ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM   #401
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,732
Originally Posted by Rougarou View Post
I was responding to IanS's "almost all bible scholars also make that claim of absolute certainty about Jesus."

Edit: Craig B, your first sentence was my point. Ehrman did not claim "absolute certainty", nor did he portray his colleagues as making that claim.
Ehrman's actual words as cited in the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:59 PM   #402
Rougarou
Thinker
 
Rougarou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Ehrman's actual words as cited in the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."

That does not strike me as a claim of "absolute certainty about Jesus". Nor does "if anyone actually asks to see that evidence, then the evidence collapses to zero! There actually is no such evidence at all." seems to hold up in light of Ehrman's own work. The book I mentioned above was published specifically to present such evidence. I didn't get the sense of "absolute certainty" in either of the Ehrman books I've read.

Edit: The problem word here for me is absolute, which is dubious in most discussions.

Last edited by Rougarou; Yesterday at 03:02 PM.
Rougarou is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:09 PM   #403
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,732
I agree he didn't use the word "absolute" but it's still an extremely strong statement. And I can't actually verify that it's true. Google search results on this issue seem to be dominated by extremists. Can't find anything, such as a poll or survey, to back up that claim.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:16 PM   #404
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,846
Originally Posted by Rougarou View Post
In Did Jesus Exist? biblical scholar Bart Ehrman claimed that Bible scholars generally do accept the existence of a historical Jesus. However, the point of his book is to make a case for why historians, even secular ones like himself, accept Jesus's existence despite the lack of "evidence for Jesus [that] is so overwhelming that nobody ever need to doubt it at all."

In his book Ehrman does say that Jesus "certainly" did exist, and he repeats that numerous times. It's been quoted here many times before in the previous HJ threads (I've quoted it many times). And when talking about the views of his colleagues he says "this is also the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet" (that quote from memory, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate).

And what's more he specifically say's that it is the actual "evidence" that shows Jesus "certainly lived" .... if you don't believe me, go back and re-read the early part of his book.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:17 PM   #405
Rougarou
Thinker
 
Rougarou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I agree he didn't use the word "absolute" but it's still an extremely strong statement. And I can't actually verify that it's true. Google search results on this issue seem to be dominated by extremists. Can't find anything, such as a poll or survey, to back up that claim.
My impression was the Ehrman was indeed convinced. He wasn't dancing around that. However, his evidence was limited to the tools a historian would use to verify the historicity of a person for whom not much concrete evidence existed. Jesus in his time would have been a poor, relatively obscure person, not someone like a king or great general of whom much would have been written. That anything was written about him was a testament to his influence, according to Ehrman.

Last edited by Rougarou; Yesterday at 03:20 PM. Reason: unnecessary "about"
Rougarou is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:38 PM   #406
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,846
Originally Posted by Rougarou View Post
My impression was the Ehrman was indeed convinced. He wasn't dancing around that. However, his evidence was limited to the tools a historian would use to verify the historicity of a person for whom not much concrete evidence existed. Jesus in his time would have been a poor, relatively obscure person, not someone like a king or great general of whom much would have been written. That anything was written about him was a testament to his influence, according to Ehrman.

Well, indeed that's precisely the point - Ehrman was very clear indeed in saying that it was certain that Jesus did exist as a person living at that time. He did not express any doubts about that at all. And he says that practically all trained scholars take that same view. There is no room for doubt in what he says ... and he rams the point home by saying it repeatedly.

Frankly as a university academic he should have known that he has to be far more guarded and cautious than that in a printed book. But he goes further and says that it is the evidence which makes his existence a definite fact.

If you want to quibble about the word "absolute", then first I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and secondly just skimming that particular post of mine I don't think I even quoted Ehrman as using the word "absolute", even though I was making quite generalised & approximate quotes from memory (because we have discussed all these quotes to death already in the many thousands of posts of the previous HJ threads).

