Ch. 7: Primary Sources (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:48 pm
Ch. 7: Primary Sources (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
I've been over all this stuff before D.B. Both Josephus and Tacitus were in excellent positions to access official Roman records. You can't rule Tacitus out because of being second century. That's not how historians do history.DB Roy wrote:He decides only writings that can be dated back to 120 or earlier or any source recording info from that date or earlier. The reason is that this information would be more reliable--closer to the time that Christ supposedly lived and less likely to be contaminated with later Christian dogma and historical revisionism.
You're welcome to follow Carrier's brand of exegesis on Romans,Galatians and Hebrews if you want to.DB Roy wrote: These include seven of Paul's epistles (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon), 1 Peter, the three Johns, James and Hebrews could be useful although not good primary documents to lean on.
Sure and Carrier says the gospels are "myths" but Acts a continuation from the gospel by Luke the same author, is "historical fiction" complete with a "chaste romance" between Paul and Lydia.DB Roy wrote:The Gospels, of course, have to be studied as does Acts because these are the only surviving earliest documents that describe a historical Jesus and the events following his death. Carrier accepts 1 Clement as possibly coming out of the 60s instead of the 80s or 90s of traditional biblical scholarship and so merits analysis.
DB Roy wrote:Moreover, evidence contrary to what a certain sect believed about Jesus would have been purged by that sect. For example, if Paul wrote a letter explicitly stating that Jesus did not exist as literally historical, sects that viewed Jesus as historical would have been purged it.
Here's the thing though, all the gospels clearly portray Jesus as a real human historical person and if you think that this is not what Luke is saying in his introduction,I give up on even trying to convince you.DB Roy wrote: While we can't be certain how often this happened, we can be certain that such documents would have been purged far more often than any that asserted the historicity of Jesus. Just something to keep in mind.
Yes, we have been over this stuff before. TOO MANY TIMES!! So I did something very nice--I have listed for you a thread that explains ONCE AGAIN how Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable sources for this historic Jesus. I am NOT going to explain again here because this has been done to death and yet here you are again bringing up the same crap that was long ago rebutted and for which you wrote not a word to call into question--until now. So here it is:Flann 5 wrote: I've been over all this stuff before D.B. Both Josephus and Tacitus were in excellent positions to access official Roman records. You can't rule Tacitus out because of being second century. That's not how historians do history.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to talk about what Carrier says about these books when we actually get to that part?? You're trying to rebut something you have admitted numerous times now that you have not read. So how do you know what he has to say??? Wait until we get around to discussing it THEN you can offer a rebuttal. Gee, I'd think your mind was already made up or something.DB Roy wrote:
You're welcome to follow Carrier's brand of exegesis on Romans,Galatians and Hebrews if you want to.
It's quite clear though that Paul describes Christ's ancestry precisely as he does his own descent from the Hebrew patriarchs, where he says Christ is likewise a descendant of theirs. In Galatians he says Jesus was born of a woman and under the law.
Where was this woman,up in the sub-lunar realm? And what Jewish laws was he under up there? Keeping the Sabbath and dietary laws and not coveting his neighbour's (whoever they were) donkey and goods?
Oh, and the last supper took place up there too I suppose. Was James his brother invited?
Hebrews speaks of his coming from the tribe of Judah and suffering outside the gate. How was he a human descendant of Judah in that sub-lunar zone? Or Abraham for that matter.
For crying out loud, he's only talking about the evidence we are going to discuss and why he chose those particular writings and you're already flying off the handle. You shouldn't be responding to this at all because nothing has said about those books yet. If you have an issue with his choice of evidence or with his method of choosing them, that's fine, but you're already trying to rebut a discussion that hasn't been presented to you yet.DB Roy wrote: Sure and Carrier says the gospels are "myths" but Acts a continuation from the gospel by Luke the same author, is "historical fiction" complete with a "chaste romance" between Paul and Lydia.
Mark he says was modeled on Homer and Richard has his own wondrous brand of allegorizing people and events in Mark's gospel.
First of all people can look at this thread you have provided and judge for themselves. This is the thread where you D.B. Roy 'explain' how Josephus and Tacitus are not reliable. Unfortunately for you, actual trained specialist scholars and historians on Josephus and Tacitus don't agree with you or Richard Carrier.DB Roy wrote:
Flann 5 wrote:
I've been over all this stuff before D.B. Both Josephus and Tacitus were in excellent positions to access official Roman records. You can't rule Tacitus out because of being second century. That's not how historians do history.
Yes, we have been over this stuff before. TOO MANY TIMES!! So I did something very nice--I have listed for you a thread that explains ONCE AGAIN how Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable sources for this historic Jesus. I am NOT going to explain again here because this has been done to death and yet here you are again bringing up the same crap that was long ago rebutted and for which you wrote not a word to call into question--until now. So here it is:
the-case-against-the-historic-jesus-christ-t19779.html
It's quite clear that you just ignored a detailed response I did provide on that thread on the scholarly views on Josephus.DB Roy wrote:And if you have issues with it, list them in that thread, please--where you should have done so LONG AGO!
I know what Carrier's views are having watched hours of his online talks on this subject. I'm not deaf. I provided numerous links providing rebuttals and critiques of his work on that thread,with my own criticisms.DB Roy wrote:Wouldn't it be a lot easier to talk about what Carrier says about these books when we actually get to that part?? You're trying to rebut something you have admitted numerous times now that you have not read. So how do you know what he has to say??? Wait until we get around to discussing it THEN you can offer a rebuttal. Gee, I'd think your mind was already made up or something.
Again you forget,I already addressed his thesis on that thread. I don't have to wait for some point in his book to critique his thesis.DB Roy wrote:DB Roy wrote:
Sure and Carrier says the gospels are "myths" but Acts a continuation from the gospel by Luke the same author, is "historical fiction" complete with a "chaste romance" between Paul and Lydia.
Mark he says was modeled on Homer and Richard has his own wondrous brand of allegorizing people and events in Mark's gospel.
For crying out loud, he's only talking about the evidence we are going to discuss and why he chose those particular writings and you're already flying off the handle. You shouldn't be responding to this at all because nothing has said about those books yet. If you have an issue with his choice of evidence or with his method of choosing them, that's fine, but you're already trying to rebut a discussion that hasn't been presented to you yet.