Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

I can do both!

Meanwhile I look forward to your reading of Dr Carrier's scholarship.

It's good we're both here to keep the thread on track, isn't it?

What aspect of Richard Carrier's work did you want to discuss?


ETA: Specifics please.

 

[proudfootz]

What aspect of Richard Carrier's work did you want to discuss?


ETA: Specifics please.

Let's discuss his book Proving History - what was your general impression when you read it for the first time?

 

[Brainache]

Let's discuss his book Proving History - what was your general impression when you read it for the first time?

I haven't read that book.

What do you want to talk about specifically?

The idea that Ancient History can be "proven" by Bayesian statistics?

Garbage in, garbage out is my impression of that idea. As demonstrated by Carrier in his blog:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now and expected this February, if their production timeline goes to plan) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed. When using what I think are more realistic estimates of the requisite probabilities (estimates I believe are closer to the truth), those chances drop to around 1 in 12,000.

A mode of analysis which produces a result of anywhere between a "1 in 3" chance to a "1 in 12,000" chance, depending on what importance he places on the various inputs, doesn't look a whole lot different to guessing to me.

So I don't think he has come up with some radical new way of analysing ancient texts. I think he just found a way to quantify guesswork.

What else do you want to talk about him?

 

[dejudge]

I haven't read that book.

What do you want to talk about specifically?

The idea that Ancient History can be "proven" by Bayesian statistics?

Garbage in, garbage out is my impression of that idea. As demonstrated by Carrier in his blog:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733



A mode of analysis which produces a result of anywhere between a "1 in 3" chance to a "1 in 12,000" chance, depending on what importance he places on the various inputs, doesn't look a whole lot different to guessing to me.

So I don't think he has come up with some radical new way of analysing ancient texts. I think he just found a way to quantify guesswork.

What else do you want to talk about him?

You are exposing that you have virtually no understanding of probability.

Probability is NOT Proof.
Based on the results that you have shown the probability of an HJ is no more than 33.3% [1 in 3]and can be less than 1% [1 in 12000].

In effect, the results consistently show that Jesus was probably a myth.

 

[Brainache]

You are exposing that you have virtually no understanding of probability.

Probability is NOT Proof.
Based on the results that you have shown the probability of an HJ is no more than 33.3% [1 in 3]and can be less than 1% [1 in 12000].

In effect, the results consistently show that Jesus was probably a myth.

We have only ever been talking about probability.

You apparently think that Christianity is more likely to have started without any Jesus; I disagree.

I think it is far more probable that Christianity started out as a Jewish Cult following an Apocalyptic Preacher, than that it started as a 2nd century Greek hoax.

The impossible complexity of faking all the early church writings and people, combined with the uselessness of starting an "End Times" cult decades after the Apocalypse was supposed to have already happened, makes a mockery of your "fake forged hoax theory".

Back to the old drawing board for you...

 

[dejudge]

We have only ever been talking about probability.

You apparently think that Christianity is more likely to have started without any Jesus; I disagree.

I think it is far more probable that Christianity started out as a Jewish Cult following an Apocalyptic Preacher, than that it started as a 2nd century Greek hoax.


The impossible complexity of faking all the early church writings and people, combined with the uselessness of starting an "End Times" cult decades after the Apocalypse was supposed to have already happened, makes a mockery of your "fake forged hoax theory".

Back to the old drawing board for you...

You are exposing that you are NOT familiar with what is being taught at Universities. You appear to be hopelessly naïve.

It is common knowledge that there was massive fraud and forgeries associated with Apologetic writings.

Virtually all Gospels and Epistles attributed to disciples, relatives or aquaintances of Jesus are forgeries or falsely attributed.

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" admits that at least 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or false attribution.

Please, read Bart Ehrman's "Forged" and "Did Jesus Exist?" or enroll at the University of Carolina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman (born 5 October 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

..............In Forged Ehrman posits some New Testament books are forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.