Look ; the plain fact of the matter is - Jesus may have lived as a real person in the 1st century (or at some other time), but the biblical writing is a million miles from being credible as genuine evidence for any of it's authors knowing any such person, or knowing anything more about Jesus than whatever myths and legends they had heard. And unfortunately that simply does not amount to any honest credible evidence for Jesus.

Last edited by IanS; Yesterday at 03:42 PM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:55 PM   #407
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,844
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...Look ; the plain fact of the matter is - Jesus may have lived as a real person in the 1st century (or at some other time), but the biblical writing is a million miles from being credible as genuine evidence for any of it's authors knowing any such person, or knowing anything more about Jesus than whatever myths and legends they had heard. And unfortunately that simply does not amount to any honest credible evidence for Jesus.

If only Josephus would have kept his big mouth shut!!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:04 PM   #408
Rougarou
Thinker
 
Rougarou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 149
IanS, I do not mean to pick on you, but I found the segment of your post that I quoted misleading. I found it a mischaracterization of Bible scholars and their positions as I understand them, and I provided one prominent example of a Bible scholar who not only presents evidence for why they hold such positions, but who admits that the evidence is not as overwhelming as a historian might hope for.
Rougarou is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:20 PM   #409
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Eyes on the big picture, Dave. You still have to deal with Josephus, Antiquities XX.200:



Josephus would have been around the age of 25 when this happened so well within living memory.

Since you've referenced the jesusneverexisted perhaps it's time for TON?*

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/...-theory-again/

*He's still a member here so be careful ...
It took me a moment to figure out who TON was. He is an interesting fellow and he shows up in conversations on this issue all over the web. And I had seen and read a bit of his blog recently

As to Josephus, I have read the commentary for years on this. It is complicated and until recently I had not come to a firm decision. I think now various authors have successfully proven to the degree we know anything about this kind of thing that the Testimonium Flavium is a complete interpolation. The brother of Jesus phrase I think has been effectively disproved to be a reference to the New Testament Jesus by Carrier and perhaps others. I thought Carrier's arguments were compelling and over time, I think they will be come accepted as fact by secular scholars studying the history of Christianity.

Carrier's arguments against the idea that Paul's use of the phrase refers to a real brother are not as compelling as the case against the idea that Josephus referenced the brother of Jesus, but I think they are strong as well. IanS added a few points above that I hadn't considered that make the case against the idea that Paul claimed to have met a real brother of Jesus even stronger.

The brother of James Josephus phrase in connection with the Paul phrase along the same lines was one of the pillars of the argument for an historical Jesus. IMO, neither brother of Jesus phrase is what it is represented to be. The strongest evidence for an historical Jesus remaining are Paul's epistles and that has been the my personal view of all this for awhile. The remaining evidence that is put forth for the existence of a historical Jesus is highly dubious and doesn't advance the case for a historical Jesus substantially.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; Yesterday at 04:42 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:17 PM   #410
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
If it was as overwhelming as that, there would be no need to write a book.
The other day I saw a book by a biologist explaining why scientists find the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly convincing. But if it was as overwhelming as that, there would be no need to write a book.

How's that argument working for you now?
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:27 PM   #411
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
It took me a moment to figure out who TON was. He is an interesting fellow and he shows up in conversations on this issue all over the web. And I had seen and read a bit of his blog recently
Good to hear.

Quote:
As to Josephus, I have read the commentary for years on this. It is complicated and until recently I had not come to a firm decision. I think now various authors have successfully proven to the degree we know anything about this kind of thing that the Testimonium Flavium is a complete interpolation.
Most Josephus scholars disagree with you on that.


Quote:
The brother of Jesus phrase I think has been effectively disproved to be a reference to the New Testament Jesus by Carrier and perhaps others. I thought Carrier's arguments were compelling and over time, I think they will be come accepted as fact by secular scholars studying the history of Christianity.
Ummm, no. Carrier's argument there contains a critical flaw and so does not work at all. It completely contradicts the patterns of how Josephus uses identifying appellations. His paper on the subject has been cited by no-one since its publication and so has effectively sunk without trace.

