Richard Carrier comes down from Sinai ...

[timoneill]

... bearing tablets graven with The Axioms and Rules of the Historical Method. Bow before the Artie Ziff of Anti-Theism while he proclaims these commandments unto the people!

[unkleE]

May 4, 2010 22:33:36 GMT timoneill said:

... bearing tablets graven with The Axioms and Rules of the Historical Method. Bow before the Artie Ziff of Anti-Theism while he proclaims these commandments unto the people!

Thanks Tim, a rank amateur like me finds this reference interesting for a range of reasons.

1. I wonder how much this is different from what is already reasonably established. I don't know if I've ever read such a list in such a form, but I'm not sure if anything is all that new either. Is he doing anything new and controversial here that I have missed, or is he teaching his grandmother?

2. "apologetic historicism must be rejected" (p1).
One assumes he believes he does not fall into this trap? Perhaps he doesn't, but he certainly looks to be in danger of it.

3. "we need to accept the fact that we will never know most of what we want to know—about Jesus or the origins of Christianity, or anything else in history ...... Anyone who rejects this conclusion is not an objective scholar, but a dogmatist or apologist, whose voice needn’t be heeded by any respectable academic community." (p3)
I see a problem with this. Surely we are all objective at some times and opinionated at others? A disciplined scholar can do objective history in his/her study, but still attend church or rationalist society on the weekend. I feel quite rational to accept the findings of historians on matters of fact, then form a conclusion that I can reasonably trust the NT documents and therefore have faith in the documents and Jesus that goes "beyond" the historical evidence - just as a non-believer may draw conclusions that are beyond what the historians can demonstrate. Most people live beyond what they can demonstrate metaphysically, ethically, aesthetically, politically, etc, and are not necessarily wrong for that - to limit ourselves as Carrier suggests seems inhuman. I wonder if he lives up to this? Carrier sounds like he's labeling people, but perhaps he just means "at that time".

4. "Axiom 6: An effective consensus of qualified experts constitutes meeting an initial burden of evidence.
The effective consensus of qualified experts (something in the vicinity of 95% agreement) is probably true unless a strong and valid proof arises that it is not." (p 8).
This axiom won't please most Jesus-mythers I have met on the internet, but I (as very much a non-expert) rely on it a lot - except, I can't help feeling 95% is a bit harsh. Would 95% of any expert scholars in any discipline agree on anything worth arguing about? In NT history, I would have thought better than 50% was pretty good (if there are many theories and one gets 50% consensus, the others would individually have very little.).

5. "One expert who straddles the border between those worth citing and those not is Robert Price, who is nevertheless a well-qualified expert who often has valuable observations worth considering, but is too inconsistent in his references and often too hyperbolic in his conclusions. Hence I cite him only sparingly." (p 16)
And this won't please some internet mythers either, for Price is one of the few genuine scholars they have. I wonder why Carrier felt the need to distant himself from Price?

6. Throughout there's a definite attempt to appear reasonable and even-handed. He targets believers, historicists and mythers equally. It will be interesting to read the book when I eventually find it in my local library, if it gets there.

I wonder how those of you with historical expertise found this message from on high?

[unkleE]

May 4, 2010 22:33:36 GMT timoneill said:

... bearing tablets graven with The Axioms and Rules of the Historical Method. Bow before the Artie Ziff of Anti-Theism while he proclaims these commandments unto the people!

Thanks Tim, a rank amateur like me finds this reference interesting for a range of reasons.

1. I wonder how much this is different from what is already reasonably established. I don't know if I've ever read such a list in such a form, but I'm not sure if anything is all that new either. Is he doing anything new and controversial here that I have missed, or is he teaching his grandmother?

2. "apologetic historicism must be rejected" (p1).
One assumes he believes he does not fall into this trap? Perhaps he doesn't, but he certainly looks to be in danger of it.

3. "we need to accept the fact that we will never know most of what we want to know—about Jesus or the origins of Christianity, or anything else in history ...... Anyone who rejects this conclusion is not an objective scholar, but a dogmatist or apologist, whose voice needn’t be heeded by any respectable academic community." (p3)
I see a problem with this. Surely we are all objective at some times and opinionated at others? A disciplined scholar can do objective history in his/her study, but still attend church or rationalist society on the weekend. I feel quite rational to accept the findings of historians on matters of fact, then form a conclusion that I can reasonably trust the NT documents and therefore have faith in the documents and Jesus that goes "beyond" the historical evidence - just as a non-believer may draw conclusions that are beyond what the historians can demonstrate. Most people live beyond what they can demonstrate metaphysically, ethically, aesthetically, politically, etc, and are not necessarily wrong for that - to limit ourselves as Carrier suggests seems inhuman. I wonder if he lives up to this? Carrier sounds like he's labeling people, but perhaps he just means "at that time".

4. "Axiom 6: An effective consensus of qualified experts constitutes meeting an initial burden of evidence.
The effective consensus of qualified experts (something in the vicinity of 95% agreement) is probably true unless a strong and valid proof arises that it is not." (p 8).
This axiom won't please most Jesus-mythers I have met on the internet, but I (as very much a non-expert) rely on it a lot - except, I can't help feeling 95% is a bit harsh. Would 95% of any expert scholars in any discipline agree on anything worth arguing about? In NT history, I would have thought better than 50% was pretty good (if there are many theories and one gets 50% consensus, the others would individually have very little.).

5. "One expert who straddles the border between those worth citing and those not is Robert Price, who is nevertheless a well-qualified expert who often has valuable observations worth considering, but is too inconsistent in his references and often too hyperbolic in his conclusions. Hence I cite him only sparingly." (p 16)
And this won't please some internet mythers either, for Price is one of the few genuine scholars they have. I wonder why Carrier felt the need to distant himself from Price?

6. Throughout there's a definite attempt to appear reasonable and even-handed. He targets believers, historicists and mythers equally. It will be interesting to read the book when I eventually find it in my local library, if it gets there.

I wonder how those of you with historical expertise found this message from on high?

[Deleted]

May 4, 2010 22:33:36 GMT timoneill said:

Bow before the Artie Ziff of Anti-Theism while he proclaims these commandments unto the people!

Would that make Hitchens the Barney Gumble of Anti-Theism?