|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 23, 2012 17:02:07 GMT
I suggest the following interpretation: "You've pointed at a vital flaw in my interpretation but I'll just try to bluff myself through it hoping nobody notices." Standard Mytherist tactic. At this point Godfrey typically backs out while throwing accusations that your questions have taken an inquisitorial tone indicating you are clearly completely uninterested in discussing the issue.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 23, 2012 17:19:59 GMT
I just don't get it, but maybe that's because I'm not a genius like Carrier. I mean for me it's a cumulative case.
1) Paul indicates that he met someone called James - the brother of the Lord - around 35-36AD. There is an outside chance it could mean disciple (though in context this looks unlikely), however:
2) In other traditions predating the gospels, it is stated that Jesus had actual brothers and that one of them was called James and:
3) Josephus mentions that James was a brother of Christ.
That looks like a slam-dunk to me - so why bring w, q, (W((N))*2/4) and all the other excel formulas into it.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 23, 2012 17:45:46 GMT
Good grief, Carrier's opinion of himself has reached new heights of hilarity: 'Renowned'? 'Avid fans'? 'Noted defender'? Richard, please read Proverbs 27:2 and take a reality check.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Apr 23, 2012 18:41:56 GMT
Carrier's argument is a logical mess. If you want probabilities, which choice do you think is more likely given that Paul was mentioning his meetings with Apostles:
a) Paul called James the brother of the Lord because James was the brother of the Lord. b) Paul called James the brother of the Lord because James was a Christian.
Any one with a smidegeon of common sense (or a lack of ideologically driven conclusions) would realize that Apostles would by definition be Christians and so the inclusion of the descriptive "brother of the Lord" would make no sense. On the other hand, if Paul were trying to make clear which of the key figures in the early church named James he had in mind (the brother of Jesus vs. the brother of John), then the addition of the phrase makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 23, 2012 22:21:03 GMT
If Carrier actually answers my question on his blog, I'm going to ask if he has followed the standard procedure for determining the meaning of Greek words and phrases; synchronic and diachronic analysis. When I posed this question to Doherty, he reacted very badly, demonstrating that he hadn't (he was simply making up meanings for Greek words, meanings which weren't attested in any text).
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 23, 2012 22:29:33 GMT
I just don't get it, but maybe that's because I'm not a genius like Carrier. I mean for me it's a cumulative case. That looks like a slam-dunk to me - so why bring w, q, (W((N))*2/4) and all the other excel formulas into it. Because that's what pseudoscientists do. How many times has a creationist come up with mathematical disproofs of "darwinism." Perhaps Carrier is the mythicists version of Bill Dembski.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 23, 2012 22:43:51 GMT
I have added a supporting comment, which is basically a rewording of my previous post here on the subject. It is currently awaiting moderation, and I hope Bart approves. Nice job. It looks like mythicism is all about confirmation bias. Begin with your conclusion. Find Google. Flesh out your conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 23, 2012 23:09:45 GMT
Yes, Ehrman is right and Carrier/Acharya S were wrong. But did anyone else get the impression Bart didn't know all that when he wrote the original comment (which was after all a very minor point, as he says), and he was fortunate in being able to scramble and justify his statement after the event? I'm not being all that critical, it was just an impression.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 23, 2012 23:38:18 GMT
A reply from Carrier.
My response.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 23, 2012 23:44:19 GMT
Yes, Ehrman is right and Carrier/Acharya S were wrong. But did anyone else get the impression Bart didn't know all that when he wrote the original comment (which was after all a very minor point, as he says), and he was fortunate in being able to scramble and justify his statement after the event? I'm not being all that critical, it was just an impression. It seems to me that there was a bit of scrabbling on both sides, but Murdock did a lot more of it, and came out the worse for wear.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 24, 2012 0:58:16 GMT
Yes, Ehrman is right and Carrier/Acharya S were wrong. But did anyone else get the impression Bart didn't know all that when he wrote the original comment (which was after all a very minor point, as he says), and he was fortunate in being able to scramble and justify his statement after the event? I'm not being all that critical, it was just an impression. I got the feeling too. In fact, it looks to me like fortigurn's comment is much more powerful. To use an analogy from football, Ehrman comes off as a cornerback tackling Carrier by his ankles. Fortigurn came off like a middle linebacker who just flattened Carrier et al. head-on. In the creationist debates, it was not uncommon for a good scientist to be outdone by a rat-a-tat-tat creationist. It took someone like a Ken Miller who knew how they played to put them down good. Is Ehrman really the right guy to take on the mythicists?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 24, 2012 1:06:10 GMT
I got the feeling too. In fact, it looks to me like fortigurn's comment is much more powerful. To use an analogy from football, Ehrman comes off as a cornerback tackling Carrier by his ankles. Fortigurn came off like a middle linebacker who just flattened Carrier et al. head-on. Thanks for the compliment. My personal approach to such discussions is to use what I call The Bodkin; instead of writing lengthy tirade-ridden screeds like Carrier, or equally lengthy and complicated rebuttals such as Ehrman, I prefer to focus on a key point which can be articulated simply and efficiently (essential if you want the punters to read and comprehend it), and stay with it until that issue has been addressed, then move to the next one. In this case it's clear that Carrier hasn't carried out a diachronic or synchronic analysis of the 'X, the brother of Y' construction, and I suspect strongly he is assuming his conclusion instead of basing it on evidence.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 24, 2012 1:54:52 GMT
Well, it works for me. Keep in mind that I am out of my depth on this issue. I’m relying on the simple awareness that Carrier has all the hallmarks of a crank. Yeah, he comes across as very knowledgeable (although how much of it is Google-dependent is unclear). But the self-adoration, the long machine-gun style postings, all coupled with the highly unconventional views that are not only are supposed to show Jesus did not exist, but supposed to tell all historians the True Way of doing history, says CRANK. I wonder if he emails historians at various universities trying to sell them his book.
