Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[Visaki]

So which Bible translation do you prefer?

English.

You do know that there are multiple different English translations of the Bible, right?

 

[thenexttodie]

You do know that there are multiple different English translations of the Bible, right?

Yes and in some of them Moses is actually a Taxi driver. Did you know that?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[SpecialFrog]

The idea that the Torah was originaly written by several different authors becomes less plausible one you realize there is no real reason to suppose that it could not have been written during the lifespan of a single individual.

Nonsense. The divergent styles and language are enough to make the "multiple authors" hypothesis probable.

No. The most simple explanation for variances of style and language would be then become subject matter and genre. Additional evidence would be required to introduce a more complex explanation.

So Genesis 1 and 2 are different genres?

So which Bible translation do you prefer?

English.

Aren't we amusing.

..Because all of them employ textual criticism as a means of creating a single text from multiple inconsistent sources.

First of all, many of these texts would have hardly been considered "ancient" at the time they were made part of the canon. Secondly, how is having multiple sources a bad thing? Thirdly the methods used would have been different from what most people today would consider a "textual analysis"

wrong on both counts.

Anyway, I think this conversation has gotten pointless.

 

[thenexttodie]

The idea that the Torah was originaly written by several different authors becomes less plausible one you realize there is no real reason to suppose that it could not have been written during the lifespan of a single individual.

Nonsense. The divergent styles and language are enough to make the "multiple authors" hypothesis probable.

No. The most simple explanation for variances of style and language would be then become subject matter and genre. Additional evidence would be required to introduce a more complex explanation.

So Genesis 1 and 2 are different genres?

Genesis 1 has to do with the creation. God creating the Heavens and the Earth. Genesis 2 provides certain details of the creation and of God's interaction with the man he created. 1 sets the scene for 2, so to speak.

Is there anything you have, other than a philosophical argument, to show that Genesis 1 and 2 could not have been written at the same time? If not, that's fine.

..Because all of them employ textual criticism as a means of creating a single text from multiple inconsistent sources.

First of all, many of these texts would have hardly been considered "ancient" at the time they were made part of the canon. Secondly, how is having multiple sources a bad thing? Thirdly the methods used would have been different from what most people today would consider a "textual analysis"

wrong on both counts.

Major Fail. The process involved with creating the Novum I o had to do with publishing the New Testament in Greek, instead of Latin. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[thenexttodie]

As for the snake thing. Snakes are the most ancient of symbols of the most ancient civilizations. Some even predate history and we have no explaination of their significance really, except for what was written in Genesis.

Hundreds of years after Genesis, we find a record of Moses putting a brazen serpent on a staff, so that those who gazed upon it would be healed of venom.

You could argue that snakes were already considered to be a symbol of healing way back before this. And you could be right. But I consider this to be unlikely, since most of the snake in ancient mesopatamia would have been deadly. To use a snake as sign of health would be like using a turtle to symbolize swiftness.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Has the debate already taken place? According to the video, the debate was suppose to take place in the fall of this year. We are now closing in on winter.

Bart Ehrman vs. Robert Price & Richard Carrier vs. Justin Bass: The Debates Are On! (Get Your Tickets Now)

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Just for completeness.

 

[Collecemall]

I missed it the other night. I suppose I'll pay the $5 to see it. Thanks for sharing.

EDIT: Oh sweet. My google play balance from google rewards will cover it! I recommend using that app if you don't. it asks you survey questions once in a while. You can use the money in the play store and for videos, music, apps, etc. I don't get out a lot and still have $15 in about 5-6 months from it. If you don't live like a hermit it will probably benefit you more as well.

 

[tuxbox]

It sucks that someone has to pay to see the video. I'm not willing to pay to see it just yet, but I would love to see the debate.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It sucks that someone has to pay to see the video. I'm not willing to pay to see it just yet, but I would love to see the debate.

I am willing to pay to see it, but not to rent it. It is an approximately three hour video that you are only able to rent for three days? If I am paying for it I should be able to watch it for at least a week, if not more. I doubt I would have time to sit and watch it through in three days. However, over the course of a week one should be able to get through the whole thing.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Here is some free stuff about the debate.



The Ehrman-Price Debate - Richard Carrier

 

[WarK]

Here is some free stuff about the debate.

The Ehrman-Price Debate - Richard Carrier

I read through some of it and I wonder why is Ehrman considered the man to beat on this topic. Reading Carrier makes Ehrman look like someone closer to WLC than a proper academic. As WLC he admitted that no evidence would change his mind.

Is Ehrman the most credible of the people saying Jesus really existed? If so, it seems like they're all more theologians than historians.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Here is some free stuff about the debate.

The Ehrman-Price Debate - Richard Carrier

I read through some of it and I wonder why is Ehrman considered the man to beat on this topic. Reading Carrier makes Ehrman look like someone closer to WLC than a proper academic. As WLC he admitted that no evidence would change his mind.

Is Ehrman the most credible of the people saying Jesus really existed? If so, it seems like they're all more theologians than historians.

I do not know about most credible, but Ehrman is the most accessible. There is something to having a public persona. Ehrman actually gets out there and talks directly to the public about his work, which makes him one of the most famous historians out there. Just like WLC, he may not be the most credible, but he is the most willing to get in front of a group of people and talking about his subject of research.

To your second point; I totally agree that Ehrman stance on evidence and how it should be seen is asinine and closer to the stereotype of what most reality deniers actually think the academic world looks like. It is sad to hear someone so popular and credentialed actually state that position and think it is a proper position to hold and not the logical fallacy that it is. It seems to go a long way in explaining why he thinks it is beneath him to address Carrier's peer-reviewed research in the actual peer-review arena. That arena is where the real debate happens in academia, and the longer Carrier's research goes unchallenged, the longer it appears that his arguments are sound.

 

[tuxbox]

I believe Ehrman is so popular is because he is just about the only atheist scholar who is making a living by writing about Jesus existing.

 

[thenexttodie]

It sucks that someone has to pay to see the video. I'm not willing to pay to see it just yet, but I would love to see the debate.

I wouldn't waste my time. Ehrman almost always loses every debate he's in. He makes poor arguments.

 

[Rumraket]

From what I have heard, Price was even worse than Ehrman usually is, and Ehrman came quite well prepared, while Price thought it was going to be a conversation so he didn't take notes during the debate and only came with a a pre-written opening statement he didn't even have time to finish.

 

[Bango Skank]

It sucks that someone has to pay to see the video. I'm not willing to pay to see it just yet, but I would love to see the debate.

I wouldn't waste my time. Ehrman almost always loses every debate he's in. He makes poor arguments.

Can you give a few examples of his poor arguments?

 

[WarK]

I read through some of it and I wonder why is Ehrman considered the man to beat on this topic. Reading Carrier makes Ehrman look like someone closer to WLC than a proper academic. As WLC he admitted that no evidence would change his mind.

To your second point; I totally agree that Ehrman stance on evidence and how it should be seen is asinine and closer to the stereotype of what most reality deniers actually think the academic world looks like. It is sad to hear someone so popular and credentialed actually state that position and think it is a proper position to hold and not the logical fallacy that it is. It seems to go a long way in explaining why he thinks it is beneath him to address Carrier's peer-reviewed research in the actual peer-review arena. That arena is where the real debate happens in academia, and the longer Carrier's research goes unchallenged, the longer it appears that his arguments are sound.

So it's probably the problem with this field of academia. Those people have trouble accepting a woman and an atheist so why are we surprised that an atheist challenging religious dogma is ignored?

Francesca Stavrakopoulou talks about it in this talk:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]