His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature.

It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery," looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and the broader phenomenon in Greek and Roman world.

 

[Brainache]

You are exposing that you are NOT familiar with what is being taught at Universities. You appear to be hopelessly naïve.

It is common knowledge that there was massive fraud and forgeries associated with Apologetic writings.

Virtually all Gospels and Epistles attributed to disciples, relatives or aquaintances of Jesus are forgeries or falsely attributed.

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" admits that at least 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or false attribution.

Please, read Bart Ehrman's "Forged" and "Did Jesus Exist?" or enroll at the University of Carolina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Falsely attributed does not equal "fake" or "forged" or "hoax".

Why you think this nonsense refutes actual Scholarship is a mystery to me.

 

[dejudge]

Falsely attributed does not equal "fake" or "forged" or "hoax".

Please tell that to Bart Ehrman. What you say may be false.

'False' is synonymous with bogus, counterfeit, deceptive, dishonest, fabricated, fallacious, mock, unreal, untrue.

'Hoax' is synonymous with deception, fakery, fraud, imposture.

Why you think this nonsense refutes actual Scholarship is a mystery to me.

You have no idea what is being taught at Universities. You obviously do not know that Scholars have identified massive forgeries or false attribution and interpolation within the NT itself.

Please, start a course with Bart Ehrman at the University of Carolina.

 

[Brainache]

Please tell that to Bart Ehrman. What you say may be false.

'False' is synonymous with bogus, counterfeit, deceptive, dishonest, fabricated, fallacious, mock, unreal, untrue.

'Hoax' is synonymous with deception, fakery, fraud, imposture.



You have no idea what is being taught at Universities. You obviously do not know that Scholars have identified massive forgeries or false attribution and interpolation within the NT itself.

Please, start a course with Bart Ehrman at the University of Carolina.

You have to demonstrate that Christianity is more likely to have started without a real Jesus, than with one.

You haven't done that.

No one has, you could be the first!

What are you waiting for?

 

[dejudge]

You have to demonstrate that Christianity is more likely to have started without a real Jesus, than with one.

You haven't done that.

No one has, you could be the first!

What are you waiting for?

The Quest for an HJ was initiated in the 18th century without any demonstration from me.

The HJ argument is an argument AGAINST the NT Jesus--the Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus.

In the NT Jesus is the Son of God, born of a Ghost, the Logos God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and ascended in a cloud.

No-one has found any story of Jesus of Nazareth from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

The only existing evidence from antiquity shows Jesus as a Myth.

No-one has shown that the Jesus story did NOT start as a Myth.

That is precisely why there has been an ON-GOING Quest for hundreds of years with Multiple failures.

The Jesus character started as a Myth from the 2nd century or later based on the earliest existing evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...f_all_registered_New_Testament_uncial_codices

 

[proudfootz]

Please tell that to Bart Ehrman. What you say may be false.

'False' is synonymous with bogus, counterfeit, deceptive, dishonest, fabricated, fallacious, mock, unreal, untrue.

'Hoax' is synonymous with deception, fakery, fraud, imposture.

Interesting that a scholar like Ehrman should choose this word.

It must really upset true believers in some quarters!

You have no idea what is being taught at Universities. You obviously do not know that Scholars have identified massive forgeries or false attribution and interpolation within the NT itself.

Please, start a course with Bart Ehrman at the University of Carolina.

Apparently the massive fraud found in devotional texts is a fact conveniently forgotten when Jesus is at stake, just as the supposed provisional nature of his alleged existence is.

 

[proudfootz]

True.
Volunteers?

Apparently none.

