|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 7, 2012 20:09:41 GMT
Fortigurn, I'm impressed with your recent encounter with Carrier here and (unsurprisingly) I find you a lot more convincing in the exchange because of your engagement with the evidence instead of giving rationalisations. But since Carrier has already said "Conversing with you appears to be impossible." and "I don’t think you understand this.", which is a pretty low esteem of one's opponents capabilities, I was wondering how long you intend to continue conversing with him. You seem to have struck a nerve already while being much more polite than plenty of other critics on his blog, so I guess he'll move to insults pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 7, 2012 20:30:20 GMT
"I don’t think you understand this." Classic cheap shot. The last resort of an outmanoeuvred opponent. Rob Bowman tried the same trick with me during our debate.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 7, 2012 23:56:55 GMT
Fortigurn, I'm impressed with your recent encounter with Carrier here and (unsurprisingly) I find you a lot more convincing in the exchange because of your engagement with the evidence instead of giving rationalisations. But since Carrier has already said "Conversing with you appears to be impossible." and "I don’t think you understand this.", which is a pretty low esteem of one's opponents capabilities, I was wondering how long you intend to continue conversing with him. You seem to have struck a nerve already while being much more polite than plenty of other critics on his blog, so I guess he'll move to insults pretty soon. Thanks. The reason I'm persisting (and will continue to persist until he abandons the exchange on the grounds that I 'don't understand' or that 'Conversing with you appears to be impossible', is that onlooking punters can see me asking for evidence and him not providing any. Regardless of the fact that his fans will view the exchange with eyes glazed over, it's very useful material to place on other blogs with more rational viewers.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 8, 2012 2:09:34 GMT
fortigurn,
Well done! I think it should be clear to anyone who is not a "Carrier pidgeon" that you have cornered the "world renowned" (just ask him!) Richard Carrier. I think he is so used to being fawned over in his comments, he doesn't know what it is like to have a challenge there. His pidgeons will "coo" on command, of course, so you may not make headway with them, but it is obvious when he resorts to such comments that his collar is more than a little tight.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 8, 2012 2:22:44 GMT
Thanks labarum. The entire exchange is useful mostly for the more rational punters, as I've said before, and I will be reproducing it on my blog. Here's my latest post. From now on I'll be focusing on those key questions at the end. If he can't answer them it will be clear that the emperor has no clothes.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 8, 2012 2:55:59 GMT
Yes, he is on the run now; in full retreat.
So now I have an increasingly long list of questions Carrier won't answer.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 8, 2012 3:48:40 GMT
Let me add my applause for fortigurn. I'd say keep posting and make him ban you.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 8, 2012 3:51:12 GMT
Thanks. The reason I'm persisting (and will continue to persist until he abandons the exchange on the grounds that I 'don't understand' or that 'Conversing with you appears to be impossible', is that onlooking punters can see me asking for evidence and him not providing any. Regardless of the fact that his fans will view the exchange with eyes glazed over, it's very useful material to place on other blogs with more rational viewers. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 8, 2012 4:09:16 GMT
I've told him I'm perfectly content for him not to answer these questions and that I'll let readers decide why he hasn't answered them. Feel free to list these on your own blogs as questions unanswered by Carrier.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 8, 2012 4:51:57 GMT
Good grief. Talk about hand-waving. He gesticulates even more enthusiastically than J. P. Holding, and that's quite a feat.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 8, 2012 7:47:12 GMT
Ah, Carrier has already commented that you seem like a "liar". Let's wait for him to declare you a "big fat liar" and deciding that all of your difficult objections are forever invalid. Though I'm a bit at a loss with the comments in "Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One)" about the church councils. Where's Carrier's quote from?Edit: Nevermind, I found it, it's from the original post.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 8, 2012 8:01:21 GMT
Though I'm a bit at a loss with the comments in "Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One)" about the church councils. Where's Carrier's quote from?Edit: Nevermind, I found it, it's from the original post. No matter how much blustering Carrier wants to do, he can't change the fact that Murdock is wrong when she claims there were 'many councils' to determine the canon and that it took 1,000 years or whatever. Carrier correctly says there were 'several councils that ruled on the canon', but this is still misleading and in any case it's not the same as 'many councils' to determine the canon. The canon was settled in the 4th Century when Athanasius published his influential list, and the only three subsequent councils which actually specify a canon, endorse the one Athanasius had drafted. None of these councils were convened for the purpose of defining the canon. All they did was to reiterate what had already been decided. Carrier would have known this if he'd actually read the Wikipedia article he links to, which says exactly that!
