|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Hector Avalos
Professor religious studies Iowa State University. Ph.D. Hebew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University Thomas BrodiePriest. Biblical scholar. Doctorate in Theology, Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas Forced into retirement and silenced by the Vatican Richard CarrierPh.D. History, Columbia University. Numerous peer reviewed articles and a peer reviewed book on the subject Arthur DrogeProfessor Ancient and Late Antique Mediterranean and Near Eastern World at the Toronto School of Theology Raphael LatasterPh.D. University of Sydney Kurt KnollChair Religious Dept and associate professor of Judaism, Christianity, and biblical languages at Brandon University. Ph.D. Union Theological Seminary Robert PriceBiblical Scholar PH.D's in theology and New Testament Studies Drew University. Thomas L. Thompsonbiblical scholar. Ph.D. University of Tubingen, specializing in the history of Judaism from the Old Testament and New Testament era. These are the scholars I have read, Let me know if you want to know about any of them.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
This was presented earlier on this thread and was original presented almost 20 years ago.
Message 8 Kapyong writes: Greetings all, Regarding evidence for the existance of Jesus - a well-known list of early writers from Remsberg is much bandied about by sceptics. This list names a large number of early writers who lived about the time of Jesus, but who failed to mention him. Some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus. The Remsberg list is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors. So, I have updated and improved this list, taking it up to the mid 2nd century. Some of the writers listed need more details. How Likely was a mention of Jesus? The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus. Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include : * a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names) * a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events, * a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people, I have thus classified these writers into broad categories - * writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5), * writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3), * writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5), * writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0) I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated. As well as - * writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus. Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing. But, when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity. The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand. This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject. Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people. I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5. Summary of Results The results of my current classifications is: 1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.) 3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.) 31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus. (20 writers who could not be expected to. 6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.) You can see the results presented chronologically with colour and font size here: iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS PHILO Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem. Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul, Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there, he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit, he was considered a Christian by some later Christians, he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues. If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings. Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not. Weight: 5 WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS SENECA Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome. Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings. In fact, early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul. How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings? Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not. Weight: 4 PLUTARCH Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE. Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus, Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies), Plutarch wrote on moral issues, Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues. Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy - iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them. Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not. Weight: 4 JUSTUS Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century. Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him. Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 3 WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS DAMIS Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person. If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 APOLLONIUS See Damis. PLINY THE ELDER Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.) It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 JUVENAL Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century. Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.) Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 MARTIAL Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century. Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as : * Stoic suffering of discomfort and death, * virgin's blood, * Roman funerary practices, * the way accused men look in court, * Roman soldiers mocking their leaders, * anointing the body with oil, * Molorchus the good shepherd, * Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise, * the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter, This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues. He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events). Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 PETRONIUS Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE. Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including : ** a CRUCIFIXION ! ** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen, ** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision, * gods such as Bacchus and Ceres, * writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus, * books such as the Iliad, * Romans such as Cato and Pompey, * people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus, * female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers * baths, shipwrecks, meals... This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 PAUSANIAS Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century. Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece. He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5] Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 EPICTETUS Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant. Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to : * the early Christians, or * the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century. Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 AELIUS ARISTIDES Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2) If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 FRONTO Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century. According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus. Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 2 PERSIUS Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature. The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.) Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 DIO CHRYSOSTOM Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus. Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 AULUS GELLIUS Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 LUCIUS APULEIUS Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 MARCUS AURELIUS Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 MUSONIUS RUFUS C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 HIEROCLES Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 MAXIMUS of TYRE Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century. Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 1 ARRIAN Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE. The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 APPIAN Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century. It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus. But, he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people. Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 THEON of SMYRNA Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century. Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them. Theon also wrote about astronomy. If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it. Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus. An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that. The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 QUINTILIAN Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century. One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds. If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History. Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 LUCAN Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century. In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing. He: * mentions an event from 56CE, * refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent, * refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world, * refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 STATIUS Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century. Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 HERO of ALEXANDRIA Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy. If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 GEMINUS Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece. If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 ALBINUS Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 ARISTOCLES Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 APOLLODORUS Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 HEPHAESTION Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 SEXTUS EMPIRICUS Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century. Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 0.5 WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS JOSEPHUS Much has been said about Josephus, but not here. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have. TACITUS Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay. NUMENIUS In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay. SUETONIUS Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE. He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not. PHLEGON Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not. THALLUS Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading. Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not. WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS Dion Prusaeus Paterculus Ptolemy Valerius Maximus Pomponius Mela Quintus Curtus Rufus Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella Favorinus Phaedrus Babrius Silius Italicus Marcus Manilius Cleomedes Dioscorides Sextus Julius Frontinus Nicomachus of Gerasa Menelaus of Alexandria Menodotus of Nicomedia Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus Valerius Flaccus What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Thompson is known as an extreme minimalist (and was before he got into the New Testament) and Price is, I think, even more of a fringe figure.
Source? Mythicism is a fringe idea. That does not invalidate it. Your point? Why does Carrier not qualify? He writes numerous peer reviewed articles. Does he not meet your standards? Doherty is self taught, but well respected. Instead of rejecting out of hand explain why you dismiss them. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Bayesian analysis is becoming a part of modern historical scholarship. Not just Carrier. Whether you think it is bollux is irrelevant. Also, Carrier has many peer reviewed articles that do not include Bayes Theorem at all.
