The argument is basically "I find it unlikely so it cannot be true", which isn't very convincing. Not saying that the conclusion is right or wrong, but the logic is flawed.
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
-5 points (42.4% liked)
Religion
204 readers
39 users here now
Discussion and scholarship of world religions.
Rules:
-
Follow the site-wide code of conduct: https://mastodon.world/about
-
Avoid broad generalizations about any particular tradition or religion as a whole.
-
Theological content is allowed, but devotional or proselytizing content is not. Please choose a more appropriate community for these kinds of posts.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn't exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Virtually every historian of the time period, religious and secular, agree that Jesus the man did exist.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don't have facts.
Could just answer the questions instead of depending on someone else to do the work.
Question 1: Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
Question 2: If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus?
Pretty simple questions, maybe just answer them.
Because you’re obviously not interesting in actually learning anything, you just want to argue.
A) citing scholarly consensus is not an argument ad populum. So you’re not even correct in asserting a logical fallacy.
B) that link has the sources dipshit. Read them if you want. Or stick your fingers in your ears and keep screaming like a child. Doesn’t make a difference to me. I don’t give a shit about you.
Because you’re obviously not interesting in actually learning anything, you just want to argue.
Attack the argument not the person.
citing scholarly consensus is not an argument ad populum. So you’re not even correct in asserting a logical fallacy.
I see. Which logical fallacy did you do, was it argument from authority?
that link has the sources dipshit.
Attack the argument not the person.
Read them if you want. Or stick your fingers in your ears and keep screaming like a child.
Attack the argument not the person.
I don’t give a shit about you.
Clearly, 8 comments in one thread towards me. With 5 personal attacks.
Now, again. Because a lot of smart people say something does that make it true?
😂😂😂😂
Imagine writing a piece on biblical scholarship and using Richard Carrier as your one and only authoritative source.
He has a PhD in history, not biblical studies, and his work is broadly rejected by most of the field, particularly some of his arguments for mythicism.
Some of his most lampooned ideas, such as the cosmic sperm bank one, managed to miss otherwise much more interesting nuances in his commitment to his foundational thesis relying on crap methodology.
His 'formula' for calculating the odds Jesus was mythical in that book is also probably one of the funniest and most ridiculous things I've come across.
While I do think opposition voices are important in scholarship, Carrier is pretty poor even in that role due to his lack of rigor and personal vendettas he takes on against his own critics.
And for the article linked to cite his work as if representative of the field is utter nonsense.
Attack the argument and not the person.
Well, that's pretty easy, but discussing the person and the reasons to be skeptical because of their past behavior is still quite relevant. And you have two links in the past comment on that point.
As for the article's points, let's take a look at just one that Carrier puts forward, that the bit about James brother of Jesus was about the high priest.
Look closer at Josephus:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 2 Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
- Josephus Antiquities book 20
See how Josephus introduces a Jesus twice?
The problem with Carrier's theory is that Josephus doesn't once introduce someone's father after mentioning them before (with one small exception that actually makes the case here even worse). So even if the 'called Christ' was added in later on, mentioning an ambiguous 'Jesus' before identifying the one that's the high priest would be the only time someone is introduced in the text after being mentioned. Or else it would be the only time two people by the same name aren't distinguished from each other.
A number of months back I actually tried to argue Carrier's point on this issue with one of his critics, and in the course of that went over every single introduction in all of Antiquities trying to find another exception.
There aren't any.
Carrier's case here isn't strong at all and necessitates this mention being the only one of all the introductions that breaks Josephus's convention.
You have to have an awful amount of "faith" to believe some god sent his kid to earth to live 30 years then die for a long weekend for your sins to some backwoods spot where apparently nobody could read or write one single word about you until 5 decades afterwards. Especially when so many other cultures at the time were more populous and kept written historical records on the daily.
When I was a kid the more amazing the story the less able I was to verify it. It was always "this guy I know, his brother's girlfriend sister neighbor did X"
The Jesus was real crowd just happens to put him in the most backward province most backward area, that had an estimated literacy rate of under 1%. Even historians that believe Nazareth existed as a population center in the first century put the number of people there at about 450 and they can't even find a single temple. Let alone an entire center of learning for Jesus to argue with.
When I was young I was in a foster home that forced me to go to church. I read the entire bible several times over (And a couple different versions) and the more I read, the less it made any sense. So I started asking questions, and the answers were always the generic bullshit ones like "god works in mysterious ways" etc. Conveniently the only real proof you'll ever get is after you're dead. Then, it dawned on me, the entire concept of a god isn't much more than Santa Claus for adults. The only "mystery" is how people can follow something so blindly in hopes they're not getting scammed.
This community has no active moderator and this thread is going off the rails so I am locking it