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 8, 2012 10:12:22 GMT
This is Carrier's argument for his case (in the absence of actual evidence); the logical errors are readily identifiable.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 8, 2012 10:31:17 GMT
This is Carrier's argument for his case (in the absence of actual evidence); the logical errors are readily identifiable. I am beginning to doubt the commonly held view that Carrier is highly intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 8, 2012 15:15:30 GMT
Though I'm a bit at a loss with the comments in "Ehrman's Dubious Replies (Round One)" about the church councils. Where's Carrier's quote from?Edit: Nevermind, I found it, it's from the original post. No matter how much blustering Carrier wants to do, he can't change the fact that Murdock is wrong when she claims there were 'many councils' to determine the canon and that it took 1,000 years or whatever. Carrier correctly says there were 'several councils that ruled on the canon', but this is still misleading and in any case it's not the same as 'many councils' to determine the canon. The canon was settled in the 4th Century when Athanasius published his influential list, and the only three subsequent councils which actually specify a canon, endorse the one Athanasius had drafted. None of these councils were convened for the purpose of defining the canon. All they did was to reiterate what had already been decided. Carrier would have known this if he'd actually read the Wikipedia article he links to, which says exactly that! Sorry, I didn't mention that the part I found confusing was this part about "defending" (most relevant parts bolded): I actually found two other misleading statements among his list of evidence of Acharya’s incompetence. I do agree with his conclusion (I do not think her work can be trusted on this subject, as I also conclude now of Ehrman’s work on this same subject), but I am already well known for saying that, and that wasn’t the issue I was raising in my review. Rather, my point was that, if he was going to treat the bad mythicists at all, we needed a book that did a competent job demonstrating the unreliability of work like this. And he did not give us one. Since he brings it up, let me list the other problems I found here (written in the margins of my copy of his book, p. 24): (1) Ehrman’s statement that there weren’t “many councils” to decide the NT canon is, read literally, false. There were in fact several councils ruling on the canon, and indeed the canon was never truly settled until the 16th century. Someone who tutored under Metzger, who extensively documented these facts, should know that. I can only assume he meant to say that the canon proposed by Athanasius in 367 (in a letter, not a council ruling) was repeatedly affirmed by every subsequent council convened to decide on the canon (although the fact that they had to keep meeting to do that means there were repeated attempts to change it). Acharya’s own characterization of the matter might also be accused of being misleading. But Ehrman’s wording is going to seriously mislead and misinform the public even more, not only as to the actual history of the canon, but also as to Acharya’s knowledge of the facts.OK, so what we have here is more than 6,000 words from Carrier on the following subjects: * Ehrman’s writing style * The exact qualifications of Thomas L. Thompson * The priapic statue touted by Dorothy Murdock * R.J. Hoffmann’s alleged insanity * Ehrman’s writing style (again) * Murdock’s mistakes about the NT canon I came here expecting some engagement with Ehrman’s argument for the historicity of Jesus. Instead Carrier gives us 33 pages of tit-for-tat quibbling over irrelevant peripherals, with a few molehills inflated into mountains for good measure. Disappointing. As an aside, Ehrman is absolutely right to say that Murdock is wrong when she claims there were ‘many councils’ held to determine the Biblical canon. Of the 19 church councils held between the 1st and 11th Centuries, only 4 of them mention the canon. One of them (Laodicea AD 363) alludes to the canon without defining it. The remaining three (Hippo AD 393, Carthage AD 397, Carthage AD 419) affirm the list proposed by Athanasius in his festal letter of AD 367. There is no suggestion that these councils were convened to repudiate a competing canon. Carrier opines: >> the fact that they had to keep meeting to do that means there were repeated attempts to change it >> No. It was common practice for local councils to ratify the decisions of earlier councils (particularly those held in other areas). As consensus grew, orthodoxy was established.You evidently ignored half of my original review of Ehrman’s book. Nice. On the councils, your explanation doesn’t explain why those councils and not others bothered to ratify the canon, or why it had to ratified multiple times. I think perhaps you are also ignoring everything