The First Century Void

[Minimalist]

Yeah, RoadRunner79, thinks that during hundreds years of Christian reign were also times of liberal exchange of ideas where anyone could have questioned teachings of the church as well as dogma and also write books conflicting their teachings and politics.

Not to mention the fact that hundreds of ancient documents were essentially left to rot. Because they didn't conform to the churches teachings. Including catalogues worth of scientific texts from the Romans and Greeks. And libraries didn't even need to be purposely time has done an awesome job of that. But as I said it a non issue weather it's the 18th or 56 century the evidence is the evidence.

---

And as Richard Carrier points out

There certainly was, as there always was.
Even in Paul’s day we see seething schisms and attacks from within and all around, as the sect had already fragmented into several, calling each other anathema and servants of demons and false Christs. That would have been even more the case a lifetime later. The Gospels, written in the gap period, exhibit different competing theologies and perspectives. They are in fact arguments against each other (as I show in OHJ, Ch. 10). But they effect that through allegory and fake history (Acts is another classic example: see OHJ, Ch. 9). So we have to infer what the real arguments were, and often can’t tell. No one tells us directly.
So there was a lot going on and being said in that lifetime, that we don’t get to hear. Whether anyone recorded it (wrote it down) is a different question; but no one even talks about it in the second century. And they show no sign of knowing what was really happening in that period (e.g. Papias relates a history of the writing of the Gospels that is impossible and thus not even remotely true; so they either didn’t even know what happened in that previous lifetime, or they decided to delete it and replace it with myths).
So it could have all been deleted by time, and not deliberate erasure. Deleted all the same. We don’t get to hear it all the same. But proposing no one wrote anything, no letters in a whole human lifetime of the church, is very unlikely: it makes no sense that we would have rampant letter writing in Paul’s lifetime (much more than was preserved, as Paul himself references letters we don’t have), and none whatsoever the next lifetime, when the sect was larger and even more diverse and thus even more at each other’s throats, and even more butting heads in competition across three continents and two empires.
And this is why we don’t know what the reaction was to the publication of the first Gospels. Neither approval nor censure, verification or falsification, we don’t get to hear, and thus don’t get to know, what anyone’s reaction was. We therefore cannot claim to know it was uniformly positive. Though we know it can’t have been. Because we have evidence in the second century that gives us clues of mythicist Christians the century before (e.g. The Ascension of Isaiah; 2 Peter). And the Gospels not only deliberately contradict each other on fundamental things (which no one could have simply been fine with or ever questioned or challenged: the very fact that each Gospel rewrote the ones before to say different things is evidence of disapproval of the original things said), they say wildly false things anyone could have refuted had they regarded them as making any true claims at all (e.g. that a horde of zombies descended on Jerusalem; that Jesus was famous across the entire province of Syria; that the sun went out for three hours). If anyone noticed who knew the truth, we don’t get to hear what they said. And if no one who knew the truth noticed, we can’t claim to know what they would have said. Except the obvious: that those things didn’t happen.
More on what evidence there must have been, even in Paul’s lifetime, much more so the next, see my sections on exactly that in OHJ, Ch. 8

---

But min there had to lots of other copies of the TF because there had to be.

He doesn't seem to understand that Eusebius inherited Origen's library.  Not only was Eusebius writing this shit he was using the very same books that Origen used.  The ones where Origen declared that Josephus did not know Christ.  Whoops.  Must be a little doctrinal fuck-up there!

More to the point with Carrier, his conclusion to Historicity says:   Note how he discusses morons like RR right up front!

I know many devout Christian scholars will balk and claim to find all
manner of bogus or irrelevant or insignificant holes or flaws in my arguments,
but they would do that anyway. Witness what many Christian scholars
come up with just to reject evolution, or to defend the literal miraculous
resurrection of Jesus (which they claim they can do even with the terrible
and paltry evidence we have). Consequently, I don't care anymore what
Christian apologists think. They are not rational people. I only want to know
what rational scholars think. I want to see a helpful critique of this book by
objective, qualified experts who could live with the conclusion that Jesus
didn't exist, but just don't think the case can be made, or made well enough
to credit. And what I want from my critics is not useless hole punching but
an alternative proposal: if my method is invalid, then what method is the
correct one for resolving questions of historicity? And if you know of none,
how can you justify any claim to historicity for any person, if you don't
even know how such a claim can be justified or falsified at all? Also correct
any facts I get wrong, point out what I missed, and if my method then
produces a different conclusion when those emendations are included, we
wi ll have progressY Even if the conclusion is the same, it will nevertheless
have been improved.