Quote:
Carrier's arguments against the idea that Paul's use of the phrase refers to a real brother are not as compelling as the case against the idea that Josephus referenced the brother of Jesus, but I think they are strong as well.
They are tendentious nonsense that don't survive the slightest application of Occam's Razor.


Quote:
IanS added a few points above that I hadn't considered that make the case against the idea that Paul claimed to have met a real brother of Jesus even stronger.
What, you mean this?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
And yet when after 3 years Paul meets the actual flesh-&-blood brother of Jesus, Paul apparently asks not one thing about what Jesus was like and how his brother had known him etc., and James the “brother” never tells Paul or anyone else a single word about anything at all to do with Jesus … they never discuss it at all ! … this is the most important religious figure ever on the surface of the Earth, their entire lives are totally consumed by worshiping every facet of this person, and yet when they meet his actual lifelong brother of 30 years, nobody bothers to mention a single thing about ever meeting or knowing Jesus!
That is total garbage. Nowhere does Paul say he never discussed Jesus with James, so I have no idea what this IanS guy thinks he's talking about here. Galatians 1:18-20 says he visited Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with Cephas/Peter and with James.

Quote:
The brother of James Josephus phrase in connection with the Paul phrase along the same lines was one of the pillars of the argument for an historical Jesus. IMO, neither brother of Jesus phrase is what it is represented to be.
See above. The arguments you are basing that opinion on are fatally flawed.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:30 PM   #412
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
The other day I saw a book by a biologist explaining why scientists find the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly convincing. But if it was as overwhelming as that, there would be no need to write a book.

How's that argument working for you now?
I don't think Craig B is arguing what you think he is arguing. More that given the inherent limitations of ancient history, it's hard to talk about "certainty" in strong absolute senses, nor is that kind of probabilistic assessment really integral to the work of cobtemporary historians. But, by any standard source criticism and analysis, you end up with the rather pedestrian and straightforward conclusion that Jesus existed.

Whatever mythicists are doing, they're not doing history, because they don't use the available textual and contextual evidence as a basis to be evaluated within a narrative. Rather they assume a conclusion and contrive the evidence about it.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:44 PM   #413
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Eyes on the big picture, Dave. You still have to deal with Josephus, Antiquities XX.200:



Josephus would have been around the age of 25 when this happened so well within living memory.

Since you've referenced the jesusneverexisted perhaps it's time for TON?*

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/...-theory-again/


*He's still a member here so be careful ...
Thanks for the link. I hadn't read that before. I see the Author has shown up in this thread. At last we may see some sense talked on this topic.
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:32 PM   #414
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
...

Most Josephus scholars disagree with you on that. [Testimonium Flavium is a complete interpolation and the Josephus "james brother of Jesus" doesn't refer to James a brother of Jesus]

...
Apparently quite a few do: Arguments that TF is an interpolation at Early Christian writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Article cited by Carrier pointing out similarities between TFand Luke: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...82079500001304 it's behind a pay wall

Also Carrier and others in comments making arguments against the idea that the James referred to is the Jesus brother of the NT: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2946

Carrier and others discuss James brother of Jesus passage in comments.

The simple reading of the Josephus James the brother of Jesus passage and the surrounding text makes little sense if James the brother of Jesus is the James the brother of Jesus. Out of nowhere without the slightest foundation Josephus throws an unknown and unintroduced character in to his narrative.

There are also arguments about the date discrepancies between Josephus and Hegesippus if both men were referring to the same James.

One last point if the TF is entirely authentic it is at best weak evidence for an historic Jesus. Josephus is born after the date that the hypothetical Jesus is claimed to have been crucified. So no matter how things are spun there are exactly zero contemporary witnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus that wrote about in documents available today.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; Yesterday at 07:22 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:49 PM   #415
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,041
Holy wow, now the historicists are getting so desperate that they've resorted to claiming that that Josephus bit is for real?... or even that there's any serious dispute about it not being real? I thought they'd all given up on that one as utterly hopeless years ago!