we know about those councils and why they actually raised the issue of the canon. Your facts also don’t quite agree with what is stated in Metzger’s Formation of the New Testament Canon. You might want to do more homework on this. “On the councils, your explanation doesn’t explain why those councils and not others bothered to ratify the canon, or why it had to ratified multiple times.” But that’s ok, because he didn’t need to do that in order to demonstrate that your original claim was wrong. “I think perhaps you are also ignoring everything we know about those councils and why they actually raised the issue of the canon.” You’re still not addressing the issue under discussion; even if every council was responding to a local challenge to the canon, it wouldn’t prove what you’re claiming. These councils were all ratifying the same canon, they weren’t sitting down trying to figure out what the canon should be. They are evidence that the canon had been widely agreed on centuries before the date Murdock claims. Remember, you are defending Murdock’s claim about the role of the church councils in the formation of the New Testament canon. You of all people should know better than to leap to her defense simply on the basis of her own claims. It doesn’t look like you’ve even read up to see if what she says is true. “Your facts also don’t quite agree with what is stated in Metzger’s Formation of the New Testament Canon. You might want to do more homework on this.” This is a transparent bluff. If Metzger supported Murdock’s description of the formation of the canon, I’m sure you would have quoted him by now. If you had evidence supporting Murdock’s claims, I’m sure you would have presented that as well. Your responses to Ehrman look highly convincing on the surface, but give way somewhat when your claims are examined closely (the Tacitus/procurator issue is a case in point). There’s enough wrong in what Ehrman wrote for you to focus on without trying to make claims of error which can’t be supported. Stick with the facts and the evidence instead. The deeper you dig yourself in with unsupported and demonstrably false claims, the less authority you have when pointing the finger at Ehrman. Actually, Fortigum, I was not defending her claim, I actually specifically said I took issue with it, too. You are clearly losing track of the facts and arguments in this case. “Actually, Fortigum, I was not defending her claim, I actually specifically said I took issue with it, too.” Careful, the claim in question is the claim that “many councils” were required to determine the New Testament canon. Remember what you said? * “Ehrman’s statement that there weren’t “many councils” to decide the NT canon is, read literally, false.” That’s your statement, your assertion that Ehrman’s specific criticism of Murdock’s claim of ‘many councils’ to ‘decide the NT canon’ (your words), is ‘read literally, false’. I note you didn’t address any of the points I raised. You should retract your statement; Ehrman was right, Murdock was wrong. If you take issue with her claim, as you say you do, I’m sure you will nave no difficulty in doing that. Fortigum, you are ignoring everything I have said. For example, this is what I said in the post you are quoting out of context: “Acharya’s own characterization of the matter might also be accused of being misleading.” See what I mean? If you ignore everything I say, what’s the point in arguing with you? You are trying to change the subject. I am not saying you defended Murdock. I am pointing out that your claim that Ehrman’s criticism of her was false, is itself unsupportable. Here’s the statement of yours under examination. * “Ehrman’s statement that there weren’t “many councils” to decide the NT canon is, read literally, false.” That’s your statement, your assertion that Ehrman’s specific criticism of Murdock’s claim of ‘many councils’ to ‘decide the NT canon’ (your words), is ‘read literally, false’. You claim I took it out of context. Does that mean that in context it DOESN’T say that Ehrman’s criticism of Murdock’s claim is, ‘read literally, false’? Do you still claim that Ehrman’s statement is false? Yes or no? It’s a simple question. If you do still claim Ehrman’s statement is false, will you present some evidence for your claim at any point in the future? Fortigum, this is getting tiring. Now you claim “I am not saying you defended Murdock.” Yes, you did. As to what I said about Ehrman on this point, that is plain for all to see in the original post. Your attempts to spin it as having said something else is just lame and annoying. It's clear that Carrier's trying to evade your points by changing the subject and he took your words out of context at the end, but I'm not sure I got it all right. The claim you were addressing was "Ehrman’s statement that there weren’t “many councils” to decide the NT canon is, read literally, false.", but he pretended you claimed he defended her in general?
|
|