jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 26, 2017 23:37:35 GMT
Everybody's knowledge and skills are limited. And we need to understand those limits before undertaking a task which exceeds them. That's the point here. You lack the skills and knowledge to perform the task you intend to undertake, unless you want to do it very badly. Well, then, I guess we just disagree. There's no sense in going back and forth with somebody whose ego cannot let him see the difference between fact and opinion.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 27, 2017 1:09:51 GMT
Let's just stick with English. The problem with that is that it seriously handicaps your ability to tell if someone is interpreting the text in a reasonable way in their arguments. It can help a little bit to look at different translations and commentaries on a text. Why not use different translations in the vernacular? I understand what you're saying, but it's very tricky to prove meaning in any language. Consider all the Bible versions. Which one of them is "right"? The answer to this question is that it depends on the reader's beliefs and personal preferences. Even scholars disagree, or maybe I should say especially scholars disagree. For instance, in a segment of Mysteries of the Bible two scholars explained what the word "kill" in Exodus 20:13 means. The King James Version says: "Thou shalt not kill." One scholar said it means "kill," and the other insisted it means "murder." Who is right? I'm sure both of them have their reasons. Don't get me wrong; I think learning Greek can be a lot of fun and personally enriching. You can impress your friends! Also, knowing Greek might land you a job as a translator for some organization that works a lot with the New Testament. And of course you can teach it. One problem with "the Greek" is that it can be used to scam people especially those who don't know it. Very few people have the time to learn Greek, and they cannot check out anybody who claims they have some expertise in it. In any case, I've been thinking of learning New Testament Greek for a very long time. If I do, then I'll take care not to mislead people with it or insult people who may not know it.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 28, 2017 16:54:08 GMT
Hi Jagella, First I'll add my voice to the chorus chanting (perhaps shouting) that any in-depth probing by you personally would require you to getting a lot of specific knowledge. Fortigurn has already drawn some contours of where you need to learn a lot. Koinè Greek for one is an absolute must and a Semitic language is highly recommended if you are going to do your own theorising (Richard Carrier to name one doesn't know any Semitic languages and that really shows in my opinion, but Carrier is an exceptionally careless individual when it comes to the limits of his own knowledge). Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with not learning Greek, but that does necessarily mean you will have to rely more on others as interpreters. James has already mentioned some excellent guides. I understand that you won't feel like reading them all (though you will in fact have to read many more books if you really want to get to the bottom of the issue) but I will recommend one of Maurice Casey's books for a general audience to you: Jesus of Nazareth is more scholarly while Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? has a more polemic edge. For instance, in a segment of Mysteries of the Bible two scholars explained what the word "kill" in Exodus 20:13 means. The King James Version says: "Thou shalt not kill." One scholar said it means "kill," and the other insisted it means "murder." Who is right? I'm sure both of them have their reasons. It means "thou shalt not murder", the scholar who says it means "kill" has an agenda. The word, tirtsâkh, either means "to murder" (premeditated) or "to slay" (not premeditated). Don't get me wrong; I think learning Greek can be a lot of fun and personally enriching. You can impress your friends! Also, knowing Greek might land you a job as a translator for some organization that works a lot with the New Testament. And of course you can teach it. One problem with "the Greek" is that it can be used to scam people especially those who don't know it. Very few people have the time to learn Greek, and they cannot check out anybody who claims they have some expertise in it. In any case, I've been thinking of learning New Testament Greek for a very long time. If I do, then I'll take care not to mislead people with it or insult people who may not know it. There isn't much risk of scholars falling for that, because they understand the Greek. There is a great risk of lay people falling to such ploys, however. Which gets to the point of why you need to learn Greek if you want to form your own opinions with maximal independence.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 29, 2017 17:09:06 GMT
