|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 26, 2012 6:42:52 GMT
Have you tried to repost it? Maybe it got into the spam folder or something? Alternatively, you could ask Carrier with a short post whether he could check the spam filter.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 7:18:04 GMT
Have you tried to repost it? Maybe it got into the spam folder or something? Alternatively, you could ask Carrier with a short post whether he could check the spam filter. I can see it in the queue, marked something like 'Your comment is awaiting moderation', just as the previous one was. I am hesitant about contacting Carrier directly.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 26, 2012 8:14:41 GMT
Hmm, well I have experienced with some blog software that even deleted comments still appeared to me. So the post appearing in the queue doesn't have to mean much. Anyhow whatever you do, don't imply he deleted it or he might call you a liar and decide he doesn't have to bother with you anymore.
Another option is to reply on a more recent thread about it.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 26, 2012 8:36:17 GMT
Ehrman does show himself to be a little careless on a few occasions - perhaps he rushed the book out a little too quickly? Yes, I agree with that. From the evidence I've seen so far, the book would have benefited from a careful editor and at least three painstaking independent reviews during the pre-publication phase.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 8:43:04 GMT
My reply to Carrier on his blog still hasn't been approved, although my first post was approved and replied to within a day. I wonder if I have hit a nerve? Given the recent blog responses by Ehrman and Hoffman, perhaps Carrier is preoccupied with licking his wounds. The two blog posts I referred to above were devastating. Not only did Ehrman methodically neutralize Carrier's criticisms but he also exposed Carrier as a hypocrite in his quoting the latter's own plea for respectable dialogue when he obviously is incapable of such dialogue himself. The net effect is that Carrier has come off like some arrogant college hoops player who thinks he's as good as Kobe Bryant and just got undressed one-on-one in front of a live audience. I predict a falling of Carrier's star in the atheist landscape except for the nutter contingents. He had set himself up as the "history expert" among mythicists and decided to reach for the stars by taking on Ehrman. Now that Ehrman has treated us to a reenactment of the Dr. Kingsley character on The Paper Chase (all he needed to do was tell him "Call your mother. You will never be a historian"), I think the more rational skeptics who were on the fence or even leaning his way will begin to move in the other direction. Perhaps in a few years, he will have settled his little feud with Acharya S and they will be writing cover blurbs praising each other's latest efforts.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 9:03:56 GMT
Hmm, well I have experienced with some blog software that even deleted comments still appeared to me. So the post appearing in the queue doesn't have to mean much. Anyhow whatever you do, don't imply he deleted it or he might call you a liar and decide he doesn't have to bother with you anymore. Another option is to reply on a more recent thread about it. I certainly won't be calling him a liar, and it doesn't seem that he has deleted it. I will try again a bit later. In the meantime, Neil Godfrey has provided the following list of comments on the topic of 'James, the brother of the Lord'. Just to be totally clear on what he thinks this evidence indicates, I asked him these questions. * Me: Are you saying that the likelihood of finding this evidence if Galatians 1:19 refers to BIOLOGICAL kinship is 0.99, that it is virtually certain we would find this evidence if Galatians 1:19 refers to BIOLOGICAL kinship? * Neil: Yes * Me: Or are you saying that the likelihood of finding this evidence if Galatians 1:19 refers to FICTIVE kinship is 0.99, that it is virtually certain we would find this evidence if Galatians 1:19 refers to FICTIVE kinship? Neil: No. So according to Neil, this list of statements provides evidence of exactly what we would find if Galatians 1:19 refers to BIOLOGICAL kinship. I then asked him this. He promptly put me on moderation:
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 9:42:46 GMT
One thing I have noticed with Carrier and other mythicists is their insistence that if they can find a few obscure figures who disagree with the academic consenus that this negates there is a consensus. This is of course quite absurd. I know of two men with Ph.D's in related fields (astronomy, physics) from universities with excellent reputations (I won't emabarass their alumni by naming them) who have written books in the last twenty years advocating geocentrism. Does that indicate the heliocentric consenus has been negated or does in indicate we are dealing with a couple of nutters? Take, for example, Frazer's dying and rising gods thesis. Most mythicists will blame the claimed defeat of the thesis on a single article by J. Z. Smith, counter that the article did not represent the scholarly consensus, and claim that T. N. D. Mettinger's The Riddle of Resurrection has overturn Smith's claims. This only illustrates they are completely unfamiliar with the debate, with Smith, and even with Mettinger!! First of all, Smith's article was not trying to prove anything. It was only an encyclopedia entry and not a detailed research paper. He merely presented what was the consensus and gave some reasons why. I note the mythicists seem unaware that Smith's did his doctoral dissertation on Frazer and have never dealt with the 300+ pages therein. Nor have they shown any real awareness of Smith's Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Maybe they aren't available on Google Books. As for the consensus, let us note that Mettinger, the one they hold as a standard bearer, stated quite clearly that those remaining who supported some aspects of Fraze's dying and rising gods thesis were looked upon as “residual members of an almost extinct species.” 