But it is the method I want my fellow historians to correct, replace or
perfect above all else. We can't simply rely on intuition or gut instinct when
deciding what really did happen or who really did exist, since that simply
leans on unexamined assumptions and relies on impressions and instincts
that are often not reliable guides to the truth. We need to make explicit why
we believe what we do rather than something else, and we need this as much
in history as in any other field. And by the method I have deployed here, I
have confirmed our intuitions in the study of Jesus are wrong. He did not
exist. I have made my case. To all objective and qualified scholars, I appeal
to you all as a community: the ball is now in your court.

Let the xhristards shit bricks over the italicized line.  They'd rather do that than read the book anyway.

[RoadRunner79]

Not to mention the fact that hundreds of ancient documents were essentially left to rot. Because they didn't conform to the churches teachings. Including catalogues worth of scientific texts from the Romans and Greeks. And libraries didn't even need to be purposely time has done an awesome job of that. But as I said it a non issue weather it's the 18th or 56 century the evidence is the evidence.

---

And as Richard Carrier points out

---

But min there had to lots of other copies of the TF because there had to be.

He doesn't seem to understand that Eusebius inherited Origen's library.  Not only was Eusebius writing this shit he was using the very same books that Origen used.  The ones where Origen declared that Josephus did not know Christ.  Whoops.  Must be a little doctrinal fuck-up there!

Citation Please!   I'm assuming, that you are not referring to Contra Ceslsum 1.47 where he says "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..."

Origen. (1885). Origen against Celsus. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), F. Crombie (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Vol. 4, p. 416). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

This was the closest I could find, and it appears to be saying something different than what you are saying    

My experience with Carrier, is that he talks a lot, and derides others quite a bit (especially those critical of him), but when it comes to substance, there is very little.   Now this started from an argument, that you said was the most persuasive.   I disagree, and don't even find it to be all that good.   We can discuss more on that if you like.  I am looking for good evidence and reason.   Does Carrier have that (should I assume, from your silence on the matter, that it does not exist)?    He takes a little bit of information, crafts a story from it, and then ignores any evidence against it, or when it is pointed out, that his conclusions don't follow his reasoning (much like what we have seen here).

---

Perhaps you would like to create a thread based on the best argument, rather than the most persuasive. We can look at it, the evidence and reasons. Perhaps this time without resorting to sophomoric name calling or the weak genetic fallacy. Just because Carrier reacts poorly to criticism and being shown where he is wrong, doesn't necessarily mean, that all points are bad. Let's discuss that reasoning that he implored in that last quote.

[Minimalist]

No, asswipe.  I'm done playing games with an ignorant shit like you.  Go do your own research or continue to be a dumbfuck jesus freak.  What part of "fuck off" gave you the most trouble.

Moving on...on Page 354 Carrier notes:

For it is much easier to invent a man than to invent a famous man, yet Jesus is depicted as
incredibly famous in the Gospels. But if he were so famous, then the silence of other writers and historians about him,
indeed the lack of any literature about him being generated by any of the thousands of contemporaries
impressed or intrigued by his fame (see the survey again in §2), is all but impossible. That is, extremely improbable.
The consequent probability of this pervasive and thorough silence on the hypothesis that Jesus actually
was that famous (much less that any of the incredibly famous events associated with him in the Gospels actually occurred-
and I gave only a select list of examples) i s extremely small.

So if the historicist wishes to maintain Jesus was really that famous. then historicity is refuted by the complete silence of all other literate persons
of that age and region and of all who wrote about that region or about any famous persons and events like those. The consequent probability of
that evidence (of silence) is so small that it guarantees historicity will also have a very small posterior probability, and must therefore be rejected as
improbable. Just as for the darkening of the sun, as I have demonstrated before: we can be sure that never happened, because if it did, someone
would have mentioned it (other than just the Synoptic Gospels).

