Carrier on historical methodology
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:42 am
I borrowed Flann's comment from another thread.
If you can get a sense of how pervasive Christian beliefs are in modern society, maybe it's easier to appreciate what Carrier is doing. On the other hand, you don't have to take Carrier's word for it. He's very meticulous and clear in explaining his approach. Do you agree with his methodology? If so, where does he go wrong as he applies his own methodology to the Gospels (for example)? I guess you would only do this if you're interested in how things really are.
A scholarly examination of holy texts will throw out all supernatural claims or any other claims that arise from scientific ignorance. The first sentence of your link starts out "Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus." To Paul, the vision of Christ may have seemed very real. But a modern scholar would cast a skeptical eye. We understand that people have hallucinations and that sometimes they are interpreted as religious experiences. When someone thinks they see Jesus in a mold stain on a piece of bread, we don't take it very seriously whereas In ancient times, a new cult might be launched. As Carrier points out, the time period when Paul lived was rife with superstition and ignorance. We simply can't trust Paul's interpretation of events. And why should we except that we have been taught to accept these beliefs on faith and, more importantly, we want to believe them.
Anyway, you say Carrier is is hopelessly wrong in his evaluation of Pauline Christology. Maybe he is. But even Christians don't agree on how to interpret many such documents. Who's to say one interpretation is right over another? Again, if Carrier fails to apply his own rigid methodology show us where he goes wrong.
There's a real problem of religious bias in looking at any "holy" text, understanding that these documents were written by true believers at a time in history that was rife with superstition and ignorance. How much can we glean from such documents that are trustworthy from a scholar's perspective? I don't know the answer myself, but I would argue that a non-believer's interpretation is probably going to be more trustworthy than a true believer's. For the same reason, we can't rely on FoxNews entirely to report on the success or failure of one of Obama's policies. The network is hopeless biased.
I thought the section where Carrier challenges Christian apologist Douglas Geivett's claim that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry.”
Here in his usual take-no-prisoners approach, Carrier completely obliterates Geivett's claim. This illustrates very well the problem of religious bias when it comes to the history of religious subjects.
Carrier does seem motivated to debunk many of Christianity's central beliefs, but he also seems genuinely capable of being able to parse the true from the false. He has an exceptional bullshit detector. I can imagine that you would disagree with him on many points, but it might be very difficult to challenge his methodology or his conclusions. The man is freakishly meticulous and exhaustive in his approach. Also, I would argue that your religious beliefs are emotion-based, and it must be very difficult to justify them from a purely rational approach. I guess that's why religion and science are constantly clashing. Because science is a purely empirical, rational enterprise and religion is almost purely emotional.Flann 5 wrote:Hi Geo,geo wrote:Flann, Have you read the section where Carrier discusses historical methods?
Historical method is good. Unfortunately Richard Carrier's entire career is largely devoted to "debunking" Christianity,so I think his approach is biased here from the start.
The other talk he gave on youtube is titled; "Acts as historical fiction."
I have only found incomplete and sketchy responses from Christians to this,but it's fairly recent and there's quite a lot to respond to in it.
Whatever about the whole myth or history debate itself,I think Carrier is clearly wrong with a central plank of his theory. That Paul and the early Christians believed Jesus was an incorporeal being out there in space and that this is what Paul's writings show.
This is hopelessly wrong. Here's a link to show just this. "What was Paul's view of Jesus?"
http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/pauline/Jesus.htm
If you can get a sense of how pervasive Christian beliefs are in modern society, maybe it's easier to appreciate what Carrier is doing. On the other hand, you don't have to take Carrier's word for it. He's very meticulous and clear in explaining his approach. Do you agree with his methodology? If so, where does he go wrong as he applies his own methodology to the Gospels (for example)? I guess you would only do this if you're interested in how things really are.
A scholarly examination of holy texts will throw out all supernatural claims or any other claims that arise from scientific ignorance. The first sentence of your link starts out "Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus." To Paul, the vision of Christ may have seemed very real. But a modern scholar would cast a skeptical eye. We understand that people have hallucinations and that sometimes they are interpreted as religious experiences. When someone thinks they see Jesus in a mold stain on a piece of bread, we don't take it very seriously whereas In ancient times, a new cult might be launched. As Carrier points out, the time period when Paul lived was rife with superstition and ignorance. We simply can't trust Paul's interpretation of events. And why should we except that we have been taught to accept these beliefs on faith and, more importantly, we want to believe them.
Anyway, you say Carrier is is hopelessly wrong in his evaluation of Pauline Christology. Maybe he is. But even Christians don't agree on how to interpret many such documents. Who's to say one interpretation is right over another? Again, if Carrier fails to apply his own rigid methodology show us where he goes wrong.