Hello ignorantianescia! Absolutely! If I was writing for scholars, then I would need to meet them on their level of knowledge. However, my goal is to write a thought-provoking, interesting and accessible book for the layperson, the "village atheist" or "village Christian" or anybody else who is interested in knowing how Jesus might be seen. Sure I need to learn. We all need to learn. I have no problem with learning. After all, I spent four tough years in college earning two degrees. (The only course I didn't earn an A in was typewriting.) If I don't know something, then I look it up or develop the skill. Can you post an example of a mistake Carrier has made because he doesn't know a Semitic language? If you think his knowledge is too limited to express expertise on the issues he writes about, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate how he is falling short. This is more like it! I have read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist. If Ehrman's arguments and evidence for a historical Jesus form the basis for belief in a historical Jesus, then it's no wonder that the Jesus-myth theory is gaining ground. OK, we have have an example of a scholar with an agenda who gets it wrong. That's why I don't put all my faith in scholars. They can be wrong like anybody else. In any case, I agree that the word "kill" probably means "murder." Common sense tells me that! I didn't need to know Hebrew to come to that conclusion. I think where we might disagree is on the usefulness of knowing Greek or Hebrew. Knowing these languages or claiming to know them doesn't make the claimant right. I can read and write in English, but that obviously doesn't make me right about anything I read in English. Knowing these languages enables a person to read and write in those languages and translate works in those languages to other languages the claimant may know. But that's about all it does. Finally, getting back to the Jesus-Myth Theory, common sense points to his being a myth. You don't need a doctorate to see that unless, of course, your job depends on it.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 30, 2017 4:50:52 GMT
I think you insult people telling them that they're too stupid to understand the issue of the historicity of Jesus. From what I've seen the presumed professionals make plenty of dumb mistakes (more on this shortly.) Nowhere did I say that non-historians are too stupid to understand the issue. I'm not a historian myself, and I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of the issue. I merely questioned whether you have much to add to to subject that a professional scholar couldn't cover far better, given their superior grasp of the relevant material. That's a bizarre response to what I said. I made no "insults" and did not "lash out" in any way. I simply noted that experts who have a superior grasp of the material and the relevant scholarship than you would be better placed to write a book on the subject than you are. Unless you think you can claim I'm wrong and that you have an equal or superior grasp of the source material and scholarship I can't see how you could argue with that simple observation. That final sentence does not logically follow from the other three before it. In fact, that string of statements makes little sense at all. The fact that you clearly don't understand why or how these scholars can make an assessment as to which parts are likely to be "authentic" (I assume you mean "historical" there) is more evidence that you simply don't know enough to be able to comment in detail on this topic. Others have already pointed out the problems with this "imaginative" set of assertions. In the context of the religion and culture of the time, crucifixion would not "create sympathy" at all. Again, you don't have enough of a grasp of the material to be able to assess the relevant arguments. This is proved even more by your "analysis" of my article: People who like "proof" should avoid ancient history. Historians don't deal in "proof", they present assessments of what is most likely to have happened. Historians of the ancient world work with the evidence we have, not the evidence we'd like to have. The evidence that indicates Jesus' historicity is what it is. And it is entirely sufficient to sustain the clear consensus that he most likely existed. No, simply stating that a position is wrong because the majority of scholars say so is a fallacy. Noting the consensus and then explaining in detail why it exists is not "appealing to the majority". A consensus actually counts for something in the study of history and so noting it as a prelude to explaining why it exists is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Otherwise it makes it seem as though the two sides in this debate are on equal scholarly footing. They aren't. You've completely missed the point. I note that the Mythicists all tend to come from one ideological background - anti-theist activism. Whereas the scholars on the other side come from a whole variety of them: atheist, agnostic, liberal Christian, conservative Christian, Jewish etc. So it's pretty clear which side is more likely to be motivated by an ideological bias. Only some of those who accept Jesus existed believe he was "the god of the Christian religion". Again, you seem to have totally missed the point. Why? Real scholars change their minds all the time. This wouldn't be "embarrassing" at all, and the scholar in question could continue to research how this mythic Jesus arose and how he came to be historicised. They don't accept that he didn't exist because the arguments for that position are so contrived and flawed. Spare me your weak sarcasm. You seem to be struggling to differentiate between a historical preacher on whom the magic