"Does Larry Hurtado really believe that in order to prove that Jesus existed or to understand the proofs that he did that one needs to undertake advanced studies in languages, textual analysis, archaeology, etc, and to become a respected and published scholar in the field?"
No he does not. That is not what he said. You have quoted Hurtado saying X, and suggested he said Y. This is such a common tactic of yours that it is referred to by some (myself included), as 'Doing a Godfrey'. He said 'to engage the sort of questions involved in this discussion' requires the study and knowledge to which he referred.
It means when Carrier asserts a specific meaning for a Greek phrase in the New Testament, but acknowledges he has no evidence for the phrase having that meaning in anywhere else in the New Testament, or anywhere in any Greek text in the entire first century, and when he displays no attempt to conduct standard lexicographical methodology (such as synchronic and diachronic analysis), then he needs to sit down and learn a lot more about Greek and lexicography, and we can ignore his claims until he has done so and produced some evidence for them.
It means when Doherty asserts a specific meaning for a Greek word in the New Testament but acknowledges this meaning is not found in any professional Greek lexicon and is a meaning of his own invention, and when he displays no attempt to conduct standard lexicographical methodology (such as synchronic and diachronic analysis), then he needs to sit down and learn a lot more about Greek and lexicography, and we can ignore his claims until he has done so and produced some evidence for them.
It means when you (with no professional qualifications in Greek), assert that a scholar such as Hurtado (who is actually professionally trained in Greek), is practicing 'the sort of transubstantiation of meaning one expects from cultists or fundamentalists' when interpreting the Greek of the hymn in Philippians 2, and when you do so without even attempting to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims, then you need to sit down and learn a lot more about Greek and lexicography, and we can ignore your claims until you have done so and produced some evidence for them.
It means that you (with no professional qualifications in Second Temple Period Judaism), claim that Jesus' life as described in the gospels and Acts 'exceeded all earthly hopes' but present no evidence for this claim and become enraged when you are asked to present your evidence ('You're so keen to try to pick a fight with me you are not even showing common logical understanding of words'), then you need to sit down and learn a lot more about Second Temple Period Judaism and the Greek and Jewish reception of the crucified Jesus preached in the gospels, Acts, and by Paul, and we can ignore your claims until you have done so and produced some evidence for them.
And this is just one problem mythicists have; wresting the Greek by simply making things up. Another is claiming textual interpolations for which there is absolutely no text critical evidence whatsoever, and then representing these claims as arguments sufficiently reliable on which to doubt the extant text. Another is quoting scholars whose arguments on a particular point give the appearance of supporting a mythicist argument, without informing readers that the scholar in question does not support the specific mythicist argument which the quotation is being used to support.
It's these repeated problems which demonstrate that even the mythicists claiming the deepest, broadest knowledge of the question at hand, and the most relevant professional qualifications, have a lot of work to do before they can be taken seriously. Apart from the lack of relevant professional qualifications (people like Carrier and Price excepted), it's the 'making things up' bit which is a dead give away that these people simply don't know what they're talking about.
Well done fortigurn. Larry Hurtado needs a bit of support in dealing with such types.
Thanks. I actually think he is way too nice on them. In other news, Carrier has made the mistake of criticizing Lester Grabbe's article in the Thompson/Verenna book. He is going to learn the hard way that when it comes to down and dirty street fighting, Grabbe is hard to beat; he certainly has years more practice than Carrier.
Verenna has posted on his own blog, the comment Grabbe left for Carrier on his. It is unintentionally hilarious. There are penises.
Quote:
Since Dr Carrier has given a completely misleading impression of my article, I thought I might make a few brief points:
1. Thank you for the reference to Van Voorst. It was, unfortunately, unavailable when I did my research for the article. However, my practice is to go to primary sources as the basis of any research. It is also important to take account of secondary sources, but if you work from the primary sources, it is not usually a disaster if you overlook a secondary source.
2. “Uncritical” is the typical sophomoric response of one who cannot refute the arguments of another. Of course, there are many uncritical studies in the scholarly literature–as I have often pointed out–but my article is not one of them. On the contrary, I critically analyzed every source and came to a considered judgment about its historical value for the question. You might disagree with my conclusions, but it is not because I was uncritical.
3. Your attempt to show I made an ignorant mistake about Pilate is cheap and disingenuous, as a full quotation of the passage quickly shows:
Thus, it seems likely that Tacitus’ source is Roman. Tacitus is the only Roman writer >to mention Pilate (though we have confirmation of his existence from an inscription). >If Pilate had reported to the Senate on the matter, this would likely have been available >in the senatorial archives. [Is This Not the Carpenter?, p. 59]
My argument was about Tacitus, not Pilate. As for the alleged lack of knowledge about the facts, I examined and discussed all or almost all the primary references to Pilate and also listed the main recent secondary sources already 20 years ago in my Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (1992), pp. 395-97, 422-25.