I was going to prepare a longer response addressing various specific points in several recent posts here, but... seriously, Josephus... at this point it's clear that this is functionally identical to trying to reason with Creationists.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:17 PM   #416
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Holy wow, now the historicists are getting so desperate that they've resorted to claiming that that Josephus bit is for real?...
Yes. Lest it is unclear, nobody is claiming the entire quote is "real".
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:22 PM   #417
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Apparently quite a few do
Yes, but it is still the minority position. Personally, I'm persuaded by the arguments that there was an original mention of Jesus at Ant. XVIII.63-4 that was added to. But a sound case can certainly be made that the entire passage is a wholesale interpolation, so I don't put much weight on the Ant. XVIII.63-4 passage. The mention of Jesus and James at Ant. XX.200, on the other hand is another matter. There the consensus that it is genuine is overwhelming and the arguments of the Myther fringe by Carrier et. al. are critically flawed.


Quote:
Also Carrier and others in comments making arguments against the idea that the James referred to is the Jesus brother of the NT: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2946
Carrier is dead wrong. His tangled and convoluted construct by which he argues the key words "who was called Messiah" in Ant. XX.200 are an accidental later scribal addition requires Josephus to introduce "Jesus son of Damneus" first simply as "Jesus" and then only later in the passage as "Jesus son of Damneus". But Josephus is very consistent in the way he uses these identifying appellations and he never does this anywhere in his works. He always introduces the person using the appellation and then, having done so, just refers to them using their name without the appellation for the rest of any given passage in which this person is discussed. Carrier's argument is flawed as a result. As usual, he starts with what he wants to believe and then contrives a series of speculations to arrive at this a priori position. He's certainly inventive, but he is a bad historian because he constantly indulges in this kind of motivated reasoning.

Quote:
The simple reading of the Josephus James the brother of Jesus passage and the surrounding text makes little sense if James the brother of Jesus is the James the brother of Jesus. Out of nowhere without the slightest foundation Josephus throws an unknown and unintroduced character in to his narrative.
How much of Josephus' works have you read? He does precisely that all the time.

Quote:
There are also arguments about the date discrepancies between Josephus and Hegesippus if both men were referring to the same James.
Yes, weak arguments.

Quote:
One last point if the TF is entirely authentic it is at best weak evidence for an historic Jesus. Josephus is born after the date that the hypothetical Jesus is claimed to have been crucified. So no matter how things are spun there are exactly zero contemporary witnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus.
That doesn't make it "weak evidence". Most of our source material on most people and events in the ancient world is non-contemporary. This obsession Mythicists have with only accepting contemporary attestation is decidedly weird and is a fake criterion used by no historian of the ancient world.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History

Last edited by TimONeill2; Yesterday at 08:00 PM.
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:25 PM   #418
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Holy wow, now the historicists are getting so desperate that they've resorted to claiming that that Josephus bit is for real?... or even that there's any serious dispute about it not being real? I thought they'd all given up on that one as utterly hopeless years ago!
The scholars who accept the majority position that it is partially "real" are not doing so in the context of any dispute about the historicity of Jesus, since that is non-issue in academia. They do so because that's where the evidence points. So no-one is "resorting to anything.

Quote:
I was going to prepare a longer response addressing various specific points in several recent posts here, but... seriously, Josephus... at this point it's clear that this is functionally identical to trying to reason with Creationists.
Given that the mainstream scholarly position is that a historical Jesus existed and it's the Mythers who are off on the ideological fringe, I think you have that "Creationists" analogy totally backwards.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:35 PM   #419
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,993
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
That doesn't make it "weak evidence" most of our source material on most people and events in the ancient world is non-contemporary. This obsession Mythicists have with only accepting contemporary attestation is decidedly weird and is a fake criterion used by no historian of the ancient world.
What! Are you saying there are more things we know about Alexander the Great, besides him being some guy who settled a land dispute in Thrace, and at some point commanded troops?!
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:35 PM   #420
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,844
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
...I was going to prepare a longer response addressing various specific points in several recent posts here, but... seriously, Josephus... at this point it's clear that this is functionally identical to trying to reason with Creationists...
It sure is! Declaring victory and then running away and hiding. Who does that? OK, on second thought, maybe not Creationists - more like Flat Earthers.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:10 PM   #421
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,844
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
...I don't think Craig B is arguing what you think he is arguing...
Agreed. Tim, Craig B has been fighting in the trenches for the HJ side as long as I can remember.