But in the meantime we can amuse ourselves discussing the topic at hand:

I’d be willing to grant him [blogger Tim O'Neill] that there are probably more non-Christian biblical scholars today than ever before, but that doesn’t change the fact that from the beginning, biblical studies have always been dominated by Christian clergy of various denominations - and remain so. One simply has to flip through a standard history of biblical studies, or take a roll call of the Society of Biblical Literature any time since its founding in 1880 to quickly see that not only do they freely admit that the entire field was originally an apologetic endeavor, but there has scarcely been a member who was not also a pastor, priest or rabbi.

Even in secular circles today, it is difficult to find a biblical scholar who does not come out of a religious background - even those without a divinity degree. Rabbi Jon D. Levensen, one of today’s most prominent Jewish biblical scholars, notes “It is a rare scholar in the field whose past does not include an intense Christian or Jewish commitment.” (The Hebrew Bible: The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, p. 30)

What’s more, as religious scholar Timothy Fitzgerald (no relation) notes in The Ideology of Religious Studies (Oxford University Press, 2000), even among former believers, theological assumptions are pervasive: “even in the work of scholars who are explicitly non-theological, half-disguised theological presuppositions persistently distort the analytical pitch.” (p. 6-7) Again, see “Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?” for a deeper examination of these fundamental issues.

It is interesting, in the face of criticism that 'mythicism' is an agenda-driven proposition to consider facts such as these.

This underscores why rather than an appeal to how many persons may or may not subscribe to any given belief we take the time to examine upon what grounds such beliefs are held.

 

[Brainache]

Apparently none.

But in the meantime we can amuse ourselves discussing the topic at hand:



It is interesting, in the face of criticism that 'mythicism' is an agenda-driven proposition to consider facts such as these.

This underscores why rather than an appeal to how many persons may or may not subscribe to any given belief we take the time to examine upon what grounds such beliefs are held.

Well go on then.

Stop with the ad hom and start dealing with the Scholarship.

No one is stopping you.

 

[pakeha]

...It is interesting, in the face of criticism that 'mythicism' is an agenda-driven proposition to consider facts such as these.

This underscores why rather than an appeal to how many persons may or may not subscribe to any given belief we take the time to examine upon what grounds such beliefs are held.

I couldn't immediately identify your quotation; could you shout me a link, please?

As it stands, we have the conclusions of analysis of the NT as the best evidence for an HJ, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Brainache]

...
This underscores why rather than an appeal to how many persons may or may not subscribe to any given belief we take the time to examine upon what grounds such beliefs are held.

...
As it stands, we have the conclusions of analysis of the NT as the best evidence for an HJ, correct me if I'm wrong.

proudfootz' argument looks a bit like those Truthers who complain about Engineers using all their fancy equations that normal people can't understand...

 

[proudfootz]

I couldn't immediately identify your quotation; could you shout me a link, please?

As it stands, we have the conclusions of analysis of the NT as the best evidence for an HJ, correct me if I'm wrong.

The quotes are from Dave Fitzgerald in defense of his book Nailed.

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

It's apparently true that NT literature (and some non-canonical christian stuff) is considered to be the 'best evidence' offered by modern-day believers in an HJ. Bart Ehrman, for example, in his book dismisses the non-christian mentions like Josephus et al.

 

[proudfootz]

To continue with Fitzgerald's book, here is some of the bits about Josephus:

Myth no. 3: Forging Josephus

This chapter focuses on ancient historian Flavius Josephus and two disputed passages in his writing, the Testimonium Flavianum and the “James Reference,” both which are claimed to be references to Jesus... However, the Testimonium is so blatantly a forgery no scholars today still dispute the fact; the only debate now is how much of it is forged. Even O’Neill accepts that at least some of it is not original to Josephus and was added by Christian scribes later. Of course, as Jeffrey Jay Lowder has pointed out, the very fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect.

...the majority of scholars accept the passage as at least partially authentic, but... the “Partially Authentic,” or Reconstuctionist camp is the largest camp simply because scholarly opinion is so divided over the extent of tampering; it is a very large tent with lots of room for disagreement - and there is ferocious disagreement. And there are many scholars in that significant (and I think, correct) minority who are convinced it is a complete forgery.