I should tell you that I know nothing about diachronic or synchronic analysis. So here’s what an outsider like me sees:
Carrier: Why, that would take too much time and effort to do! And besides, it wouldn’t mean anything! In fact, I can come up with a better way!
You: Actually, if you are serious about this, it’s not that hard. So let’s do it.
From this exchange alone, Carrier comes off like a crank who is starting to sweat because he just got noticed by someone who knows something. And with the world full of avid fans, you can't afford to be wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 24, 2012 2:44:21 GMT
I should tell you that I know nothing about diachronic or synchronic analysis. So here’s what an outsider like me sees: Carrier: Why, that would take too much time and effort to do! And besides, it wouldn’t mean anything! In fact, I can come up with a better way! You: Actually, if you are serious about this, it’s not that hard. So let’s do it. Well that's good, because that's basically the way it is. When discussing the meaning of the construction 'X, the brother of Y', Carrier is straying into lexicography, an area in which he is certainly not qualified, despite his Greek literacy. Standard professional lexicographical methodology is to examine the contextual usage of words and phrases; this is how professional lexicons arrive at definitions; they also cite examples from the relevant corpus, of the usage of each definition. Synchronic analysis is the study of the usage of a word or phrase across different texts belonging to the same era of time; for example, the Hellenistic era, or the Hasmonean era, or the early Christian era. This is useful when you wish to know how the word was used within a specific period of time. Some subject specific lexicons focus on this kind of evidence; lexicons for the Greek used in the LXX (Septuagint) such as Lust, Hauspie & Eynikel, 'Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint' (rev. ed. 2003), or the New Testament, such as Friberg & Friberg, 'Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament' (2000). However, the meanings of words and phrases can change dramatically over time, so just because a word meant X at one time doesn't mean it always meant that. Diachronic analysis is the study of the usage of a word or phrase across different texts belonging to different eras of time; for example, the Classical era to the early Christian era. Broad subject lexicons incorporate this kind of evidence, such as Lidell, Scott & Jones, 'Greek-English Lexicon' (9th ed. with rev. supp. 1996), which covers Greek usage between 600 BCE and 600 BCE. His response is telling, very similar to the response Doherty gave when I requested evidence for the meaning he claimed for a specific Greek word or phrase. Both of them have far better qualifications in Greek than I do (I only studied it for two years, Doherty studied for four and has probably used his a lot more than I've used mine), and both of them should know the standard lexicographical methodology. Doherty acknowledged a specific word meaning to which he was appealing, is not found in any standard professional lexicon as the meaning of the word in question. When I pressed him for evidence for his claim (in the absence of any evidence from the relevant lexicons), he did not respond well. When I asked him if he had undertaken a diachronic and/or synchronic analysis to arrive at his conclusion, he first asked me if I even knew what the words meant (a distraction tactic), and then started to become extremely abrasive. It turned out he hadn't conducted any such analysis, so his proposed meaning was simply something he had made up. I am interested to see whether this will play out the same way with Carrier.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 24, 2012 3:52:15 GMT
His response is telling, very similar to the response Doherty gave when I requested evidence for the meaning he claimed for a specific Greek word or phrase. Both of them have far better qualifications in Greek than I do (I only studied it for two years, Doherty studied for four and has probably used his a lot more than I've used mine), and both of them should know the standard lexicographical methodology. Doherty acknowledged a specific word meaning to which he was appealing, is not found in any standard professional lexicon as the meaning of the word in question. When I pressed him for evidence for his claim (in the absence of any evidence from the relevant lexicons), he did not respond well. When I asked him if he had undertaken a diachronic and/or synchronic analysis to arrive at his conclusion, he first asked me if I even knew what the words meant (a distraction tactic), and then started to become extremely abrasive. It turned out he hadn't conducted any such analysis, so his proposed meaning was simply something he had made up. When someone is very knowledgeable, it becomes easier for them to paint targets around arrows. This type of thing gets called out among real experts in academia. Is Doherty in academia?
|
|