He is a vile human being, but a hell of a scholar.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
So as you note there aren't many.
Price is certainly a scholar, but much of his respect has dried up due to his enthusiasm for racist conspiracy theories. He comes across as a kook, pretty much full wingnut. His debate with Bart Ehrman was pretty excruciating to watch. He couldn't decide if he was attacking a mythical Jesus or the position Ehrman was actually defending, much to Ehrman's exasperation. So I don't know about respected, but yes, a scholar. Richard Carrier is a blogger with a PhD. He is mostly active within atheist circles and on the internet. His publishing record is sparse. He has never held any academic position, mostly one suspects because of his embrace of mythicism but also because of his poor scholarship. He is not a respected scholar. Any respect I might have had for him dwindled up as I saw just how terrible his arguments were and Earl Doherty holds no post-graduate degree and is simply an author. He is not a scholar. Despite this, Doherty is one of the more respected of the bunch. He has been complimented by critics for his scholarly approach and general level of effort. Not an academic though. Thompson counts as a scholar. A bit of a patchy academic career, but a scholar indeed. According to his Wiki page however;
quote: So I suppose you could say in a sense that he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus, but he seems to be a bit more on the fence than that description might imply. I don't think that makes him a mythicist. And finally, Gerd Lüdemann was not a mythicist. He had an interesting idea of what might have transpired though. This is Bart Ehrman outlining Lüdemann's hypothesis in a blog post; quote: I'm not saying I think that's exactly how it went down, but I do find that model plausible. Personally, I think that the truth was something very close to that. This is the kind of thing I mean when I talk of the historical Jesus. We'll almost certainly never know for sure, but I agree with Ehrman that this is an interesting model and worth keeping in mind. As far as that list of scholars goes though, it's not particularly prestigious. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: My point is exactly what I said, that there is a caveat on the title of “respected scholar”. And I don’t think that either Carrier or Doherty are respected to any high degree. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will take it into consideration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Theodoric writes: Bayesian analysis is becoming a part of modern historical scholarship. Not just Carrier. Whether you think it is bollux is irrelevant. Also, Carrier has many peer reviewed articles that do not include Bayes Theorem at all. I applaud the attempt to get some statistical rigour into what is predominantly educated opinion but I wasn't convinced by it. It seemed to me that he made his best guess, manufactured a probability, then factored up all the guesses. GIGO.And whether I think it's bollox is very relevant to me. I was pretty much with him on all his guesses though. Then I read someone else and changed my mind again. It's just not possible to know. He is a vile human being, but a hell of a scholar.
I've no data on that.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
PaulK writes: And I don’t think that either Carrier or Doherty are respected to any high degree. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will take it into consideration. They have reached conclusions - based on good scholarship - that the majority of other scholars disagree with. It's a unique situation where almost 100% of the scholars working in the field of historicity of the bible are also religious believers in the bible. They are obliged by their religious belief to believe that Jesus was a real person. Not only would they lose their faith if they found otherwise they would also lose their jobs. There's nothing wrong with the dissenters' work. It's not like science vs creationism; there is no science done in creationism so it can't be respected. Here you've got people doing real scholarship, having it peer reviewed and published but are total outsiders in the field. You can't dismiss good work just because you disagree with it. That ain't being objective.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The issue isn’t about their work - although I doubt that it is quite as good as you think - the issue is respect. And there you produce not a shred of evidence.
And given Carrier’s abusive responses to critics I rather doubt that he has much respect amongst scholars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
PaulK writes: The issue isn’t about their work - although I doubt that it is quite as good as you think - the issue is respect. And there you produce not a shred of evidence. I don't accept your qualifier - the issue can only be about the quality of their work, if it's about anything else it's prejudice and bias. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: My qualifier? You were the one who claimed that they were respected scholars. I’m simply disagreeing with that.
Message 341 and if you are going to quibble that you didn’t explicitly say ‘respected” there I will point out that it is a response to Message 339 Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm forced to agree with you about Price, he sounded bizarre when I watch the debate - I turned him off. But I've not read anything he's written so it's hard to comment.
As for the rest, it's just a story isn't it? (albeit backed by some plausible analysis) Maybe it happened that way maybe it didn't, we can't know but what you believe seems to be reliant on your other beliefs, actual evidence is lacking. This week I mostly think that JC did actually exist (as a person, not as a miracle worker.) A year ago I didn't. But it's nothing more than a coin toss and I'll read something in a few year's time that'll change my mind again.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Believers themselves qualify as evidence in my view. And by no means do I mean *all* of them. The guy that I linked you to was not some random internet troll nor a Pastor who was only in it for the money. That much I can assure you.
GDR used to be a fan of NT Wright and I have never read him, so I likely will put one of his books on my bucket list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Theo writes: Depends to an extent on who his peers are and what they personally believe. Why does Carrier not qualify? He writes numerous peer reviewed articles. Does he not meet your standards? Otherwise, I'm gonna call bias. As I have said before, personality and character count as much as do evidence and data in my world. You sure were quick to berate ICANT for his "arrogance". Seems as if you are all too ready to pounce on anyone who is unlike you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Phat writes:
And that's why you can't think critically. You don't possess the faculty, the training or the - more importantly the desire. You actually do not want to be able to think. It would spoil your whole day. Believers themselves qualify as evidence in my view. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024