4. No, I didn’t take account of your article, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josepehus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200″, since it has not yet been published. I’m afraid I’m not prescient.
5. I think it highly unlikely that Josephus used Luke, and I think that few scholars of either Luke or Josephus would accept that proposition. (I also doubt that Luke used Josephus, though that is a possibility.)
6. Even though you assure everyone that I am mistaken, on not less than two occasions, you also urge your audience not to read my article. Yet you devote about 25 percent of your entire review of the book just to my contribution. I am left with the distinct impression that you are afraid for people to read it.
In conclusion, critical scholars will disagree with one another, which is fine–that’s part of scholarship. But they should present evidence and careful argument for their positions: chest-thumping and penis-waving will not substitute.
Re: Ehrman's new book "Did Jesus Exist?" « Reply #455 on Aug 1, 2012, 8:03pm »
What a brutal beatdown!
It's always fun to watch mythicists and skeptics tearing at each other's throats, but this exchange is particularly valuable because it exposes Carrier's dishonest tactics for what they really are.
In his review of Is This Not the Carpenter?, Carrier observes that Grabbe believes the extrabiblical evidence for a historical Jesus is 'sufficient to confirm historicity.' That'll be the real reason Carrier attacks him: because he's not a mythicist.
Actually, Carrier seems pretty miffed with the entire book as a whole. The agnostic position taken by many of the contributors seems to irritate him, which is odd because it's the same position Carrier claims to hold.
At one point Carrier even accuses Grabbe of being a historicist ('His claim that “Tacitus probably obtained his information from a document or archival source” is given without argument or evidence (demonstrating how badly historicists struggle with even basic logic)') which I'm sure is not true.
I have long suspected Carrier is actually a closet Jesus mythicist posing as a Jesus agnostic in an attempt to bolster his claim of objectivity, and this review appears to support my theory.
This gem from Carrier (in the comments) amused me:
Quote:
When this title was being planned years ago I was asked if I wanted to contribute, I responded that I required some compensation and would be willing to negotiate it, and the offer was withdrawn on account of the fact that no contributors would be paid.
...
It’s actually standard for academic anthologies to not compensate contributors. I have ways of getting around that, and usually do, but most academics don’t think like businessmen.
Joined: Jul 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 600 Location: Sydney Karma: 41
Re: Ehrman's new book "Did Jesus Exist?" « Reply #457 on Aug 8, 2012, 8:21pm »
In other news, Frank Zindler's myther-friendly American Atheist Press is apparently preparing a volume of essays responding to Ehrman's book. This notice prefaced the latest addition to Rene "Piano Man" Salm's silly "Nazareth Never Existed" website:
The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming book published by American Atheist Press addressing Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? It is part of my contributory chapter.—R.S.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,217 Location: Sydney Australia Karma: 27
Re: Ehrman's new book "Did Jesus Exist?" « Reply #458 on Aug 9, 2012, 2:03am »
I won't attempt to guess, but I did notice on the web page you referenced that their opening quote is dated 1899 - truly cutting edge archaeology!! : ) (Although, to be fair, the article itself is contemporary.)
Verenna has posted on his own blog, the comment Grabbe left for Carrier on his. It is unintentionally hilarious. There are penises.
Carrier took his time responding, and wrote a mini-essay in reply.
Quote:
Richard Carrier says: August 3, 2012 at 11:53 am
Dr. Lester Grabbe:
Thank you for the reference to Van Voorst. It was, unfortunately, unavailable when I did my research for the article.
Van Voorst’s book was published in 2000. That’s twelve years ago. Honestly. You are making my point for me here. If your chapter is over a decade out of date, that alone is sufficient to establish it as worthless, when so many better and more recent summaries of the evidence are available. Like Van Voorst. Who is apparently “more recent” than your chapter.
(Maybe Van Voorst used the same temporal warp the editors of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy did to publish their book decades before it was written?)
But since you cite Paget on Josephus (published in 2001) and Schäfer on the Talmud (published in 2007), I really can’t fathom how you missed Van Voorst. Much less Theissen & Merz (below).
However, my practice is to go to primary sources as the basis of any research. It is also important to take account of secondary sources, but if you work from the primary sources, it is not usually a disaster if you overlook a secondary source.