1 Elsewhere, he made it even clearer by explicitly stating "“the words of J. Z. Smith aptly summarize the present state of research.” 2Moreover, when it comes to Frazer's thesis of dying and rising gods, Mettinger makes clear that his disagreement with the consensus is in a particularly limited area. He rejects the overarching theme of a dying and rising god category and is merely interested in individual cases without assuming a causal connection. In fact he states in his introductory outline that he “does not intend to resuscitate Frazer's category,” and that “the category of dying and rising deities as propagated by Frazer can no longer be upheld.” 3 Instead, he proposes to investigate whether there were any gods of the region who were believed to die and return to life and whether the motif could be considered as an ideal type without presupposing genetic relations. He comes to the conclusion there were, presents his evidence, and most scholars seem to disagree. I am not qualified to enter that battle on the technical details (e.g., the reconstruction of Ugaritic texts) but I can mention his definition of dying and rising sets the bar rather low. This is part of the argument against his book but I will leave those details to the experts. I will mention Mettinger finally argues that one should not hypostasize these gods into a specific type called “the dying and rising god” since these gods are actually of very different types. 4 As for the case of Jesus, Mettinger points out the obvious differences between yearly concerns with fertility and the themes present in Christianity and concludes: There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. Of course, mythicists try to claim Mettinger stopped there because he did not want to step on the toes of the Vast Christian Conspiracy TM. They overlook that Mettinger is a scholar of Near Eastern religions, has written extensively on the subject, that his book was intended for his fellow scholars, that the only reason it has achieved any notoriety in this discussion is because some mythicist discovered and quotemined it, and that Mettinger would probably think they were a bunch of nutters. If they had any familiarity with Mettinger at all, they would know he had already written on the importance of placing Christianity within the context of Second Temple Jewish concerns. His intended audience, which did not include the Richard Carriers and Dm Murdocks of the world, did not need it explained. Now if I, as a complete but interested amateur in this area, can figure this out, then how does Carrier, with a Ph.D. in the field, miss it? Not only did he miss it, but he embarassed himself in an impetuous and amateurish attempt to dress down Bart Ehrman. Now I disagree with Ehrman on a great many things, but it would be a cold day in hell before I would pull a stunt like that on him. I know my limitations. 1. Mettinger (2001), 7. 2. Mettinger, “The 'Dying and Rising God': A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day” in eds. Batto and K. L. Roberts (2004). 3. Mettinger (2001), 41. 4. Mettinger (2001), 218.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 10:00:59 GMT
I love posts with footnotes, thanks. Carrier actually puts the boot into Frazer actually, whom he believes has been utterly discredited, so I do think he's overplaying his hand when it comes to addressing what Erhman wrote on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Apr 26, 2012 10:07:32 GMT
One thing I have noticed with Carrier and other mythicists is their insistence that if they can find a few obscure figures who disagree with the academic consenus that this negates there is a consensus. This is of course quite absurd. Yes, that reminds one of the methods of some global warming "skeptics".
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 26, 2012 10:35:00 GMT
Ahaha, interpolation! The old standby! No need to prove it, just make the assertion!
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 10:43:07 GMT
I love posts with footnotes, thanks. Carrier actually puts the boot into Frazer actually, whom he believes has been utterly discredited, so I do think he's overplaying his hand when it comes to addressing what Erhman wrote on the subject. That makes it all the more confusing. If Carrier knows Frazer's "dying and rising gods" thesis is discredited, then why on earth did he defend it against Ehrman's dismissal? From what I had seen in his blogpost, I just assumed he took the standard mythicist line as I outlined in my post. I am really starting to wonder about the mental stability of some of these folks on the mythicist side.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 26, 2012 10:44:17 GMT
My reply to Carrier on his blog still hasn't been approved, although my first post was approved and replied to within a day. I wonder if I have hit a nerve? Given the recent blog responses by Ehrman and Hoffman, perhaps Carrier is preoccupied with licking his wounds. The two blog posts I referred to above were devastating. Not only did Ehrman methodically neutralize Carrier's criticisms but he also exposed Carrier as a hypocrite in his quoting the latter's own plea for respectable dialogue when he obviously is incapable of such dialogue himself. The net effect is that Carrier has come off like some arrogant college hoops player who thinks he's as good as Kobe Bryant and just got undressed one-on-one in front of a live audience. I predict a falling of Carrier's star in the atheist landscape except for the nutter contingents. He had set himself up as the "history expert" among mythicists and decided to reach for the stars by taking on Ehrman. Now that Ehrman has treated us to a reenactment of the Dr. Kingsley character on The Paper Chase (all he needed to do was tell him "Call your mother. You will never be a historian"), I think the more rational skeptics who were on the fence or even leaning his way will begin to move in the other direction. Perhaps in a few years, he will have settled his little feud with Acharya S and they will be writing cover blurbs praising each other's latest efforts. I disagree. Looking at the comments on Carrier's posts - and on other blogs like Jerry Coyne's - the audience to the debate appear to still be on board with Carrier. A lot of the other contributors to free-thought blogs all seem to be tacitly backing him. I think that if he sticks up any kind of response which clouds the issues and comes back with a few more criticisms then he will have 'won'. Bart Ehrman has already said he won't reply so that gives his opponent a free hand so to speak. I think we all know that the criticisms raised by Carrier are trivial - but mud sticks. He's thrown out a lot of nasty comments about Ehrman's book being incompetent and unreliable and that will all be music to the ears of people who have a bias in favour of non-historicity (which is a surprising proportion of the Dawkinsia) Sure the response by Ehrman was good - but I think most people won't bother to read it.