Holy Mother of God -- a "historicist"! Not only that, but a "historicist believer"!

This is an attempt to trash MAINSTREAM scholarship by linking it to that goofy slur, "religionist." And then adding in believer -- as if the huge body of scholars who believe in a historic Jesus are somehow aiding and abetting in believing in a divine Jesus. Right. So logical -- like *believing* there is a historic Queen Elizabeth II aids and abets the idea that royalty are God's representatives on earth.

I so sincerely hope that there are not a bunch of RfM posters out there who think to themselves, "By golly! I need to stop believing Queen Elizabeth is real!" But -- you never know.

The irony, however is found in the definition of a "historicist," and once you know that, you MIGHT want to stop using it as some vaguely passive-aggressive insult.

Clipped from Wiki: Historicism therefore tends to be hermeneutical, because it *places great importance on cautious, rigorous and contextualized interpretation of information,* or relativist, because it rejects notions of universal, fundamental and immutable interpretations.[1]

So -- being called a "historicist" is a great compliment.

Moving along -- yes -- OF COURSE the hundreds of history and anthropology departments in the US, the museums, the editorships dealing with scholarship from one of the most interesting times in the history of our civilization are staffed by 26 people! How could that possibly be a problem or questioned! None of these 26 are named Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, or Robert M. Price, however. And why Robert *M.*? He is hoping to become a Mormon General Authority?

I just don't see how an inability to deal with the weight of established scholarship -- a flaw when say Daniel Peterson or FARMS does it -- becomes somehow a virtue when post Mormons do it. When people reject all the serious work that has been done in the field of historical Jesus, it just reminds me of my (depressing) Mormon childhood among people who honestly thought the Americas were peopled by Jews who floated here on raft.

The cherry on that cake is the ad hominem attacks on scholars -- but didn't we grow up with that? Hearing how people who put down BoM had agendas, were just ignorant -- or just plain evil? That someone might quite legitimately find -- er -- problems in the text and plausibility of the story had to be denied. That all of scholarship in literature, anthropology, history, genetics, comparative cultures legitimately found flaws in the text and plausibility of the story had be loudly, passionately, irrationally, sneeringly attacked.

Seems to me that sound have (sadly) switched what they are defending and who they are attacking, but otherwise managed through great changes to remain the same.

Okay. Now I've written myself into depression, I think I'll just go to bed.

What bothers me is the fact that many of them reject mainline scholarship without actually reading it or understanding how historians actually work. They are the experts because they read a blog or maybe one questionable book without actually checking the author's assertions.Then there are those who start yelling about appeals to authority when anyone cites an actual scholar. Of course they do the same thing all the time to make their own points, but when it has anything to do with Biblical scholarship it is a logical fallacy unless the source is Richard Carrier.Then it is okay for some reason. Arghhh!Jane, I share your frustration.

I said something in another thread that remains unanswered by historicists: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1524064,1524112#msg-1524112

"Ehrman's Christian bias (not to be confused with motivation) shows through when Ehrman states that historians can not determine whether Jesus' flesh was divine or not. He can conclude that Jesus never claimed to be divine, nobody in his lifetime thought he was divine, that for decades after his death people believed he only became divine after his crucifixion, and yet somehow we will never know whether he was in fact god or the son of god. That Ehrman could hold such a view shows a lack of scholarship and extreme bias. Why would the divinity of Jesus be so protected? Looking at Ehrman's education provides the answer."

I would really like a historicist to respond to this.

What Ehrman meant was the divinity of Christ is a matter of faith and is not a proper subject for history or science. He also made it clear that he does not accept the divinty of Christ himself.Some atheist scientists have said similar things including one of my professors. Stephen Gould talked about the being separate fields of science and religion too. It is a common view and you are completely misrepresenting it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 12:09AM by bona dea.

If everybody is doing it then it must be okay :O

Does it really make sense to keep religion and the evidence for a historical religious figure separate?

Yes. The influence of Jesus doesnt depend on the truth of Christianity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 10:03AM by bona dea.

If it's a matter of faith, it's a matter of woo-woo imagination. There may have been a person that the Christ story is based upon, but even given the most liberal historical parameters used with Bayes's theorem (a mathematical calculation that can be used for historical probability,) the figure comes out at about 30% that it was an actual person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:38PM by rationalist01.