man is based and the figure in the gospels. We have plenty of stories of a "fanciful nature" from this period. There's the one about the guy who was conceived when a god visited his mother. Or the one about the man who was killed and was then seen ascending into heaven. Or the one about the guy who miraculously healed a blind man by wiping a paste on his eyes. These are all "fanciful" stories, so does that mean these people didn't exist? No, it doesn't. The first story is about the emperor Augustus. The second is about Julius Caesar. The third is about the emperor Vespasian. They all existed. Stories of a "fanciful nature" don't mean that the subject of those stories was therefore mythical. Show me a letter that mentions in passing how the writer met Zeus' brother just a few years earlier. Show me a reference to Osiris as a human being, mentioning when, where and how he died, written within a century of that death. If you can't produce that kind of evidence for Zeus and Osiris you have the beginnings of an answer to your question about why we treat the references to Jesus differently to those to Zeus and Osiris. You really don't seem to have thought this stuff through. Which is why scholars analyse these sources and work out if that is where they got their information. Again, you don't seem to have enough of a grasp of the scholarship to realise that there are thousands of scholars who are way ahead on you on all of this. I think you need to look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect and ponder what it means for you.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 30, 2017 15:23:03 GMT
I merely questioned whether you have much to add to to subject that a professional scholar couldn't cover far better, given their superior grasp of the relevant material. It's good that you scrutinize what I say. I will return the favor. Then why are you reading and responding to my comments? Why waste your time with an ignoramus like me? Is it OK if I try to assess the material anyway? That is correct. We have no proof for Jesus, nor do we have solid evidence for him. That's why we are arguing our own positions. So you admit that the evidence for Jesus is weak. I'm getting through to you! OK. It does make for a nice intro. All those Christians reading about this consensus are delighted to hear it, I'm sure. That's interesting. Where did you get these demographics? I've heard that 70 percent of New Testament scholars are Christians. I remember even as a Christian I didn't think Jesus could be demonstrated to be historical. I just accepted him on faith. I believe the insistence of Jesus being historical is based on the hope for heaven; if there was no Jesus, then there is no heaven! The large majority of historicists think he's their god. If I critique mythicism, I'd say that I'm not sure if all the parallels drawn between Jesus and older pagan gods demonstrates that Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, it seems really unlikely that Jesus and his life would be so similar to the lives of mythological figures. It depends on what you mean by “Jesus.” If you see Jesus as essentially the wizard of the New Testament, then he's clearly mythological. If you divest him of his magical garb, then there's a chance he existed. However, such a “Jesus” is very generic and boring. It is unlikely that he would be the basis for a new religion. That's perhaps the major problem with the view that Jesus was a real guy. Both a magical Jesus and a generic Jesus are unlikely. Plato in his Letters does mention Zeus. Gotcha! Do I win now? How do you know they're way ahead of me? Did you read it in a letter?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 30, 2017 19:35:28 GMT
jagella,
I am not sure if you are a WUM or whether you believe what you write.
Re: That's interesting. Where did you get these demographics? I've heard that 70 percent of New Testament scholars are Christians. I remember even as a Christian I didn't think Jesus could be demonstrated to be historical. I just accepted him on faith. I believe the insistence of Jesus being historical is based on the hope for heaven; if there was no Jesus, then there is no heaven!
If you really cannot make a distinction between a historical Jesus and a Christ of faith then you are in the wrong place.I think nearly all on here accept the balance of evidence indicates a historical Jesus. Most academics (I don't include myself as an academic of this area but I appreciate their knowledge) of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion who have considered the area do. See Geza Vermes (of Jewish ethnicity but a non-Christian), Maurice Casey (atheist but rather withering about 'mythicists') or even Reza Aslan (a Muslim pop-writer who saw Jesus as a failed version of Mohammed).
As Bart Ehrmann (another atheist) observed there is nearly no such historical evidence for anyone in the first century as we have for Jesus.
If you wanted to start a new religion in Roman-occupied Judea in the first century AD you would not start by imagining a northern Galilean bumpkin who got accused by Temple authorities and crucified by Roman occupiers - a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
Accepting the existence of Jesus as a historical being does not indicate acceptance of him as God or Son of God or validation of the Christian religion.