There's a real problem of religious bias in looking at any "holy" text, understanding that these documents were written by true believers at a time in history that was rife with superstition and ignorance. How much can we glean from such documents that are trustworthy from a scholar's perspective? I don't know the answer myself, but I would argue that a non-believer's interpretation is probably going to be more trustworthy than a true believer's. For the same reason, we can't rely on FoxNews entirely to report on the success or failure of one of Obama's policies. The network is hopeless biased.
I thought the section where Carrier challenges Christian apologist Douglas Geivett's claim that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry.”
Here in his usual take-no-prisoners approach, Carrier completely obliterates Geivett's claim. This illustrates very well the problem of religious bias when it comes to the history of religious subjects.
1.2.5 The Argument from Evidence
Another way of approaching historical questions is the argument from evidence, which precedes the argument to the best explanation: for before we can apply that tool, we must first prove that we have a believable fact to explain in the first place. And the degree to which we can trust a claim about the past is directly related to the scope and variety of the evidence, and how much we can trust it. There are five specific classes of evidence to account for: the more a claim fits these features, the more believable it is (leaving out here indirect evidence that increases the plausibility of a claim, by supporting the underlying generalization). These categories of evidence are:
First, what I call “physical-historical necessity.
Second, direct physical evidence.
Third, unbiased or counterbiased corroboration.
Fourth, credible critical accounts by known scholars from the period.
Fifth, an eyewitness account.
To illustrate the application of these criteria in assessing evidence, I will draw upon a comparison made by modern Christian apologist Douglas Geivett, who declares that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, “the highest standards of historical inquiry” and “if one takes the historian’s own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world,” as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.
Well, you heard me mention earlier the known tendency of Christian writers to exaggerate or outright lie, and here is a good example. Let’s take Geivett up on his claim and apply the historian’s own criteria to these two events and see how they come out. Let’s start with Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon river.
First, the physical-historical necessity of this event is exceedingly great. The history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey’s forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief—a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.
Second, we have lots of direct physical evidence. We have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection. No documents exist, and no inscriptions were commissioned by the resurrected Jesus, or by witnesses like Peter or Joseph of Arimathea—and the Shroud of Turin is a proven Medieval forgery (and even if authentic, it would not prove Jesus was resurrected any more than, say, vaporized or flash-frozen).
Third, we have unbiased or counterbiased corroboration. An unbiased source is someone who certainly would know if the story was true or false (such as an eye-witness or contemporary), but for whom there is no identifiable or plausible reason to be credulous, or to lie or distort the account in the ways (or with respect to the details) that concern us. Though they could still be wrong, at least we can rule out some very common causes of falsehood, and this is what makes sources like this so weighty in assessing the historicity of an event. On the other hand, a counterbiased source is someone who is actually notably biased against the event being reported, so that if even they admit it happened, there is good chance it did. And so, we find that many of Caesar’s enemies, including his nemesis Cicero, refer to the crossing of the Rubicon, as did friends and neutral observers, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of a physical resurrection of Jesus by anyone until over a hundred years after the event, fifty years after the Christians had already been spreading their stories far and wide, and well after any facts could be checked.
Fourth, we have credible critical accounts by known scholars in antiquity. In fact, the story of the “Rubicon Crossing” appears in almost every history of the age, by the most prominent scholars, including Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in various ways, and they are especially trustworthy on public political events like this. In addition, in their books they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they often show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is serious dispute. If that wasn’t enough, some cite or quote texts written by witnesses and contemporaries, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing or its repercussions.
In contrast, we have not even a single historian mentioning the resurrection until two or three centuries later, and then only Christian historians, who show little in the way of critical skill. Others simply repeated what the Christians told them. And of those Christians who describe the resurrection within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are mostly unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion. No one of these facts renders a source useless, but each diminishes its weight, and their cumulative force greatly reduces credibility.
And fifth, there is an eyewitness account of the Rubicon crossing. For we have Caesar’s own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself (and completed by one of his generals, a close friend). In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus—and we do not know for certain the name of the author of any of the accounts of his physical resurrection. Contrary to popular belief, the names of the four Evangelists were assigned to their respective Gospels decades after they were written, and on questionable grounds. And Paul, of course, did not actually see the resurrection, since he only encountered Jesus years later in a vision, and he mentions no other kind of evidence than that.
It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence—a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.
You really have to look hard to find an event in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So if we are charitable, Geivett at best is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence. If Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon were miraculous—if, say, the Rubicon had been a sea of lava, and his army flew over it at the behest of an Egyptian spellcaster—then we would have pretty strong evidence that a miracle happened in history, and I think it really would be a believable miracle. It would certainly be mysterious enough to wonder at.
Instead, when we look at the evidence for actual miracles, we always come up with very poor evidence indeed, a trend that cannot be an accident. Christ’s resurrection is one of the best attested and most widely believed and celebrated miracles in history, and yet here we have seen that it is one of the worst supported historical claims we have. The readiest explanation for this lack of evidence is that it isn’t really true, given all we know about the time and place in question, about historical sources and human nature and the natural world in general.