jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 13, 2017 15:12:22 GMT
This is a claim that gets repeated around the internet. The problem is that no-one ever actually links to Philo himself or any other primary source. The earliest form of the quote that I've found comes from The Rational Responders website, 2007: www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesusRational Responders don't provide any links to back up these claims about Philo being in or around Jerusalem. Jagella, why are you quoting Jim Jones here, where he provides no sources about his claim that Philo was living in or near Jerusalem both at the time of Christ's purported birth (appr 4 BCE) AND at the time of Christ's purported death (appr 30 CE)? Doesn't that sound a little too convenient, even more so without listed sources backing the claims up? Thanks for alerting me to this problem. I will investigate Philo to see if what's said in the quotation is correct.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 13, 2017 18:40:27 GMT
This is a claim that gets repeated around the internet. The problem is that no-one ever actually links to Philo himself or any other primary source. The earliest form of the quote that I've found comes from The Rational Responders website, 2007: www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesusRational Responders don't provide any links to back up these claims about Philo being in or around Jerusalem. Jagella, why are you quoting Jim Jones here, where he provides no sources about his claim that Philo was living in or near Jerusalem both at the time of Christ's purported birth (appr 4 BCE) AND at the time of Christ's purported death (appr 30 CE)? Doesn't that sound a little too convenient, even more so without listed sources backing the claims up? Thanks for alerting me to this problem. I will investigate Philo to see if what's said in the quotation is correct. No need - it isn't. But why didn't you check these claims before parroting them? Aren't you meant to be a "sceptic"? You seem oddly lopsided in your "scepticism". And now it's time for you to acknowledge that you bungled your attempted argument from silence. If Jesus was only "famous" in a tiny backwater, we would not expect Greek and Roman historians with no interest in people like him to mention him. You claim "I have no problem recognizing errors on my part. In fact, discovering my errors makes me "right." Okay - prove that here by admitting your argument doesn't make sense.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 13, 2017 22:11:36 GMT
...why didn't you check these claims before parroting them? OK, great. This is a clean, troll-free post I can respond sensibly to. As far as Philo is concerned, I need to further investigate him. Your word alone does not satisfy my investigation. I need credible sources about Philo. I'm not saying you aren't credible, but I don't know if you are credible either. Of course I'm biased. Everybody has a bias. As far as mythicism is concerned, much of what the mythicists have to say does seem to stretch credulity. So my skepticism applies to both sides of this debate. I'm as fair as I think I can be. At worst, I posted a source that another member here questions. Since I'm working on a book that (among other things) surveys mythicism, the quotation in question is valuable to me as an example of why some people doubt Jesus' historicity. You seem to mistakenly believe that I'm out to prove Jesus never existed. What I am doing is investigating the debate over his historicity. I've found reasons to doubt that he existed, and I will report these reasons in my book. Maybe Greek and Roman historians wouldn't bother with writing about Jesus, but Josephus might. Here's what Richard Carrier has to say: So why didn't Josephus mention Jesus if he mentioned other purported messiahs? All we have is a possible mention of James, Jesus brother, and The Testimonium Flavianum which is probably a Christian interpolation. In any case, messianic figures like Jesus did get a lot of attention. That he wasn't mentioned is surprising if he existed. By the way, Carrier's cited work appears to deal a fatal blow to the historical-Jesus theory. I've only read 84 pages, but already it seems that Carrier has virtually demonstrated Jesus' nonexistence. I feel that way because contrary to what historicists claim, there was indeed a Jewish mythology of a dying and rising Christ prior to when Jesus is believed to have lived. So any argument that the Jews would not have invented a crucified Christ is wrong. They invented Christ BC! (1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 69
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 14, 2017 4:20:16 GMT
...why didn't you check these claims before parroting them? OK, great. This is a clean, troll-free post I can respond sensibly to. Please stop the ridiculous whining. You've had two people here tell you that the quote you parroted without checking its claims is completely wrong. A few minutes on Google should bring up what biographical information we have about Philo which clearly shows he lived in Alexandria and gives no information to support your quotes' claims. So yes, you do need to belatedly check your facts instead of just blurting something that you thought conveniently supported a point you wanted to be true and you should have done that in the first place. This is just one example of your lack of capacity to critically evaluate this stuff, yet you keep insisting you have that capability. Youyr problem is more that you don't have enough of a grasp of the material to be able to evaluate the arguments on this question, yet you've decided you're capable of evaluating it anyway. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. Nonsense. Your failed argument from silence was squarely based on your claim that if Jesus was as famous as the gospels claim, he should have been noticed by the historians of the time. You've been shown that this argument is nonsense, given that Jesus was only "famous" in a backwater territory and the historians of his time had no interest in Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants. Your bungled quote claiming Philo was in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' execution is just one small part of the failure of your argument, though it does illustrate, yet again, your incompetence. The real problem is that there were NO historians of his time who we can expect "should" have mentioned Jesus because he was, even based on the gospels' accounts, a very minor figure of no great fame and of a kind that did not interest the Greek and Roman historians of the time. The textus receptus of Josephus has him doing precisely that - twice. Of these, Ant. XVIII.63-4 is considered by most Josephan scholars to have a core original to Josephus and Ant. XX.200 is generally considered to be totally genuine. Carrier is right that if we are going to find a reference to Jesus anywhere in this period it's in Josephus, since he is about the only historian of the time who had any interest in such figures. Unfortunately for Carrier, the consensus on the Josephan mentions of Jesus is against Carrier's fringe position. But that's about normal. And now it seems Jagella has really drunk the Kool Aid ...