Grow up.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 30, 2017 20:44:18 GMT
Absolutely! If I was writing for scholars, then I would need to meet them on their level of knowledge. However, my goal is to write a thought-provoking, interesting and accessible book for the layperson, the "village atheist" or "village Christian" or anybody else who is interested in knowing how Jesus might be seen. If that is your intention, I would at least follow James's suggestion and start a blog and interact with other Bible bloggers. That will help enormously in shaping your own opinions and getting a feeling for the debates, which should pay off in the ease of writing a book later. Can you post an example of a mistake Carrier has made because he doesn't know a Semitic language? If you think his knowledge is too limited to express expertise on the issues he writes about, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate how he is falling short. Then I recommend that you check this old post by Thom Stark, the first part of the section "For Christs’ Sake, Read a Book", in which he cites (a little way down) our brilliant Bayesian boffin claiming that two messiahs in Daniel IX are one and the same. I do not know exactly why (in a causal sense)* Carrier came to think that the text obviously speaks of one messiah, but if he read a decent translation (like the NRSV or the JPS) or the original Hebrew text he would have noted that the messiahs are each time described with an indefinite article ("a messiah"). The conservative evangelical NIV translation however does insert a definite article ("the messiah"). This matters because in many languages, including English and Hebrew and (at that time, in this variety) Aramaic, definite articles are often used, among other things, for anaphoric reference, which means referring back to earlier elements in a narrative. So in "There are many people in the park. A man is walking his dog. Suddenly I hear a yelp. The man bites his dog." it is clear that the man who bites his dog is the same man as the man who is walking his dog a little earlier. But in "There are many people in the park. A man is walking his dog. Suddenly I hear a yelp. A man bites his dog." that isn't clear at all and the suggestion is rather that this time around the second man is a different man from the first man. Likewise in this text in Daniel, inserting a definite article where there should be an indefinite article drastically changes the meaning: the two messiahs become one. To reiterate, if Carrier knew the relevant language (Hebrew), he could have checked this for himself and avoid an egregious error. * Of course, I do have a clue why Carrier came to believe this in a psychological sense: confirmation bias. Carrier is looking for texts that suggest Jews believed in a dying Messiah before Christianity. This is more like it! I have read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist. If Ehrman's arguments and evidence for a historical Jesus form the basis for belief in a historical Jesus, then it's no wonder that the Jesus-myth theory is gaining ground. I haven't read Ehrman's book and I think I would find him less persuasive than Casey, but could you outline what you find so unconvincing about it? Like most people on these fora, I am quite familiar with the usual Mythicist lines of attack against the book (not claiming you are one) and I find them about as persuasive as a naked assertion by the "short-fingered vulgarian". OK, we have have an example of a scholar with an agenda who gets it wrong. That's why I don't put all my faith in scholars. They can be wrong like anybody else. In any case, I agree that the word "kill" probably means "murder." Common sense tells me that! I didn't need to know Hebrew to come to that conclusion. I think where we might disagree is on the usefulness of knowing Greek or Hebrew. Knowing these languages or claiming to know them doesn't make the claimant right. I can read and write in English, but that obviously doesn't make me right about anything I read in English. Knowing these languages enables a person to read and write in those languages and translate works in those languages to other languages the claimant may know. But that's about all it does. Triangulating experts helps a lot, but there is also a practical/vocational aspect to learning the language; you develop a sense for the possible meanings of words and became able to navigate problems of interpretation more effectively. See my example about Carrier above, for instance. Finally, getting back to the Jesus-Myth Theory, common sense points to his being a myth. You don't need a doctorate to see that unless, of course, your job depends on it. Huh? Did you mean to write "this" (i.e. Mythicism) in the first sentence or are you really arguing that common sense would indicate that Jesus didn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 30, 2017 20:55:35 GMT
So you admit that the evidence for Jesus is weak. I'm getting through to you! When the subject is ancient history, the weakness of evidence becomes very relative. We have letters from the 2nd-century Judean rebel Simeon bar-Kosibah, but in their absence, we would have had one contemporary reference to him by Justin the Martyr and then only significantly later references. So if you'd ignore the Christian mentions, there would only be late sources. That didn't stop him from obviously existing, but it indicates very well how capricious and sparse ancient evidence can be. Also, some late Jewish sources describe him as catching projectiles from catapults and returning them to the Romans and even as spewing fire, but those embellishments didn't prevent him from (rather mundanely) existing either! If a rather important insurrectionist who caused a devastating war can be represented this poorly in Roman non-Christian sources, it is madness to expect something much better for Jesus.
