

Wow, you don't even know what the argument from popularity is, do you? See, an appeal to popularity would be something like, "DUH! Christianity is the world's largest religion, so it must be true!" while pointing out that Carrier and his band is a laughing stock among his peers isn't since they are valid authorities to appeal to. Really, did you take the same school of debate that many other Jesus mythers do? Making silly mistakes like this shows that you must have.

Parting thought: Ehrman discusses in Jesus, Interrupted how he traveled to parts of Scandinavia where the general populace believe Jesus is a fabricated figure. What do we suppose this tells us? Do we think that populations of Swedes have formed this opinion because of a bunch of Internet Conspiracy Theorists, in denial of the supposedly strong historical case for Jesus? I find that rather doubtful. The evidence is the same here as it is in Sweden, yet we have different prevailing beliefs. Answer: our cultural traditions influence our beliefs a lot more than we think, even when we're trying to be academic and impartial.

And are these people in Sweden historians who are trained in these matters or is their opinion in these matters as worthless as yours seems to be? It is funny that you attack me for a fallacy and yet you seem blissfully aware of your appeal to popularity that you're trying to use here. Then again, I know Jesus mythers are not the brightest people in the world and fail to see, over and over again, how inconsistent their standards really are. Anyway, perhaps you can explain why agnostics like Robert Van Voost or Bart Ehrman and why atheist like Michael Grant and skeptics like Rudolf Bultmann or Will Durant think the Jesus myth is bunk. Gosh, who should I believe, a collection of nobodies from Sweden that are non-historians and who's opinions and beliefs mean next to nothing on this topic or real historians that find your theory is all bunk? Humm... decisions decisions...

[Indy]

Ugh... too much bad logic to ignore...

Sorry, but there is a reason even many skeptics find the mythicists position laughable.

Still arguing that the mainstream position is correct because it's the mainstream position.

Here is what James Hamman says about the evidence for Hannibal:

Cherry-picking a single friendly source? Agreed that the archaeology on Hannibal is scant, no need to contest that. But we have detailed histories of the Punic Wars by Polybius and Livy. Are you seriously going to argue we'd debate Jesus's existence if Greek historians recorded the paths of his armies, and the impacts of his armies on European history could be verified in countless ways? Please, let's use our heads - that argument ranks up there with the worst of the crackpot mythicist arguments about Mithras.

Wow, you don't even know what the argument from popularity is, do you?

I think you're missing that major publishers are going to publish the books that will sell the most. Mythicism is not popular reading. Hence, you have a variant of an argument from popularity: because mainstream scholarship sells more books, it is correct.

Really, did you take the same school of debate that many other Jesus mythers do?

Well, for one, I don't have to keep falling back on insults.

And are these people in Sweden historians who are trained in these matters or is their opinion in these matters as worthless as yours seems to be? It is funny that you attack me for a fallacy and yet you seem blissfully aware of your appeal to popularity that you're trying to use here.

Again, falling back on insults. No worries, it's just a sign of desperation. No, Sweden is not an argument from popularity - how can discussion of a small population amongst the entire Western World be an argument from popularity? Think. No, it's an argument about cultural context, if you go back and read more carefully. You red-herringed that very nicely. {Insert Reciprocal Snarky Comment about your debate skills here.}

As for the authors you mention, they defend their own positions rather nicely, there's little need for me to repeat it for them. Their opinions are not contested.

Off to work... with one note. I did learn something here: I honestly had no idea that a self-identified apologist would take issue with my statements about the nature of apology. I wrongly assumed both an atheist and a religious apologist would agree on the definition of apologetics as presupposition. But I do see now how that could be taken as discrediting.