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Nov 14, 2017 5:20:55 GMT
Thanks for alerting me to this problem. I will investigate Philo to see if what's said in the quotation is correct. You're welcome. Can I ask a favor: Can you come back here to give us the results of your investigation, one way or the other? I agree with you that we all have biases. One way to overcome them is to make sure that statements are adequately sourced before you reproduce them, especially ones that seem to support your own side. As Abraham Lincoln will tell you, there are many false statements floating around the Internet!
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Nov 14, 2017 5:25:14 GMT
By the way, Carrier's cited work appears to deal a fatal blow to the historical-Jesus theory. I've only read 84 pages, but already it seems that Carrier has virtually demonstrated Jesus' nonexistence. I feel that way because contrary to what historicists claim, there was indeed a Jewish mythology of a dying and rising Christ prior to when Jesus is believed to have lived. So any argument that the Jews would not have invented a crucified Christ is wrong. They invented Christ BC! (1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 69 Based on my experience, be very, very careful to check Carrier, and make sure that his sources say what he actually claims. You might find my review of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" interesting. I'm happy to discuss this with you here or on a separate thread if you like: members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 14, 2017 14:47:27 GMT
You're welcome. Can I ask a favor: Can you come back here to give us the results of your investigation, one way or the other? Sure, but it might take a while until I get to Philo. Can you recommend a good book that figures into the mythicist-historicist debate that discusses Philo? A key question to ask is whether he should be expected to mention somebody like Jesus. Yes, and when it comes to issues regarding Jesus, people could not be more divided. There's so much at stake in what we believe about him. Emotions run high, and while emotions have their advantages, they can also blind us to the truth as we embrace what we like and deny what we abhor. Do you check your own sources that way? And do you check the sources that you use to check your sources? And do you check the sources of the sources that you use to check your sources? I hope you see where this is going. Unfortunately, any source is subject to error and may constitute misinformation rather than information. I should also stress that when historicists impugn questionable sources used by mythicists, they engage in blatant special pleading. The kettle calls the pot black! What sources could be more questionable than the myth-laden books of the New Testament used to "establish" a historical Jesus? Oh, and what is the source for Abraham Lincoln telling us that? It's some guy on the internet! We are on the internet. Anything anybody says in this forum is possibly a "false statement floating around the Internet!" And that includes you and especially the troll.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 14, 2017 15:13:55 GMT
Based on my experience, be very, very careful to check Carrier, and make sure that his sources say what he actually claims. Should I employ the same scrutiny to sources used by those who espouse a historical Jesus? I will read it when I get the time. I see you critique Carrier's use of Baye's Theorem. While I have not yet gotten to Carrier's (or your) discussion of Baye's Theorem, I do know that calculating probabilities can be very tricky. A probability is no more valid than the premises it rests upon. As computer scientists say: "Garbage in--garbage out (GIGO)." Just yesterday I received an email from a man who has concluded that we probably live in a computer simulation. My response to him is: So when I check Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem, it is important to scrutinize his premises. Ok, use your best judgment as to what venue our discussion might take place in.