...

Josephan scholars Steve Mason and Ken Olson have both pointed out that the passage does not use Josephus’ characteristic language. In fact, its non-Josephan vocabulary and misuse of terms are just two of several other strong indications that the entire passage is not just a partial, but a total forgery...

<full post at link below>

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

I agree (with Bart Ehrman and other scholars) that the Josephan mentions are not useful as 'evidence' of the real existence of a man underneath the Christ myth.

 

[proudfootz]

I think Fitzgerald hits the nail on the head when he informs readers that the 'testimonium' is a late addition to the works of Josephus:

"Many commentators, including Doherty, G. A. Wells and Peter Kirby, have noted that without the Testimonium passage, the continuity between the passages flanking it flows seamlessly into each other. This fact alone is a tremendous indication that the passage is 100% entirely fraudulent.

Perhaps the major giveaway is that this passage does not appear until the 4th century. For the first 300 years of its existence, there is no mention of the Testimonium anywhere. This couldn’t have been simply because no one happened to read it; Josephus’ histories were immensely popular and pored over by scholars. For centuries his works were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. According to Josephus scholar Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius and Lactantius, are known to have read and commented on the works of Josephus.

Origen in particular relied extensively on him; his own writings are filled with references to Josephus. But it is obvious Origen had never heard of the Testimonium. When his skeptical Roman opponent Celsus asks what miracles Jesus performed, Origen answers that Jesus‘ life was indeed full of striking and miraculous events, “but from what other source can we can furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives?” (Contra Celsum, 2:33) In the same book (1.47), Origen even quotes from Antiquities of the Jews in order to prove the historical existence of John the Baptist, then adds that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, and criticizes Josephus for failing to mention Jesus in that book!

And no one else seems to have heard of the Testimonium for 300 years, either – it is never quoted until the 4th century, when the notorious Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea begins quoting it repeatedly.”


And where did Eusebius get his copy of Antiquities of the Jews? From Origen - who had never heard of the passage! There's simply no way around it: the Testimonium is 100% pure forgery, and it stretches belief that anyone but Eusebius is the forger...


<full post at link below>

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

I think there is good reason to think that the text of Josephus Origen read had no mention of any such Jesus.

 

[tsig]

The quotes are from Dave Fitzgerald in defense of his book Nailed.

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

It's apparently true that NT literature (and some non-canonical christian stuff) is considered to be the 'best evidence' offered by modern-day believers in an HJ. Bart Ehrman, for example, in his book dismisses the non-christian mentions like Josephus et al.

When the HJer speaks of multiple attestations he means it was mentioned more than once in the gospels, similarly textual analysis means analyzing the words of the NT and the argument from embarrassment means "It's unlikely the NT writers would mention that because it's embarrassing". Ehrman goes so far as to include "Q" as one of his sources for multiple attestations.

Oddly enough I'd already seen these arguments used by Christian apologists so they looked rather funny coming from atheists keyboards.

ETA: another popular argument is "History's a Mystery" and only Qualified Academics are capable if understanding it's intricacies.

 

[proudfootz]

When the HJer speaks of multiple attestations he means it was mentioned more than once in the gospels, similarly textual analysis means analyzing the words of the NT and the argument from embarrassment means "It's unlikely the NT writers would mention that because it's embarrassing". Ehrman goes so far as to include "Q" as one of his sources for multiple attestations.

Oddly enough I'd already seen these arguments used by Christian apologists so they looked rather funny coming from atheists keyboards.

ETA: another popular argument is "History's a Mystery" and only Qualified Academics are capable if understanding it's intricacies.

Historian Dr Carrier does an excellent analysis of the 'methodology' generally used by bible scholars in his book Proving History - I highly recommend it!

It's just an insult to the intelligence of members of this forum to blandly assert we must accept whatever is handed down from the Ivory Tower.