Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 12:38 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 11:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's up to defining evidence.

Here's a good definition of evidence:

"In any event, the concept of evidence is inseparable from that of justification. When we talk of ‘evidence’ in an epistemological sense we are talking about justification: one thing is ‘evidence’ for another just in case the first tends to enhance the reasonableness or justification of the second.… A strictly nonnormative concept of evidence is not our concept of evidence; it is something that we do not understand."
-—Jaegwon Kim, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology


Quote:I heard anecdotally that the moon is made of bbq spare ribs, should I take inferences from this and treat it as evidence of the moons composition? Or should I consider it not evidence because it didn't fit any criteria for what evidence is.

What reasonable conclusion can be drawn from hearing folks talk about the moon being made from BBQ spare ribs? One, that they were probably just joking?

In fact I think it's reasonable to conclude that you never actually heard this anecdote before, and just made it up, to use as an example.

If we can draw a reasonable conclusions from NT sources, and materials, than they would constitute as evidence. I should state that Chas believes that reasonable conclusions (which he refers to as opinions) can be drawn from "no evidence", he didn't particularly elaborate on how you could form reasonable conclusions without evidence though.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 12:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 11:52 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That's up to defining evidence.

Here's a good definition of evidence:

"In any event, the concept of evidence is inseparable from that of justification. When we talk of ‘evidence’ in an epistemological sense we are talking about justification: one thing is ‘evidence’ for another just in case the first tends to enhance the reasonableness or justification of the second.… A strictly nonnormative concept of evidence is not our concept of evidence; it is something that we do not understand."
-—Jaegwon Kim, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology


Quote:I heard anecdotally that the moon is made of bbq spare ribs, should I take inferences from this and treat it as evidence of the moons composition? Or should I consider it not evidence because it didn't fit any criteria for what evidence is.

What reasonable conclusion can be drawn from hearing folks talk about the moon being made from BBQ spare ribs? One, that they were probably just joking.

In fact I think it's reasonable to conclude that you never actually heard this anecdote before, and just made it up, to use as an example.

If we can draw a reasonable conclusions from NT sources, and materials, than they would constitute as evidence. I should state that Chas believes that reasonable conclusions (which he refers to as opinions) can be drawn from "no evidence", he didn't particularly elaborate on how you could form reasonable conclusions without evidence though.

... just no.. no logic to, here is a good definition of X... then you give a generic quote. That in no way is ever a good DEFINITION. Something by which the whole point is exactness.

Next you're going to be saying, I have a "good definition" of Insanity and give that trotted out Einstein quote.

No I didn't make it up, I based it off the Harry Caray Will Farrell sketch from SNL.

But you bring up more labeling terms that you would have to define. What is your standard for what is/isn't a reasonable conclusion? There you have another thing, If you actually cared about attempting as strict accuracy as you can seek, you would have to define just like evidence.

The point of the method is to label out and define things to as exact detail as possible with as little assumptions and a priory influenced conclusions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 12:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 12:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Here's a good definition of evidence:

"In any event, the concept of evidence is inseparable from that of justification. When we talk of ‘evidence’ in an epistemological sense we are talking about justification: one thing is ‘evidence’ for another just in case the first tends to enhance the reasonableness or justification of the second.… A strictly nonnormative concept of evidence is not our concept of evidence; it is something that we do not understand."
-—Jaegwon Kim, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology



What reasonable conclusion can be drawn from hearing folks talk about the moon being made from BBQ spare ribs? One, that they were probably just joking.

In fact I think it's reasonable to conclude that you never actually heard this anecdote before, and just made it up, to use as an example.

If we can draw a reasonable conclusions from NT sources, and materials, than they would constitute as evidence. I should state that Chas believes that reasonable conclusions (which he refers to as opinions) can be drawn from "no evidence", he didn't particularly elaborate on how you could form reasonable conclusions without evidence though.

... just no.. no logic to, here is a good definition of X... then you give a generic quote. That in no way is ever a good DEFINITION. Something by which the whole point is exactness.

Next you're going to be saying, I have a "good definition" of Insanity and give that trotted out Einstein quote.