In fact, I've personally recommended to Pope Francis that both he and Brainache be declared saints (Saints! I tell you!) for their patience and coolness in the face of much condescension and derision from guess who? in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ghlight=vridar

You might get a kick out of it.

Sadly, RL concerns caused me to miss his majestic flounce:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2819
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:27 PM   #422
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Agreed. Tim, Craig B has been fighting in the trenches for the HJ side as long as I can remember.
Okay, my mistake.


Quote:
In fact, I've personally recommended to Pope Francis that both he and Brainache be declared saints (Saints! I tell you!) for their patience and coolness in the face of much condescension and derision from guess who? in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ghlight=vridar

You might get a kick out of it.
Oh God ...

Quote:
Sadly, RL concerns caused me to miss his majestic flounce:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2819
Hilarious. How awful you must be for Mr Furious to punish you by removing his august presence from your forum.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:43 PM   #423
Rougarou
Thinker
 
Rougarou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I don't think Craig B is arguing what you think he is arguing.

(snip)
I think Craig B was agreeing with my post that he quoted even if he wasn't sure I was agreeing with it. I suspect the confusion stemmed from my use of the expression "Ehrman claimed...". While I use the term claimed to credit the person making a claim without committing to my own support or rejection of that claim, I think for a lot of people the term connotates a rejection.
Rougarou is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:15 PM   #424
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
...

How much of Josephus' works have you read. He does precisely that all the time.
Very little. Certainly not enough to give me credibility on this. If the TF evidence is lost, then this becomes the only mention of Jesus in Josephus and your thought is that this isn't strange? How does his audience know who this Jesus character is that James is the brother of? Do you have some other samples from Josephus where he introduces a character in only a single sentence and never mentions him again?
Quote:

...
That doesn't make it "weak evidence" most of our source material on most people and events in the ancient world are non-contemporary. This obsession Mythicists have with only accepting contemporary attestation is decidedly weird and is a fake criterion used by no historian of the ancient world.
With respect and a concession that a historic Jesus might have existed this kind of argument is nonsense. The "evidence" for a historic Jesus is not primarily rejected because it is not contemporaneous. It is rejected because it is crap evidence.

I think it is worth saying that a lot of the same "evidence" is rejected by secular mythicists and secular historicists. As an aside, although the question of the existence or non-existance of an historical Jesus is interesting it is of little importance as an historical issue. The Jesus that is envisioned by secular historians that believe he existed had little if anything to do with the formation of Christianity. His ideas and theology are unknowable except through supposition. The history of early Christianity is the more important issue and as with Jesus almost nothing is knowable about that without various suppositions and evaluations of what might have been.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:42 PM   #425
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Very little. Certainly not enough to give me credibility on this. If the TF evidence is lost, then this becomes the only mention of Jesus in Josephus and your thought is that this isn't strange? How does his audience know who this Jesus character is that James is the brother of? Do you have some other samples from Josephus where he introduces a character in only a single sentence and never mentions him again?
In Jewish War II.12.8 Josephus tells us Claudius “sent out Felix the brother of Pallas to be procurator of Judea, Samaria, Galilee and Perea”. He doesn't tell us who this Pallas was and never mentions him again in that work. This may be because he assumed his audience knew who Pallas was, but we have no way of knowing that.


Quote:
With respect and a concession that a historic Jesus might have existed this kind of argument is nonsense. The "evidence" for a historic Jesus is not primarily rejected because it is not contemporaneous. It is rejected because it is crap evidence.
Then why the hell do people keep wittering on about how none of the evidence is "contemporaneous""? As I said, we don't have contemporaneous evidence for most people in the ancient world. And we have it for precisely zero of the various analogous early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants. So the fact we have none for this particular one is of no significance - it's precisely what we'd expect.