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Nov 14, 2017 19:01:43 GMT
Based on my experience, be very, very careful to check Carrier, and make sure that his sources say what he actually claims. Should I employ the same scrutiny to sources used by those who espouse a historical Jesus? If possible, you should even avoid trusting standard reference works and translations of source documents. Any time someone is making an argument and pulls a fact out of a hat -presto- that would seem to settle the matter, you should be especially wary. If someone has been found to muck about with citations which do not say what he claims they do, and other such chicaneries, then you should keep that in mind. Generally speaking, historical Jesus books by academics tend to play by academic rules. Even so, you should check where you can. This gets easier the more you know the field.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 14, 2017 19:15:13 GMT
By the way, Carrier's cited work appears to deal a fatal blow to the historical-Jesus theory. I've only read 84 pages, but already it seems that Carrier has virtually demonstrated Jesus' nonexistence. I feel that way because contrary to what historicists claim, there was indeed a Jewish mythology of a dying and rising Christ prior to when Jesus is believed to have lived. So any argument that the Jews would not have invented a crucified Christ is wrong. They invented Christ BC! (1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 69 Jagella, you should read Carrier more critically. I have already given you the link to Thom Stark's evisceration of Carrier's argumentation there, but Carrier is making extreme suppositions based on his reading of Targums and some 'context' that Carrier invented himself. And Carrier doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew, so he can't understand the primary sources Isaiah 53 (in Hebrew) and the Targum Jonathan (in Aramaic). I agree with you that we all have biases. Yes, and when it comes to issues regarding Jesus, people could not be more divided. There's so much at stake in what we believe about him. Emotions run high, and while emotions have their advantages, they can also blind us to the truth as we embrace what we like and deny what we abhor. Not to brag, but I'm always pretty stolid in these discussions. And Don and Tim, to name just two, also don't seem like they have an extreme emotional dependence on Jesus' historical existence. Do you check your own sources that way? And do you check the sources that you use to check your sources? And do you check the sources of the sources that you use to check your sources? I hope you see where this is going. Unfortunately, any source is subject to error and may constitute misinformation rather than information. He isn't open to this infinite regress gambit, because he wrote "adequately sourced", not "infinitely sourced" or even just "sourced". That means that a reasonably early primary source could do without giving sources. But modern Mythicist scribblings do not have any special access to events that happened two thousand years ago and they should be held to the standard of mentioning their sources - that is the convention now and they're not describing events as they happen but interpreting ancient texts instead. I should also stress that when historicists impugn questionable sources used by mythicists, they engage in blatant special pleading. The kettle calls the pot black! What sources could be more questionable than the myth-laden books of the New Testament used to "establish" a historical Jesus? That's a false equivalence. First, the New Testament does not contain "myths" except in the most colloquial sense of the word. Instead what we have are the embellishments from sympathising sources about their religious hero. But more importantly, the relevant books of the New Testament are not works of fringe scholarship that first and foremost offer interpretations of existing source material, but primary sources that also mention embarrassing facts about their protagonist. You need to distinguish more clearly between primary sources and modern interpretations. Based on my experience, be very, very careful to check Carrier, and make sure that his sources say what he actually claims. Should I employ the same scrutiny to sources used by those who espouse a historical Jesus? Yes, certainly. Do not forget that we, those who 'espouse' a historical Jesus, have already been proven forthright in quoting sources - you merely have to look at the previous page to see us do just that.
|
|
|
Post by gakuseidon on Nov 14, 2017 21:22:57 GMT
You're welcome. Can I ask a favor: Can you come back here to give us the results of your investigation, one way or the other? Sure, but it might take a while until I get to Philo. Can you recommend a good book that figures into the mythicist-historicist debate that discusses Philo? A key question to ask is whether he should be expected to mention somebody like Jesus. I can't recommend a book unfortunately. But why not read his works yourself? Philo's extant works in English translation can be found here: www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.htmlIf you look at the titles, I think you can see the obvious problem: Would you expect Philo to mention Jesus in his "On the Creation"? "On the birth of Abel"? "On the Giants"? Most of the titles don't deal with modern events. One where he might mention Jesus is "Flaccus", whom was appointed prefect of Alexandria and Egypt about A.D. 32. In the text, Philo mentions a man called "Carabbas" who was mocked by the crowd as though he were a king, which has some similarities to what befell Jesus in the Gospels. So yes, Philo would be the most likely to mention Jesus. The problem is showing his silence is significant. Why