You have people who eventually managed to figure out the enormous absurdities of LDS belief and pseudo-history, and they naively view all other religious history based on their experience.

There's no reason not to use the same methodology that I used to disprove Mormonism to analyze the probability that Christianity is valid. I did. I found the evidence lacking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:40PM by rationalist01.

We are not talking about wheher Christianity is true. We are talking about who founded it. Sigh. There is a difference.

Yes, I did, and on good evidence. I abandoned faith as a valid epistemology when I left Mormonism, and I think a good number of ex-mo's do so, and rightly. This leads directly to a studied rejection of the improbable, ridiculous Christ mythology rather quickly.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moving along -- yes -- OF COURSE the hundreds of
> history and anthropology departments in the US,
> the museums, the editorships dealing with
> scholarship from one of the most interesting times
> in the history of our civilization are staffed by
> 26 people! How could that possibly be a problem or
> questioned! None of these 26 are named Richard
> Carrier, Earl Doherty, or Robert M. Price,
> however. And why Robert *M.*? He is hoping to
> become a Mormon General Authority?

Actually, Carrier and Price *are* among the 26 members of the AHA listing their area of research as "New Testatment Period History." Doherty isn't, but that doesn't mean he's not a "scholar," of course :) Ehrman, by the way, counts both Carrier and Price among the "reputable scholars" dealing in the period, doing reputable work -- even though he disagrees with them.

> I just don't see how an inability to deal with the
> weight of established scholarship -- a flaw when
> say Daniel Peterson or FARMS does it -- becomes
> somehow a virtue when post Mormons do it. When
> people reject all the serious work that has been
> done in the field of historical Jesus, it just
> reminds me of my (depressing) Mormon childhood
> among people who honestly thought the Americas
> were peopled by Jews who floated here on raft.

I see no such "inability." In fact, largely what Carrier, Doherty, Price, and others have done is point out areas where the prior "serious work" done in the field has been erroneous -- used incorrect data, made unsupportable assumptions, etc. They are directly dealing with the established work, attempting to show where it is flawed. While you may not agree with their work, there's no lack of dealing with the established field.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I see no such "inability." In fact, largely what
> Carrier, Doherty, Price, and others have done is
> point out areas where the prior "serious work"
> done in the field has been erroneous -- used
> incorrect data, made unsupportable assumptions,
> etc. They are directly dealing with the
> established work, attempting to show where it is
> flawed. While you may not agree with their work,
> there's no lack of dealing with the established
> field.

ificouldhietokolob makes an excellent point here. As our knowledge of our world expands, most of mankind's "established work" in any given field, in any given time, has been refuted or adjusted in someway to accomodate new findings, new interpretations, new knowledge. The "established work" regarding the existence of some guy named "Jesus" is certainly not irrefutable.

Maybe you should a
stop ignoring the mainline scholars in favor of the fringe minority

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should a
> stop ignoring the mainline scholars in favor of
> the fringe minority

Maybe you should stop making that claim about "mainline scholars" and a "fringe minority," since it's both fallacious and false.

Even Ehrman considers Price and Carrier reputable, valid scholars in the field.

So do I but they are fringe theorists whatever their credentials and they make up a tiny fraction of scholars. That makes their theories fringe. Got it. There are two, maybe three, aligned against hundreds

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So do I but they are fringe theorists whatever
> their credentials and they make up a tiny fraction
> of scholars. That makes their theories fringe. Got
> it. There are two, maybe three, aligned against
> hundreds

Let's see, out of 26 members of the AHA who list this area as their specialty, the ones who question an historical "Jesus" are:

Arthur Droge (professor of Early Christianity, UCSD)
Richard Carrier (independent scholar)
Kurt Noll (professor of Christianity, Brandon University)
Thomas Brodie (retired professor of religious studies)
Robert Price (independent scholar)
Thomas Thompson (retired professor of religious studies)
Hector Avalos (professor of religion, Iowa State)

That's 7 I know of. Hmm, 7 out of 26, or 27% of the AHA scholars in that field.

27%.

"Tiny fraction?" Nope.
"Fringe?" Nope.

I will look them up when I have time, but even if they are respected and peer reviewed, 7 of hundreds is a very small percent. 27 per cent? Not even close. Besides, I already counted two of them-Carrier and Price. Okay, I already counted Carrier and Price. Two of the others say it is possible which is not exactly the same as denying it. One had an article written,but it didnt discuss his opinion on Jesus'existence and I couldnt find any info on the last.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 04:27PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will look them up when I have time, but even if
> they are respected and peer reviewed, 7 of
> hundreds is a very small percent. 27 per cent. Not
> even close.