Perhaps you'll agree with this view then:

"And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult."
—R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History"

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 12:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 12:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ... just no.. no logic to, here is a good definition of X... then you give a generic quote. That in no way is ever a good DEFINITION. Something by which the whole point is exactness.

Next you're going to be saying, I have a "good definition" of Insanity and give that trotted out Einstein quote.

Perhaps you'll agree with this view then:

"And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult."
—R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History"

No, evidence is more than opinion. It is testable, falsifiable, and logically connected to the conclusion drawn from it (which should be the most likely conclusion one could draw).

You don't understand the burden of proof. Here, go to the thread below and show us evidence of nonexistence.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oof--34780

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
20-10-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.
My argument is that it is highly unlikely for people to have remembered any of the words Yeshua supposedly spoke. Primarily based on the premise that they were spoken in a once off and hence people didn't get the opportunity to learn them.
They weren't written down until over a decade later and not by any eye witnesses and not verified by the source or by any eye witnesses.
In my opinion anything recorded second hand over a decade later is worthless and highly unlikely to resemble anything spoken at the original event.

I understand your opinion that in the special case of Yeshua, people remembered his words exactly and they didn't get distorted.
I think this explanation of yours is highly un-credible.
So we can both agree to disagree on this.

(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions.
Religious folk often start with conclusions and the work their way backwards to massage data so that it somehow fits the conclusions that they want.
My approach is to look at the data, analyse it, come up with some conclusions, come up with some alternatives, document my assumptions, attempt to resolve my assumptions, search for ways to objectively assess the likelihood of competing conclusions.

Your conclusion that Jesus was real is not based on any supporting evidence. Certainly he cannot be godly or magical so that version of Jesus (what is seen as the defining characteristics of Jesus) cannot possibly exist.
So if JC isn't godly or magical and if his Parables and stories weren't recorded, then it is quite irrelevant if there was a Jewish sect leader that was put to death. This person wasn't Jesus and we know nothing of what this person did or said. He was irrelevant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-10-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 05:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My argument is that it is highly unlikely for people to have remembered any of the words Yeshua supposedly spoke. Primarily based on the premise that they were spoken in a once off and hence people didn't get the opportunity to learn them.
They weren't written down until over a decade later and not by any eye witnesses and not verified by the source or by any eye witnesses.

In my opinion anything recorded second hand over a decade later is worthless and highly unlikely to resemble anything spoken at the original event.

It’s only highly unlikely if the analogy is to Chinese Whispers, not highly unlikely in consideration of human capacities for rote memorizations, like I said we have Children who can memorize the entire Quran through rote memorization.

Now, while you claim this method is highly unreliable, the fact of the matter is the degree of homogeny here doesn’t bare out this conclusion. The unreliability of result of Chinese Whispers is gauged by the variety of distorted renderings. But the reliability of rote memorization incorporated here didn’t have the same result, but rather a great deal of uniformity. If you thought the outcome was unlikely, you can’t particularly dispute the outcome. We don’t find the degree of distortions you expected, like the expected results of a game of Chinese whispers. The Gospels written across a variety of different communities, passed along orally, and even written form, was hand written, requiring multiples people copying copies of copies, etc… Yet the great degree of uniformity is what we see, not a great degree of distortions. That’s testament to the efficiency here, not the unreliability

Quote:My approach is to look at the data, analyse it, come up with some conclusions, come up with some alternatives, document my assumptions, attempt to resolve my assumptions, search for ways to objectively assess the likelihood of competing conclusions.

You don’t offer more reasonable conclusions, you primarily comment on the basis on which those conclusions are drawn. And put boxes around it, insinuating that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them, because they fall in the category of “no evidence” for you. You’re just a disputing party, not a party attempting to affirm any conclusions of you own. You don’t asses the likelihood of competing conclusions, you just suggest that such conclusion can not be drawn from the sources. You don’t even defend or affirm a competing conclusion, that you think is most likely. You prefer not to be in such a position at all.

Quote:Your conclusion that Jesus was real is not based on any supporting evidence. Certainly he cannot be godly or magical so that version of Jesus (what is seen as the defining characteristics of Jesus) cannot possibly exist.
So if JC isn't godly or magical and if his Parables and stories weren't recorded, then it is quite irrelevant if there was a Jewish sect leader that was put to death. This person wasn't Jesus and we know nothing of what this person did or said. He was irrelevant.