My own survey of the scholarship on these sources would suggest otherwise, where I have found many observations and facts I would not have known about had I just looked at the source materials alone. I agree we cannot be aware of everything (there is simply too much published). But when several handy guides have been published surveying the scholarship on the very passages you discuss, to ignore them is to render your work less useful than theirs. Hence we should ignore your work and look at theirs.
Van Voorst is not alone. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (1998, so almost fifteen years before your chapter was published), is another important example. But Van Voorst’s treatment of these materials is better than theirs, and far better than yours.
“Uncritical” is the typical sophomoric response of one who cannot refute the arguments of another.
Actually, it’s statements like that that are sophomoric.
Your treatment of the evidence is largely credulous and asks few of the questions other examiners of this evidence have asked. That’s what it means to be uncritical. That is an accurate description of your chapter.
One need only compare your treatment with Van Voorst’s to see what an adequately critical treatment of the evidence looks like (and I say that even though I disagree with many of Van Voorst’s conclusions–he at least treats the evidence with the detail of questioning and research it deserves, and that scholars interested in resolving this debate require).
My argument was about Tacitus, not Pilate.
I don’t see any relevance of that distinction to the point I made. To wit:
Your attempt to show I made an ignorant mistake about Pilate is cheap and disingenuous, as a full quotation of the passage quickly shows:
>Thus, it seems likely that Tacitus’ source is Roman. Tacitus >is the only Roman writer to mention Pilate (though we have >confirmation of his existence from an inscription). If Pilate >had reported to the Senate on the matter, this would likely >have been available in the senatorial archives.
Your mistake was not telling readers that Pilate is confirmed to have existed in other sources as well (not just an inscription), and other Roman writers did mention him, even one of his contemporaries (and thus Tacitus is not “the only Roman writer to mention Pilate”). And Tacitus could have used them (Philo’s book on Pilate is lost, so we don’t know what was in it; likewise Pliny the Elder’s history of Rome would have mentioned any fire and persecution under Nero, if such were at all prominent). This is therefore a rather important point.
It does not matter what you know, since readers are not telepaths. What matters is what your chapter says. The error is in your chapter. And that is a fact.
As I also noted, you also don’t support your conclusion that Tacitus relied on government records. Even the notion that Pilate would report to the Roman senate on an everyday execution is unsupported by any evidence (despite being intrinsically improbable), the notion that such a record would still exist (even after the archives had burned in 64, when the capitol was destroyed, and 80, when the libraries of Rome were destroyed) is likewise unsupported by any evidence (despite being again for that reason improbable), and the idea that Tacitus would bother to spend days digging through thousands of crime reports supposedly in the state archives just to confirm what Christians told him, just to fill out a minor digression (when he would already have regarded what they themselves were saying as more than embarrassing enough to repeat unchecked, as he often did of salacious rumors) is likewise unsupported by any evidence (despite being, again, intrinsically improbable).
Compare your treatment with Theissen & Merz, who examine three possible sources: Tacitus learned his information from Christians (directly or through his friend Pliny the Younger when some Christians were being rounded up in 110 A.D. and he and Tacitus were governing adjacent provinces and sharing correspondence in which Tacitus was known to ask his good friend Pliny for information to include in his histories–although, notably, even they do not mention all these important details), from earlier historians (Pliny the Elder would in that event be the most likely, but there were many to choose from), or from government records. They find that we can’t prove any of these hypotheses over the others (except that the content of the digression does not suggest the citing of an official record, as it has no hallmarks of such specificity, so they regard that as least likely). Contrast their treatment with yours: again, it proves my point.
I myself would say the first hypothesis is substantially more probable, owing to the third being the least probable, and given that the second would entail someone else would probably (not certainly, but with some nonnegligible probability) have quoted or mentioned any coverage of Christians in earlier histories like Pliny the Elder’s (it’s hard to imagine Christians would have let such a valuable reference to Jesus, so close to his time, go unrecorded–or, if it was salacious, unrebutted, as then surely Christianity’s critics would have been using it–but above all, had Pliny the Elder discussed Christians in his history, his devoted admirer, nephew and adopted son Pliny the Younger would surely have read it and thus not have known nothing about Christians as he reports in his letter to Trajan in 110).
This is the kind of information readers need, and that you don’t give, or discuss at all.
As for the alleged lack of knowledge about the facts, I examined and discussed all or almost all the primary references to Pilate and also listed the main recent secondary sources already 20 years ago in my Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (1992), pp. 395-97, 422-25.
So why isn’t this reference in your chapter?
This is precisely the kind of thing I am talking about. That would have been a useful thing to include in your chapter. And it is precisely by omitting useful things like that, that your chapter becomes useless.
No, I didn’t take account of your article, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josepehus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200”, since it has not yet been published. I’m afraid I’m not prescient.
