No I did not misunderstand your point claim. But I think you may have misunderstood my reply (perhaps it was not clear). I am saying to you that I am not bound by what you say that Carrier says, about ruling out certain things as valid evidence in this subject. And neither should any properly educated objective honest person here be bound by what your say about that, or by whatever Carrier may or may not have said about it.
I agree that you are not bound by what Carrier says, about ruling out certain things as valid evidence in this subject. My point is that Carrier's approach to ancient texts is the same as the approach of all scholars. Thus you are the odd man out, even when including mythicist scholars like Carrier and Price.
Educated honest responsible people can, and most certainly should, decide for themselves what counts as credible evidence of whatever it is that is being claimed vs. what does not count as credible evidence of that.
I understand, but aren't you concerned that this is the same kind of reasoning used by creationists and climate change deniers? They would also argue that educated honest responsible people can and should decide for themselves what counts as credible evidence of whatever is being claimed. And they would regard themselves as being educated honest responsible people, while their opponents are not.
This gets to the heart of what makes a skeptic "skeptical". Am I not being skeptical because I agree with the mainstream? Or are you not being skeptical by agreeing with the fringe? Or are we both being skeptical?
From my perspective: I see your point that you want first-hand accounts of people meeting Jesus before you accept that as credible evidence for historicity. But I see that as unrealistic. Ideal though that would be, most of history is reconstructed based on non-contemporary accounts. There is no reason that the historicity of Jesus shouldn't be the same, with the usual caveats associated with such reconstructions.
I understand that isn't enough for you, and it is a divide that we can't get across, unless one of us changes our approach. But the key factor in this is that the approach I follow (meaningful reconstruction of non-contemporary accounts through careful analysis) is the same one used by mythicist scholars Carrier and Price. Yes, I understand that YOU don't care. But it is worth pointing this out to anyone lurking in this thread.
And what I said to you about that , is - where 11th century copyist writing from Christians is claimed to be accurate true original word-for-word copy of what authors like Tacitus and Josephus wrote 1000 years earlier in a few minimal sentences about Jesus, that time gap alone is fatal to the reliability of such Christian copyist writing as reliable evidence of a human Jesus.
Okay. I disagree that it is "fatal". It is a concern, definitely, and one that needs to be taken into account. So we can agree to disagree on this.
OK, well firstly - I did not say it was a "copy of a copy of a copy", which you have apparently quoted from somewhere ... is that supposed to be a quote of what I said? If so please quote the post where I said it was a "copy of a copy of a copy".
Not sure where I got it from, and don't want to spend time looking. But just above I've highlighted your "wrote 1000 years earlier" comment. Isn't that essentially what you mean? If not, I'd like to understand the difference.
And secondly - whilst you say that Carrier attempts to dismiss the passage on the basis of trying to show that it is an "interpolation", I have said here before several times that I myself would not favour that as the most supportable or the most damming criticism. And I have never myself said here that it is certainly an interpolation ... because I do not know if it is, and afaik neither Carrier or anyone else can be sure if the key parts have been dishonestly changed over what was originally written ... because apart from anything else we have absolutely no idea what Tacitus or Josephus originally wrote!
Yes, I understand. Carrier, like the rest of the scholars, can't be sure... but he goes ahead and uses the texts anyway.
Where do you think that disagrees with what I have been writing?
So imho, claims of specific interpolations are on somewhat shaky ground when offered as strong evidence against the authenticity of the original writing. IOW - specific "interpolations" would not be the first thing that I would rely on as criticism of Tacitus, Josephus or other such extremely late copying as evidence of a human Jesus.
Yes, I can understand that. You feel you wouldn't need to argue "interpolation". And that's my point: Carrier does need to.
Now you are mixing up two completely different things. Nobody is saying that the reason why "hearsay" is of little or no evidential value, is "because" the writing is a "copy of a copy". The complaint of it being "hearsay" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether anything is a "copy of a copy". Those are two entirely separate criticisms.
I agree. I didn't mean to mix them up. Apologies if I worded that badly. They are two separate criticisms. But my point there is that Carrier doesn't reject a text based on hearsay, nor because there is a 1000 year gap in extant physical tracers. Again, I know that doesn't concern YOU, but it is worth pointing out that even mythicist scholars are against your type of approach.
The problem with hearsay evidence is that it's been legally proven to be so seriously unreliable as to be ruled unfit even to be presented before a jury in most court trials in advanced western nations. But, in the case of writing from Tacitus and Josephus, their brief minimal remarks about Jesus are not merely hearsay, but actually completely anonymous hearsay. And anonymous hearsay is never admissible as evidence in any legal ruling ... because it has been proven in law to be so totally unreliable that it is likely to mislead judge and jury into making a completely mistaken decision.
If someone charges you with the murder of Jesus Christ based on hearsay evidence and it goes to court, I will be 100% on your side.