I’ve only argued for a secular historical explanation, like Ehrman’s. No beliefs in Jesus being God, or performing magic required. And that these explanations are more likely than one which involve a purely fictional, mythicist version of Jesus.

Now you might be only interested in the magical bits, and a non-wonder working Jesus of history, might not be a topic you’re interested in. But hey that’s just you, saying you don’t care too much about historicity.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2015 08:28 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My argument is that it is highly unlikely for people to have remembered any of the words Yeshua supposedly spoke. Primarily based on the premise that they were spoken in a once off and hence people didn't get the opportunity to learn them.
They weren't written down until over a decade later and not by any eye witnesses and not verified by the source or by any eye witnesses.

In my opinion anything recorded second hand over a decade later is worthless and highly unlikely to resemble anything spoken at the original event.

It’s only highly unlikely if the analogy is to Chinese Whispers, not highly unlikely in consideration of human capacities for rote memorizations, like I said we have Children who can memorize the entire Quran through rote memorization.

Now, while you claim this method is highly unreliable, the fact of the matter is the degree of homogeny here doesn’t bare out this conclusion. The unreliability of result of Chinese Whispers is gauged by the variety of distorted renderings. But the reliability of rote memorization incorporated here didn’t have the same result, but rather a great deal of uniformity. If you thought the outcome was unlikely, you can’t particularly dispute the outcome. We don’t find the degree of distortions you expected, like the expected results of a game of Chinese whispers. The Gospels written across a variety of different communities, passed along orally, and even written form, was hand written, requiring multiples people copying copies of copies, etc… Yet the great degree of uniformity is what we see, not a great degree of distortions. That’s testament to the efficiency here, not the unreliability

Quote:My approach is to look at the data, analyse it, come up with some conclusions, come up with some alternatives, document my assumptions, attempt to resolve my assumptions, search for ways to objectively assess the likelihood of competing conclusions.

You don’t offer more reasonable conclusions, you primarily comment on the basis on which those conclusions are drawn. And put boxes around it, insinuating that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them, because they fall in the category of “no evidence” for you. You’re just a disputing party, not a party attempting to affirm any conclusions of you own. You don’t asses the likelihood of competing conclusions, you just suggest that such conclusion can not be drawn from the sources. You don’t even defend or affirm a competing conclusion, that you think is most likely. You prefer not to be in such a position at all.

Quote:Your conclusion that Jesus was real is not based on any supporting evidence. Certainly he cannot be godly or magical so that version of Jesus (what is seen as the defining characteristics of Jesus) cannot possibly exist.
So if JC isn't godly or magical and if his Parables and stories weren't recorded, then it is quite irrelevant if there was a Jewish sect leader that was put to death. This person wasn't Jesus and we know nothing of what this person did or said. He was irrelevant.

I’ve only argued for a secular historical explanation, like Ehrman’s. No beliefs in Jesus being God, or performing magic required. And that these explanations are more likely than one which involve a purely fictional, mythicist version of Jesus.

Now you might be only interested in the magical bits, and a non-wonder working Jesus of history, might not be a topic you’re interested in. But hey that’s just you, saying you don’t care too much about historicity.

But is 1 particular person that said a bunch of the quoted lines required?

What do we know was spoken out and spread around orally like myths, lore, poems, etc. typically are? Do we have any account of that via like those random NT writings like Pauls stuff or the other book? I always see them talking about the possible Q source as a text, yet not like they consider these sayings were likely kept around through cultural oration in that manner pre-writing of the gospels.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 08:25 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But is 1 particular person that said a bunch of the quoted lines required?

Like an amalgamation of variety of sayings from different historical figures at the time? Like the writers plagiarized the sayings of other cult leaders or historical figures and communities at the time.

That would be hard sell, considering the presuppositions that would imply, such as:

That there were a variety of folks going around incorporating the same style, of parables and saying associated with Jesus, with it's use of irony, and frustrations of expectations, and themes.