But they do not.  No 3 hour darkness covering the earth, no earthquakes, no temple veil being split, no dead jews climbing out of their graves and wandering around the city, not a fucking word.  "Jesus" is like Rhett Butler.  A fictional character inserted into an actual historical setting which never fucking heard of him!

The above conclusion is mine, not Carrier's.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok.... if you don't want to talk and examine your claims or move onto good rather than persuasive arguements, then i.ll leave you to it.

Again, have a nice day!

[Amarok]

---

We done all the above . It's you who needs to step up your game . Sunshine

Because so far you best you have been able to conjure up . Unneeded conspiracies , Arguments from incredulity, And strait up denials of established facts. Irrelevant claims and Straw men.

But by all means continue" being a fool for Christ"

[RoadRunner79]

---

We done all the above . It's you who needs to step up your game . Sunshine

Because so far you best you have been able to conjure up . Unneeded conspiracies , Arguments from incredulity, And strait up denials of established facts.

What facts did I deny? What arguements from incredulity? I didn't advocate any conspiracy theories. I thought you didn't provide evidence of one though..... please be precise.... Vague accusations can't do anything to help either of us. .

---

It would probably be best to focus on one thing at a time. Whatever you think is strongest!

[Amarok]

[RoadRunner79]

No problem... anything about me whether true or false, is really unimportant anyway. Perhaps you would prefer to continue the discussion where the other left off.

Some of the things mentioned in the quote of Carrier really have nothing to do with the mythicist's position. The darkeness that covered the land is found in the threee synoptic Gospels. So it has multiple witnesses attesting to it. There are somethings that are only recorded by Matthew however, that from a historical standpoint, I think would think the lack of corroboration would justly deserve a question mark next to it.... although I don't think that the certainty asserted by Carrier in saying "we can be sure that never happened" is justified from the relatively weak Argument from Silence. And yet again, this is an easily falsifiable claim and the argument from silence can work the other way as well. What about the silence from those who stood agaisnt the Christian movement; why don't we hear from them? Especially for the church in Jerusalem, this would have been the first thing I would bring up.

But on to the more pertinent claim about the fame of Jesus. The Gospels do say that Jesus gained a number of followers in His short 3 year ministry. And I think that this is evidenced by the quick growth of the Church; especially in the local area, such as Jerusalem. However, it doesn't have to be all or nothing as some critics like to make out. It certainly seems reasonable that in one sense, He was famous and had a following. But on the other hand, in the short time he was public didn't gather the attention of those who didn't believe. I think there is a certain presentism error that is being introduced here. Where we think that the coverage of news, blogs, and annoying people on youtube, speaking about everything and everyone should translate into this earlier time. This is why when presented with this argument from silence, I ask who specifically and which work you think that Jesus should have been mentioned in. As I mentioned before Pliny the Elder is often mentioned, but I find it laughable, that anyone who has actually looked at his work, thinks that Jesus should be covered there. As impressive and exhaustive as his early encyclopedia is; mentioning of Jesus just doesn't fit. Philo wrote mostly about ideas and philosophy. Josephus is probably the closest as a History of the Jews (and does briefly mention Jesus, which we won't get into again). But even if it doesn't; where in that work, do you think that Jesus should without question fit?

The other night, I watched the debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. It was quite interesting. In it Dr. Ehrman pointed out, that we have better historical evidence for Jesus, than any other Palestinian Jew at that time. Really better than any other person in that area at the time. We know more about Jesus, then we do Caiaphas a predominant Jewish high priest at the time. More than Pilate (who until recent evidence was uncovered some scholars had doubted". The next closest to whom we have better evidence for, is Josephus... and that is only because he wrote a lot himself (which we likely wouldn't have had, if Christians hadn't preserved his work). Ehrman is an excellent speaker; and although I have some disagreements with some of his conclusions, he presented the case agaisnt mythicism fairly well. By the end, you could see that Price was loosing patience. And essentially appeared to say that his position was possible, and he liked his story better. The problem is the evidence they don't have or at minimum only weak evidence, and then they try to make up a story from there. At one point, Robert said something was an interpolation and Bart called him on it, and said, that you can't just call evidence which disagrees with your position an interpolation, that is not how history is done.

[Amarok]

[Cyberman]

Great - a place to park me bike!