First, note that I only said your “entire treatment of Josephus is rendered obsolete anyway” by my paper, not that you didn’t take it into account.
But since you are now making a point of it, I will now inform my readers that I sent my paper to you in October of 2010 (in an early draft, but sufficient to have informed you of its findings). I sent it through the editors of Carpenter when I heard you were writing on the subject, and I confirmed personally that they had forwarded it to you (on or about the 20th or 21st of October, 2010). Now, perhaps it got lost in your spam folder. That’s happened to me on rare occasion. Which is why I didn’t make an issue of it in my article, since I didn’t know if you ever actually received it. But I mention it now to illustrate that you did not have to be prescient. Since except for what may have been a rare accident, you would have had the paper to examine well before publication. Just FYI.
I think it highly unlikely that Josephus used Luke, and I think that few scholars of either Luke or Josephus would accept that proposition. (I also doubt that Luke used Josephus, though that is a possibility.)
Have you read Goldberg?
Your opinion is uninformed if you have not. And an uninformed opinion is of no use. That you think Goldberg argues “Josephus” used Luke is evidence of that. Goldberg does not even include that among the three hypotheses he considers: that a Christian wrote the TF (using Luke as their source); that Josephus and Luke used a common (Christian) source; and chance accident (i.e. that the agreements between Luke and the TF are a lucky coincidence).
Goldberg leans toward the hypothesis that Luke and Josephus used a common source, in which scenario Josephus is its author, but Luke was not his source. But in support of this hypothesis Goldberg offers the James passage, but as I prove that was an accidental interpolation, that conclusion is removed. Goldberg offered it only as a speculation anyway. Indeed, the thesis requires, as he admits, that “it were true that Josephus did little but rewrite a concise narrative that had, so to speak, crossed his desk,” a narrative written by Christians as a creedal statement. It is inherently unlikely Josephus would do that. It is not inherently unlikely that a Christian forger would.
His evidence therefore more strongly supports the whole TF being a creedal Christian construction inserted into the text of Josephus (even if it was subsequently altered again in later centuries, or not). He finds nineteen largely unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus creedal account and the TF, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with order and word variations only within each). He does confirm some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very hard to explain. He also shows that the TF contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan (he rightly concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source). Indeed, these features are so very peculiar as to pretty much give away the game.
His evidence is fairly convincing, IMO. And that was published in 1995. Nearly twenty years before your chapter went into print.
Even though you assure everyone that I am mistaken, on not less than two occasions, you also urge your audience not to read my article. Yet you devote about 25 percent of your entire review of the book just to my contribution. I am left with the distinct impression that you are afraid for people to read it.
This is silly. It is my job as a reviewer to inform readers what is worth their time to read. I found your chapter a waste of time, and thus refer readers to Van Voorst. Since I am not afraid of anything in Van Voorst, it would be silly to think your treatment is more frightening. Your treatment is just more credulous and illogical and less detailed and informed than his, and thus far less useful.
Indeed, I think your chapter should be read in comparison to Van Voorst as an instructive example on how not to write chapters like that. But most people are more interested in the evidence and what to make of it than on how to write papers.
But they should present evidence and careful argument for their positions: chest-thumping and penis-waving will not substitute.
Which is ironically what you just did.
I, by contrast, stated facts and gave examples verifying them (most of which you conveniently avoided responding to), and cited more scholars than just myself in support of my point.
Re: Ehrman's new book "Did Jesus Exist?" « Reply #461 on Aug 10, 2012, 10:57pm »
He's resorting (as usual) to the old 'you didn't read scholar (x), so you're totally uninformed and I can now ignore all the parts of your response that I would otherwise fail to rebut.'
He's resorting (as usual) to the old 'you didn't read scholar (x), so you're totally uninformed and I can now ignore all the parts of your response that I would otherwise fail to rebut.'
And what I have found is that with Carrier is that the odds are about 50/50 that his "scholar (x)" has actually said something completely different from what Carrier has presented. I wonder what that does to calculations in Bayes' theorem?
And what I have found is that with Carrier is that the odds are about 50/50 that his "scholar (x)" has actually said something completely different from what Carrier has presented.
Good point. I've also noticed that when Carrier says there's a scholarly consensus on a particular issue supporting an argument he's making, the odds are about 70/30 that no such scholarly consensus actually exists, and the view in the relevant literature is overwhelmingly against the view he is citing as consensus. He quotes some scholar from the 1970s and then claims (without any evidence), that this is the new consensus, or that this was 'proved decades ago', without any evidence.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i41.tinypic.com/k9cg80.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/Pope3.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