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 10:45:27 GMT
That makes it all the more confusing. If Carrier knows Frazer's "dying and rising gods" thesis is discredited, then why on earth did he defend it against Ehrman's dismissal? From what I had seen in his blogpost, I just assumed he took the standard mythicist line as I outlined in my post. I am really starting to wonder about the mental stability of some of these folks on the mythicist side. It's Carrier's attempt to discredit Ehrman any way possible. He realises that Fraser's hypothesis is faulty, but as soon as Ehrman said that there are no dying and rising gods on which to base Jesus' resurrection, Carrier decided to pounce on it regardless of the fact that he believes Jesus' resurrection is founded firmly in Jewish messianic expectations derived from the Old Testament.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 26, 2012 11:13:11 GMT
Given the recent blog responses by Ehrman and Hoffman, perhaps Carrier is preoccupied with licking his wounds. The two blog posts I referred to above were devastating. Not only did Ehrman methodically neutralize Carrier's criticisms but he also exposed Carrier as a hypocrite in his quoting the latter's own plea for respectable dialogue when he obviously is incapable of such dialogue himself. The net effect is that Carrier has come off like some arrogant college hoops player who thinks he's as good as Kobe Bryant and just got undressed one-on-one in front of a live audience. I predict a falling of Carrier's star in the atheist landscape except for the nutter contingents. He had set himself up as the "history expert" among mythicists and decided to reach for the stars by taking on Ehrman. Now that Ehrman has treated us to a reenactment of the Dr. Kingsley character on The Paper Chase (all he needed to do was tell him "Call your mother. You will never be a historian"), I think the more rational skeptics who were on the fence or even leaning his way will begin to move in the other direction. Perhaps in a few years, he will have settled his little feud with Acharya S and they will be writing cover blurbs praising each other's latest efforts. I disagree. Looking at the comments on Carrier's posts - and on other blogs like Jerry Coyne's - the audience to the debate appear to still be on board with Carrier. A lot of the other contributors to free-thought blogs all seem to be tacitly backing him. I think that if he sticks up any kind of response which clouds the issues and comes back with a few more criticisms then he will have 'won'. Bart Ehrman has already said he won't reply so that gives his opponent a free hand so to speak. I think we all know that the criticisms raised by Carrier are trivial - but mud sticks. He's thrown out a lot of nasty comments about Ehrman's book being incompetent and unreliable and that will all be music to the ears of people who have a bias in favour of non-historicity (which is a surprising proportion of the Dawkinsia) Sure the response by Ehrman was good - but I think most people won't bother to read it. I think those posting on the sites you mentioned are nutters. I used to think Carrier was sane but appealing to the nutters in the atheist camp the way others appeal to nutters in the Christian camp. But after this recent exchange, I am leaning towards believing that Carrier has become a nutter too. In any case, the nutters, whether Christian or atheist, tend to be the loudest and most frequent posters once they feel they have a green light to go to the land of tinfoil hats. Carrier, et al, have given them the encouragement and off they went and took the discussion to the nether regions of a realm normally only occupied by the likes of Acharya S and Jordan Maxwell. I believe, perhaps naively, that there are a lot of atheists/agnostics who are not nuts. I would like to think there are more on the side of Bart Ehrman than Acharya S. Although it would be nice to hear a sane voice on that side of the fence now and then. WHERE'S TIM ONEILL WHEN YOU NEED HIM?!?!
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Apr 26, 2012 11:15:34 GMT
I think we all know that the criticisms raised by Carrier are trivial - but mud sticks. He's thrown out a lot of nasty comments about Ehrman's book being incompetent and unreliable and that will all be music to the ears of people who have a bias in favour of non-historicity (which is a surprising proportion of the Dawkinsia) Sure the response by Ehrman was good - but I think most people won't bother to read it. I think we have made the point before that debates such as this are unlikely to change to minds of those who are committed to a mythic-Jesus position - after all, they're not coming to this to find out what is true, they are coming to this to win a battle, and historical evidence is not something to take into consideration to arrive at the truth, it is something to be overcome. Therefore Carrier's vast legions of adoring fans (yes, there might have been a touch of irony there) are unlikely to be swayed by anything as gauche as evidence or good argument, we all probably recognised this. But hopefully people coming to the argument fresh, without too many layers of accumulated bias, will be able to get something valuable from the debate.
|
|