And when we compared what evidence we do have for Jesus, it can be seen that we have rather more of it than we have for any other such figure of the time. So no, actually, it isn't "crap evidence". It's nowhere near as much as we'd like and certainly not enough to say much for sure about him, but that's the case for most such non-noble figures who appear briefly in our sources.

Quote:
I think it is worth saying that a lot of the same "evidence" is rejected by secular mythicists and secular historicists.
It is? What are you referring to here?

Quote:
As an aside, although the question of the existence or non-existance of an historical Jesus is interesting it is of little importance as an historical issue. The Jesus that is envisioned by secular historians that believe he existed had little if anything to do with the formation of Christianity. His ideas and theology are unknowable except through supposition.
That simply isn't true. There is very good evidence that he preached an apocalyptic message that is preserved, at least in part, in the earlier three gospels.

Quote:
The history of early Christianity is the more important issue and as with Jesus almost nothing is knowable about that without various suppositions and evaluations of what might have been.
If it is so "unimportant" you'd have to wonder why people like Carrier, Fitzgerald and the other Myther fringe dwellers keep banging on about it.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History

Last edited by TimONeill2; Yesterday at 11:17 PM.
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:20 PM   #426
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,237
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
[see above]
To say the least you and I have a different view of this. I don't think I ever realized how much our views differed before this.

You believe that some kind of truth can be extracted with some degree of reliability from fictional literature designed to deceive for which all evidence about its creation has been eliminated, probably intentionally. You don't know who wrote the literature, when they wrote it, where they wrote it what groups they belonged to or who their sources were beyond Paul and Josephus. And you might be right. My most general view is that almost all things are unknowable about the history of early Christianity including the possibility that Tim O Neil is right.

At any rate, Merry Christmas
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; Yesterday at 11:22 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:39 PM   #427
TimONeill2
Scholar
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
You believe that some kind of truth can be extracted with some degree of reliability from fictional literature designed to deceive for which all evidence about its creation has been eliminated, probably intentionally.
There's lots of heavily loaded language in that sentence. What historians do with ancient source material is extract an assessment of what is likely to have happened. None would refer to the product of that kind of analysis as "truth". Most of our source material has little "evidence about its creation", though the fact that we have four accounts of Jesus' life written within decades of each other, with at least three of them clearly textually interdependent, means that we actually know far more about how these texts were created than we usually do. And "fictional literature" is based on an assumption, and a pretty dubious one, as well as an anachronistic category error. While the gospels, like many ancient works, can't be taken as documentary journalism by any means, it is very unlikely they are actually "fiction".

Quote:
You don't know who wrote the literature, when they wrote it, where they wrote it what groups they belonged to or who their sources were beyond Paul and Josephus.
"Know"? There's another unreasonably loaded word, much like "truth". We don't and can't "know" these kinds of things about all kinds of ancient source material, so big deal. We can, however, work from what we have to arrive at well-founded conclusions about them. And in the case of the NT material, its dates and its interrelations mean, again, that we can do this with them far more than we can with many other ancient sources.

Over and over again I find Mythicism appeals to people who keep referring to absolutes ("truth", "know", "proof") that no historian of the ancient world ever uses. And who overstate the difficulties involved in dealing with the source material while completely underestimating how common these same issues are on most any question of pre-modern history. As I've said before, I find the less familiar people are with the study of ancient history and the methods historians use, the more likely they are to be inclined to Mythicism. Which should tell you something.

Quote:
And you might be right. My most general view is that almost all things are unknowable about the history of early Christianity including the possibility that Tim O Neil is right.
People who are uncomfortable with things that are ultimately "unknowable" should avoid the study of ancient history altogether.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:10 AM   #428
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,886
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
...

In fact, I've personally recommended to Pope Francis that both he and Brainache be declared saints (Saints! I tell you!) for their patience and coolness in the face of much condescension and derision from guess who? in this thread:

...
That is very flattering, but I would prefer not to be declared a saint by the Pope. I have to think of my reputation...
Brainache is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.