|
|
kj
Clerk
Posts: 9
|
Post by kj on Oct 30, 2017 21:02:18 GMT
Jagella-
At this point, I can't tell if you're a troll, truly ineducable, or just obstinate. I'll assume the last, and offer you the perspective of another non-historian on "doing history."
He's doing it out of an interest in the field, which includes a desire to see the discussion of the subject be well-informed. He's not saying your aren't well-informed to be mean, but to persuade you to learn about the field before you write a book.
It's not a matter of being an "ignoramus." I have a handful of degrees and teach chemistry and computer science at the university level, and I would be told the same things if I decided to offer my "naive outsider" view. If you want to discuss history, you need to use the methods of the historians, just as if you want to discuss science, you need to use the methods of the scientists. Those methods have developed over a long period of time, and they are effective at assessing the facts within their domain.
Yes. But you need to use the tools and methods appropriate to assessing the material. And "it's common sense" isn't among them. Tim and Fortigurn are trying to tell you what those tools and methods are.
I'm all in favor of amateurs contributing. In the literal sense, nearly everyone who makes a contribution to a body of knowledge is an amateur- motivated by love of subject- even if one is also a professional. A formal education isn't needed, either- a solid autodidact can make a useful contribution to our understanding. But it is first necessary for "auto" to "didact" (I can't conjugate Greek verbs, but you get the point). Teach yourself the methods and the material you need to make an informed statement.
Read and pay attention to what people with more experience than you have written. On this forum (I've lurked around here since God's Philosophers was available), Tim and Fortigurn are two of those people. You may disagree with their conclusions (and sometimes they disagree with each other's conclusions), but you should be aware of their evidence and their reasoning. There are others here as well who have spent a lot of time (probably more than you have) in understanding the historical evidence. You say you're retired; that should mean you have a afternoon free to search the archives for discussions of the historical Jesus.
That's not what he said. History is not mathematics- there is no formal proof available. History is not science- we cannot repeat the experiment and see how it turns out. We have a limited historical record- written documents, material artifacts, etc.- and historians (and Tim, despite his disclaimer, is one in this context) have methods for evaluating that record to arrive at an understanding of what happened. It is simply not the case that since there are no extant photographs of Jesus and the disciples sitting down for the Last Supper, or videotapes of the Sermon on the Mount, the Wedding at Cana, or the crucifixion, that all opinions are equally supportable. There are other records- which Tim has pointed out to you- which can be evaluated for consistency. Most people believe that the evidence is stronger that there was a historical person behind Jesus of Nazareth. That is not the same thing as saying he's God's only begotten son, or savior of the world.
Arguments from consensus are limited. But the presence of a consensus- whether it be the historical Jesus, or a multibillion-year-old Earth and evolution, or human-influenced climate change- indicates that there is a significant body of evidence in support of that consensus. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to have some real evidence in support of your claim, not just "my common sense tells me." (Unless you're Freeman Dyson- I'll believe his hunches even over my own experiments, but I don't believe you are Mr. Dyson.)
That's probably true. It's less interesting if you don't believe it. But that's not particularly relevant to what Tim wrote. There are a lot of people who are interested in the existence of a historical Jesus who aren't New Testament scholars- historians of the era, for instance. The story of the time is different if there is a real person behind Jesus, or if Peter and Paul made him up while fishing (presumably because they were looking for a new and exciting way to get executed by the Romans).