That the leaders of these early communities were keeping tabs on these obscure communities, to incorporate a variety of sayings that incorporate the same thematic and style of their founder, into there's. All these communities belonged to heretical sects, hence why don’t see their saying and parables in the main strains of judaism.

While not impossible, is still unlikely. Add to that there no sources to draw such an inference from, not ever remotely.

We have a variety of preserved writings of jewish sects of the time, none of them particularly support the amalgamation hypothesis, though some stretch Essenes writings to argue for their influence, even though none of the parables and sayings are in their writings at all. We also have many instances in which the writers of a particular Gospel, add some element of their own, like the stoning of the adulterous, but even if these instances they particularly plagiarized these elements from stories ascribed to other individuals.

The likelihood that we’re dealing with 1 particular historical person, is far greater than likelihood that he’s an amalgamation of a variety of persons, like him. There’s no polarity between the parables and sayings, they incorporate the same stylistic features, use of similar metaphors and themes, ample use of irony, and frustration of exceptions. etc.. The writers using those themes incorporated elements and scenes of their own, but there’s no evidence that plagiarized any part of it from other sects at the time. The uniformity across gospels, across communities doesn’t lend it support for amalgamation either.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s only highly unlikely if the analogy is to Chinese Whispers, not highly unlikely in consideration of human capacities for rote memorizations, like I said we have Children who can memorize the entire Quran through rote memorization.
In my response to this point of yours I pointed out that the kids have the written word of the Quran to learn from and they have years to study and re-read it, where as if Yeshua did speak a sermon on the mount, he spoke it once. Are people expected to memorise it from one listening?
(21-10-2015 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And put boxes around it, insinuating that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from them
I claimed that it is reasonable to conclude that the parable (even if they were sourced from Yeshua) wouldn't resemble what Yeshua actually spoke.
I claimed it is reasonable to exclude a magical Jesus. I even stated that Jesus defining characteristics are his godly magical abilities. Take away the rising from the dead, the virgin birth, the miracles and take away the parable and stories and you don't have a "Jesus".
If your argument comes from Tacitus then all you have is an unnamed Jewish cult leader who was punished under Pilot and even then we don't know if this small item was verified by Tacitus.

It's akin to taking away the wizardry from Harry Potter, all you have is an orphan boy with spectacles who perhaps lived under a stairway. It's not really HP is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 02:06 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2015 03:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(21-10-2015 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:25 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But is 1 particular person that said a bunch of the quoted lines required?

Like an amalgamation of variety of sayings from different historical figures at the time? Like the writers plagiarized the sayings of other cult leaders or historical figures and communities at the time.

That would be hard sell, considering the presuppositions that would imply, such as:

That there were a variety of folks going around incorporating the same style, of parables and saying associated with Jesus, with it's use of irony, and frustrations of expectations, and themes.

That the leaders of these early communities were keeping tabs on these obscure communities, to incorporate a variety of sayings that incorporate the same thematic and style of their founder, into there's. All these communities belonged to heretical sects, hence why don’t see their saying and parables in the main strains of judaism.

While not impossible, is still unlikely. Add to that there no sources to draw such an inference from, not ever remotely.

We have a variety of preserved writings of jewish sects of the time, none of them particularly support the amalgamation hypothesis, though some stretch Essenes writings to argue for their influence, even though none of the parables and sayings are in their writings at all. We also have many instances in which the writers of a particular Gospel, add some element of their own, like the stoning of the adulterous, but even if these instances they particularly plagiarized these elements from stories ascribed to other individuals.

The likelihood that we’re dealing with 1 particular historical person, is far greater than likelihood that he’s an amalgamation of a variety of persons, like him. There’s no polarity between the parables and sayings, they incorporate the same stylistic features, use of similar metaphors and themes, ample use of irony, and frustration of exceptions. etc.. The writers using those themes incorporated elements and scenes of their own, but there’s no evidence that plagiarized any part of it from other sects at the time. The uniformity across gospels, across communities doesn’t lend it support for amalgamation either.

Assertion of your (uneducated) opinions are worthless. You have still yet to take on even one argument of Carrier's. Your claim about parables is false. The writers place parables in Jesus' teaching which used the same thematic material that was widely circulating.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/parable-...mples.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: