...

Lost it.  Too late to redo.


Shit.  Maybe tomorrow.

(September 30, 2016 at 10:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 30, 2016 at 3:32 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Thing is though, we've plenty of evidence of the first three, we've no untainted evidence of Yeshua (the two "best" sources Josephus and Tacitus show enough tampering that any honest historian won't accept them). We should be treating him as we do other characters who could've existed but are probably largely or completely fictional, like Conchobar MacNessa.

The major problem, with biblical history though is that it's not left to historians, but to theologians for the most part. The section which is left to proper experts arcaeology has stopped looking for Yeshua because of the impossibility of success.

This is interesting, I was just reading a response from Erhman to Carrier, last night in which the subject of Tacitus.  He seems that there isn't much dispute, and that most consider it genuine. Josephus is a little different.  There is some dispute, but many consider most of the passage in question, to be true... aside from the part that many consider an addition. However, in either case, it doesn't matter who or how many people ascribe to a view but why?

The earliest manuscritp of Tacitus' has "reference" to christians where the "e" of chrestianos, meaning follower(s) of Chrestus (a common name or title often used by preachers in Roman times) has been changed to an"i" of christianos, meaning follower of christ.

I also have a problem with scholarly consensus when it comes to Yeshua, because a) most of the scholars aren't historians, but theologians or biblical readers and b) time and time again, we see items pass muster for Yeshua using criteria that if used to proved the historicity of any other person would be dismissed and rightly so (eg the Josephus forgeries, the acceptance of bible stories despite their multiple significant edits, and errors both small and large which show even the original writers were very hazy about Iudea and the historical period). It all leads to an area of study which doesn't conform to proper standards of historical evidence, having to pass a much lower bar than all other historical figures.

For the most important man in history, with the most important message, you'd think he would have left more of an impact.

(October 1, 2016 at 4:50 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(September 30, 2016 at 10:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This is interesting, I was just reading a response from Erhman to Carrier, last night in which the subject of Tacitus.  He seems that there isn't much dispute, and that most consider it genuine. Josephus is a little different.  There is some dispute, but many consider most of the passage in question, to be true... aside from the part that many consider an addition. However, in either case, it doesn't matter who or how many people ascribe to a view but why?

The earliest manuscritp of Tacitus' has "reference" to christians where the "e" of chrestianos, meaning follower(s) of Chrestus (a common name or title often used by preachers in Roman times) has been changed to an"i" of christianos, meaning follower of christ.

Yes the earliest manuscript, which we have from the 11th century, was altered from an "e" to an "i" and there is some debate over which was original, or if someone corrected an error.  However Wikipedia says the following: 

Quote:Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term "Chrestians", or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[17][18] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.

Given the context of the passage, I think it is difficult to stretch this to say that it was not talking about Christians and Christ.  Whether or not, it was originally spelled with an "e" or an "i". 

Quote:I also have a problem with scholarly consensus when it comes to Yeshua, because a) most of the scholars aren't historians, but theologians or biblical readers and b) time and time again, we see items pass muster for Yeshua using criteria that if used to proved the historicity of any other person would be dismissed and rightly so (eg the Josephus forgeries, the acceptance of bible stories despite their multiple significant edits, and errors both small and large which show even the original writers were very hazy about Iudea and the historical period). It all leads to an area of study which doesn't conform to proper standards of historical evidence, having to pass a much lower bar than all other historical figures.

What is your criteria for one to be a historian in this instance? It appears to me, that you are disqualifying based on the genetic fallacy. As I mentioned before, a part of the Josephus passage is hardly disputed to be an addition. The rest of the text, has much less contention as being original. My understanding is that the the disputed text, is because of a line of manuscripts, which do not contain this portion of text. In your response, you mentioned forgeries (plural); I would be curious to here why you think there are multiple forgeries? Also, I think that you can look at it from a point of purpose. From a modern perspective, these texts are used as corroborating evidence (they don't really contain much other value for Christians). However in the time that these variants supposedly occurred, I don't see where a case, can be made for this purpose. I don't believe that their intentions at the time was to provide historical support (or that it was in question at this time from a historical perspective).

Also, It is easy to make general statements, which cannot be falsified (concerning your errors and significant edits both large and small). I think that we should examine these more closely and in context (and not just where there may be discrepancy but where they are correct; we must also allow that our knowledge of history of 2000 years ago, may not be 100% accurate). As well; I think that any arguments which push the dating of the writings back, must also be put in context of the conspiracy theory that they infer. That they need to account for the early Church, and subsequent writings, which support it. When you push one back, you need to push the others back as well. A conspiracy theory is difficult, with a large group of people, they are also difficult to maintain separated across a geographic region, and with pressure against he conspiracy. How do you explain the consistency across the early church in regards to the belief that they held about Christ?

Y'know, the idea of "The Gospel According to Carl" just makes me smile this morning.

Yet another christ believer who insists upon conspiracies, as though they were relevant. This is -why- discussions of the mythicist position are unfruitful, and it's pretty much the only song in the book..of late.

-Could- some great and vast conspiracy account for the narrative? Sure, but who cares, since we're not discussing a conspiracy and one need not have occurred to account for the narrative...regardless of whether it's historical...legendary, or mythical?

I think that this is why Richard Carrier is an unemployed academic who will only allow paying customers to post on his blog, now numbering 73.

He seems quite busy to me.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/about


Perhaps you expect him to drive a truck?

(October 1, 2016 at 8:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He seems quite busy to me.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/about


Perhaps you expect him to drive a truck?

When I was out work after 18 years in IT, I drove a van, hauling railway workers all over the place.  The pay sucked, too; $8.25/hr.  Finally, I was able to get an IT job again.

Well, it's good to finally see someone tackle the mythicist position head on.  It's wrong, because carrier doesn't drive a van for minimum wage.