Why? Much of the overlap is pretty generic material for how a God or gods would interact with people. I'd expect there to be substantial similarities. At any rate, the question of whether the backstory of Jesus is what the Gospels claim is distinct from that of whether a historical person called Jesus was a central figure in a "reformist" sect which arose from the area near Nazareth.
Based on what? Joseph Smith was certainly a real person, whether he talked to the angel Moroni or not. People followed him, and later the equally historical Brigham Young, through all sorts of hardships. Why should it be unlikely that such a figure arose in first century Israel, or that he ran afoul of the local civil authorities (Joseph Smith did, as well. There are even more extreme examples- David Koresh, for instance. Yet we know he existed.)?
Does Plato say he met Zeus personally, or his brother? If not, then no. If so, show a quote.
Incidentally, when it comes to reading the original texts, you might use the method that Knuth used. He made his own translations of every 3:16 verse in the (Lutheran) Bible for his book 3:16. He does not claim fluency in either Hebrew or Greek. He discusses his methods (similar to what you suggested- looking at diverse translations and the discussions of them, along with seeking expert help for some cases) in Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. I'll let Fortigurn and the rest speak for themselves as to their opinions of Knuth's translations and methods.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 30, 2017 21:46:58 GMT
Welcome to the discussion, "sandwiches" What is a "WUM," and how does it relate to the discussion? Some people, realizing that it is a hopeless task to try to substantiate the Jesus of the New Testament, have stripped him of his miraculous elements. In doing so, they hope to uncover a real man underneath all that mythological garb. This "stripped Jesus" is basically what is meant by the historical Jesus. Again, that may be some interesting background information regarding the debate over the existence of Jesus. However, I don't rely on the crowd to discern truth. I don't care who the majority is. I want to know if Jesus really existed. I want to see good evidence for his existence. Taking a vote won't settle the matter for me. Right off the top of my head I can point to the writings of Josephus. We have no such evidence for Jesus. People imagine all kinds of crazy things. Your mistake is that you are assuming that people are logical. Who said that? Jesus is the god of the Christians. To insist he existed while consigning all the other gods to the realm of myth appears to me to be special pleading. I'm mature enough and logical enough not to personally attack people I disagree with. Why is there so much invective here against anybody who doubts a "historical" Jesus? Do the members here have some emotional investment in Jesus, religious or otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 30, 2017 22:25:03 GMT
As Bart Ehrmann (another atheist) observed there is nearly no such historical evidence for anyone in the first century as we have for Jesus. Right off the top of my head I can point to the writings of Josephus. We have no such evidence for Jesus. We have exactly that evidence for Jesus, and more, per the scholarly consensus. I take this to mean that you doubt the authenticity of the Josephan mentions of Jesus, but this gets into serious problems with the translations of the Testimonium Flavianum which strongly indicate authenticity.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 30, 2017 23:32:02 GMT
Right off the top of my head I can point to the writings of Josephus. We have no such evidence for Jesus. No. Josephus is the only primary source for Josephus. We have a group of writings which claim to be from a person called Josephus. We have no way of actually verifying this. We do not have the same independent evidence for Josephus that we have for Jesus.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 31, 2017 0:16:59 GMT
When the subject is ancient history, the weakness of evidence becomes very relative. That's interesting. So weak evidence is good enough if it's all we have. Is that what you're saying? I've often thought that this is an odd argument. If historians accept the existence of some figures like Simeon bar-Kosibah on even weaker evidence than the evidence for Jesus, then we should accept Jesus as well. Is that what you're arguing?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 31, 2017 0:34:40 GMT
I've often thought that this is an odd argument. If historians accept the existence of some figures like Simeon bar-Kosibah on even weaker evidence than the evidence for Jesus, then we should accept Jesus as well. Is that what you're arguing? No. What he is showing you is that the standard of evidence among professional historians is different to yours. The question for you then, is why your standard of evidence is different, and on what basis you differ from professional historians. He is also showing you that Jesus is better attested than even an important nsurrectionist who started a major conflict, which is surprising since we should not expect a high level of documentation for a first century itinerant Jewish teacher in Roman occupied Judea.
|
|