I've asked you numerous times to list these claimed "hundreds." Yet you never have.

I paid a "visiting membership" fee to the AHA so that I could research the membership, did so, and gave you actual numbers and names. You have presented nothing.

You're also seriously mis-representing the opinions of those who do think it likely an historical "Jesus" existed. You've frequently claimed they're all "certain," when they're not.
John P. Maier, for instance -- probably the foremost (certainly most published) "historicist" scholar in the US insists that while he thinks an historical Jesus is likely, that "...any claim is only to the probable, not the certain."
Philip Davies, another "historicist" scholar, comes down on the side of a likely historical "Jesus," but expresses no certainty, and states that the non-historical side "makes respectable points worth investigating." Those are only two that I know of. The "certainty" that you and other posters have assigned to the "mainstream" scholars doesn't come from them, it's made up by you.

You have also frequently and incorrectly claimed that anyone who doesn't think the evidence is strong enough to consider an historical Jesus likely is a "mythicist," which isn't the case at all.

So, not only is your claim an "appeal to authority" fallacy; not only are you dishonest about how many scholars there are in the field, and how many disagree with the "mainstream" stance, not only do you constantly use a fallacious false dichotomy, but you don't even correctly represent the "mainstream" stance.

Did you only read a little bit of Ehrman (who makes some of the same errors in his book), and then "believe" it? Without checking any facts or doing any research? Or...what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 04:27PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I have read Meir and he believes it is possible that Jesus didnt live.Possible doesnt mean likely. It is possible that Martians killed Kennedy too, but very unlikely. Ehrman doesnt claim to know for sure that Jesus lived either andI agree,but the likelyhood is very high that he did. You forgot to mention or didnt read that part. You are misrepresenting things in a dishonest way.Maybe you should,you know, read the books. Oh, yes, please quit calling me names.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 04:39PM by bona dea.

I read all of Ehrman's book on jesus and Carrier's critque as well as Ehrman's reply. Carrier was an uninformed ass and Ehrman refuted every thing of substance he said.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read all of Ehrman's book on jesus and Carrier's
> critque as well as Ehrman's reply. Carrier was an
> uninformed ass and Ehrman refuted every thing of
> substance he said.

Yes, calling someone an "uninformed ass" is terrific scholarship, and it refutes someone's arguments logically and effectively.

Oh, wait...no it doesn't. It's just another ad-hominem, without actually addressing any of the arguments. I also notice you didn't address any of the facts I presented showing your claims false. How about that.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

I'm really trying to understand your "position" here. Why such a "religious" defense of an historical jesus, to the point that you use fallacies, make things up, etc? Me, I have no "skin" in the game. Other than intellectual curiosity, I don't *care* if there was an actual "Jesus" or not. I don't find the claimed evidence that there was one convincing, and I get rather frustrated with the dishonesty, fallacy, and nonsense that gets offered up in defense of "historicity."
What's your deal?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:02PM by ificouldhietokolob.

> Oh, yes, please quit calling me names.

>Carrier was an uninformed ass

Hypocritical much?

Last time I checked Carrier wasnt on this.forum.and as a public figure he is subject to criticism and was downright nasty toward Ehrman.If he can dish it out,he can take it.

And apparently, you can't.

Grow up.

Thanks for making my point again.

Galileo was once a "fringe" astronomer.

Hi Jane

Um...yeah. Kind of what I've been trying to say to these people. Excellent post.

I hope I am considered one of "these people". I much prefer facts and evidences over name calling and tantrums. I have not devoted my life to this subject, but I have read many books and articles on it. The biggest problem I have with some on this site is their assumption that I or others are ignorant if we don't agree with the mainstream position.

Mainstream is a logical road to take when you have not taken the time or you don't have the time to do the research yourself. However, just because something is mainstream does not make it true.

I take the position not to believe in something unless there is sufficient evidence to believe it. Based on the evidences that I have seen to date I do not find the evidence for a historical Jesus to be very convincing. I understand there is evidence for it and I am not saying it is not possible that there was a human Jesus. I just don't find the evidence or arguments convincing.