not read Philo yourself and make your case? In which of his works would you expect Philo to mention Jesus, and why? Yes, and when it comes to issues regarding Jesus, people could not be more divided. There's so much at stake in what we believe about him. Emotions run high, and while emotions have their advantages, they can also blind us to the truth as we embrace what we like and deny what we abhor. For what it's worth, I'm a theist, but Jesus' non-existence wouldn't worry me. I can't speak for others, though. Tim O'Neill may well be an albino monk set out on a mission by the Pope to keep the Vatican's secret that there was no historical Jesus! At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter. It's the arguments that matter. Come for the bias, but stay for the arguments! Do you check your own sources that way? And do you check the sources that you use to check your sources? And do you check the sources of the sources that you use to check your sources? I hope you see where this is going. Unfortunately, any source is subject to error and may constitute misinformation rather than information. That's silly, jagella, I'm sorry. The use of sources is as much to allow OTHER PEOPLE to check your work. I checked your reference to Philo back to its source, which is Jim Jones. Jones has no sources for his comment. I've read Philo, so I know there is nothing to put him in Jerusalem both at the time of Jesus' birth and his crucifixion. But if Jones had sources, I would have continued searching, trying to get back to an original, primary, source. But since Jones had no source? A good rule of thumb is Hitchen's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I'm happy to discuss this with you here or on a separate thread if you like... Ok, use your best judgment as to what venue our discussion might take place in. When you're ready, please start a new thread. Probably best to start on a particular topic, to keep the focus on that. I'd recommend you start with Section 4, which contains my evaluation of Dr Carrier's "Death in outer space" theory. It might take a little digging, but I believe you will find that Carrier is misrepresenting his sources. This undermines one of the planks in his minimalist mythicist theory, which would, by his own reckoning, invalidate his particular mythicist theory. I link to some rather large discussions about my review on other forums, which you might find interesting. But since I wrote the review a few years ago, some of the links may no longer work. But I try to use primary sources as much as I can, and you should be able to find references to English translations to most primary sources easily enough.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 14, 2017 22:36:36 GMT
Jagella, you should read Carrier more critically. I have already given you the link to Thom Stark's evisceration of Carrier's argumentation there, but Carrier is making extreme suppositions based on his reading of Targums and some 'context' that Carrier invented himself. And Carrier doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew, so he can't understand the primary sources Isaiah 53 (in Hebrew) and the Targum Jonathan (in Aramaic). One thing's for sure; on both sides of this debate we have lots of "evisceration" of the other side's "extreme suppositions." That's good. Do not allow your predispositions to blind you. LOL Are you really that blind to what our resident troll is posting? Is that the kind of people you rely on to convince you that Jesus existed? An angry, insulting, troll? If all else fails, then impugn the opposing side's sources. What's ironic about this practice is that I first heard a historicist complain about its practice among myhthicists. Obviously impugning sources is only wrong if the opposing side tries it. You call it "embellishments from sympathising sources about their religious hero," and I call it "lying for Jesus." You obviously missed my exposing Bart Ehrman's lying about Acharya S on this very thread. In any case, it looks to me that it might not be too long until Jesus, just like Adam and Noah, will be seen as a myth by all those who know the evidence. I predict we will live to see the "paradigm shift."
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 15, 2017 18:36:28 GMT
Jagella, you should read Carrier more critically. I have already given you the link to Thom Stark's evisceration of Carrier's argumentation there, but Carrier is making extreme suppositions based on his reading of Targums and some 'context' that Carrier invented himself. And Carrier doesn't know Aramaic and Hebrew, so he can't understand the primary sources Isaiah 53 (in Hebrew) and the Targum Jonathan (in Aramaic). One thing's for sure; on both sides of this debate we have lots of "evisceration" of the other side's "extreme suppositions." The "both sides" trope does not work here. Everyone agrees that Carrier's views on a dying and rising Messiah is extremely unusual in secular scholarship, though it is something that many fundamentalists believe or would love to believe. Certainly, a term like "evisceration" is strong. But Stark showed in detail that Carrier misunderstood the scholar he cited, didn't understand the nature and purpose of a Targum, lacked an accurate understanding of the state of the field, jumbled his proof text from Daniel and then some. That's not a mere refutation, that is some stronger stuff. I have yet to see a Mythicist do a similarly spectacular takedown of a prominent scholarly advocate of the consensus position. LOL Are you really that blind to what our resident troll is posting? Is that the kind of people you rely on to convince you that Jesus existed? An angry, insulting, troll? I have never said that I "rely on" other people "to convince" me "that Jesus existed", because I don't rely on other people to convince me. Why did you make that up? Still, it does not follow from your view of Tim as a troll that he depends emotionally on the existence of Jesus. I think it's bizarre to suppose that atheists have any emotional interest in believing Jesus existed anyway. But if you object to Tim's choice of words, then it's hardly fair for you to do likewise to him. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If all else fails, then impugn the opposing side's sources. What's ironic about this practice is that I first heard a historicist complain about its practice among myhthicists. Obviously impugning sources is only wrong if the opposing side tries it. This mischaracterises what I wrote. I wasn't impugning Mythicist sources (whatever these are supposed to be), I explained why (some) primary sources receive a different treatment than much later interpretations of primary sources. Or if you want it a little more nuanced, original later interpretations are held to a different standard. Scholars aren't expected to provide references for all the elementary well-worn stuff, but they should cite their sources when they for instance read a text in a novel way. If I claim that Julius Caesar reached Siberia, wouldn't it be reasonable that I produce the sources on which I base my claim? And if I can't point to any sources as evidence, then don't you agree that it is highly unlikely that I can offer any reliable historical knowledge about Caesar's alleged expedition to Siberia, some two millennia ago? Ditto for those claims made by Todangst and Thomas Verenna (then Rook Hawkins) from the RRS about Philo. I'm not even sure that Verenna would still stand by that statement today. You call it "embellishments from sympathising sources about their religious hero," and I call it "lying for Jesus." Call it what you like, but that was not the point. The main point was that the distinction is justified because the NT contains primary sources while the Mythicists' books are not primary sources about Jesus, as I clearly wrote. The minor point was that the genre of myth does not appear in the NT. Here's my paragraph again: Do you see what I mean? You obviously missed my exposing Bart Ehrman's lying about Acharya S on this very thread. In any case, it looks to me that it might not be too long until Jesus, just like Adam and Noah, will be seen as a myth by all those who know the evidence. I predict we will live to see the "paradigm shift." I didn't miss it, I wasn't convinced. Murdock was at best extremely ambiguous while including some quite atrocious associations, and possibly did intend to claim more but retracted that later. Your comparison of Jesus and these mythical figures isn't very apt, because the nature of the evidence is so different. For Adam and Noah there's a gap of millennia between the time of their supposed existence and the time they are first mentioned in texts, and one can hardly speak of evidence here. For Jesus that's a gap of less than two decades until the oldest Pauline epistles, or not even one if you follow Crossley's date for the gospel of Mark. And there isn't much evidence of a current crisis in historical Jesus studies, even less of an upcoming "paradigm shift".
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Nov 15, 2017 22:07:02 GMT
The "both sides" trope does not work here. Everyone agrees that Carrier's views on a dying and rising Messiah is extremely unusual in secular scholarship, though it is something that many fundamentalists believe or would love to believe. I'm curious, can you name some of the fundamentalists you have in mind? Peter.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 16, 2017 0:44:18 GMT
The "both sides" trope does not work here. It works for me because I'm surveying both sides of the Jesus-myth debate. To do so I need to know what arguments are being made by both historicists and mythicists. I was just watching a YouTube video of a debate Carrier had with Craig Evans. Watch it here. Evans denied the existence of dying-and-rising gods in mythology, and Carrier proved him wrong. Carrier scored big there. People on both sides of the debate attack those on the other side this way. It seems obvious to me that Richard Carrier isn't the stupid ignoramus that you seem to be trying to make him out to be. It looked that way to me. Thanks for the correction. I suppose it is bizarre. Sometimes human behavior is not easy to understand. That's why we have psychologists. Everything I said about O'Neill is true: He's a troll, he's angry, and he insults. I think it's very fair to tell the truth about him. I essentially agree with what you're saying here. Yes, we should always know our sources. Why, then, base any argument for the historicity of Jesus on the New Testament? Or, for that matter, why cite Josephus or Tacitus as sources of information about Jesus? What were their sources? The fact is we do not know. I believe you have just unwittingly destroyed virtually all the evidence for Jesus! There are no primary sources in the New Testament. For that matter, neither are Josephus or Tacitus primary sources. These documents were written decades after the time when Jesus allegedly lived. You focus on the differences in the evidence, and I can point out the similarities. Jesus, like Adam, appears in Jewish religious texts that are not meant to inform but to convey religious belief. Like Jesus, it was very common not that long ago among scholars to believe Adam existed. Just like there's no solid evidence for Adam, there is no solid evidence for Jesus. Luke 3 includes a genealogy that links Jesus all the way back to Adam! In fact, Jesus' job was to mop up after Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:22) So in Jesus was see a midrash on Adam.
|
|