The guys in this field seem to spend a lot of time insulting and poo-pooing each other.
Here is a response to a response by Richard Carrier (to someone else)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... hrman.html
Quote:
...Now, on to Richard Carrier’s response. It is called “Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism.” And it is a disappointing and ineffective response that will only carry weight with people who desperately want there not to have been a historical Jesus, so much so that they cease to care about historical methods and evidence....
...Carrier describes as “Ehrman’s only evidence” Paul’s reference in Galatians to having met “James the brother of the Lord.” He attempts to sow doubt about the meaning, but the phrase is clear. There is no evidence for any Jews in Paul’s time speaking of God having a brother, and so the most natural reference is to Jesus being the Lord here, as indeed Paul refers to him often with this title. Carrier then follows mythicists like Earl Doherty in trying to suggest that “brother(s) of” can mean the same thing as “brother(s) in.” But the two phrases are obviously distinct in meaning, and based on the evidence available, it was not the custom in this time to refer to Christians in general, or a specific subset of Christians, as “brothers of the Lord.” (I should add even using the term “Christians” is anachronistic). Carrier’s attempt to appeal to New Testament sources as evidence to the contrary, when those same sources provide evidence of a historical Jesus, is very strange indeed, and thoroughly unpersuasive.
Carrier also mentions other possibilities – that some part of the phrase could be an interpolation. But if one is willing to posit interpolations where the manuscript evidence does not show evidence of such interpolation, then one can draw any conclusion. The historian, however, seeks to draw the best conclusion possible based on the evidence we have. And so Carrier, at this point if not before, has moved from being a historian to being an apologist for mythicism. He is clearly and unambiguously trying to make a case for a predetermined conviction, not follow the evidence where it leads. The evidence we have available leads in a particular direction, and mythicist use denialist tactics to try to obscure this point....
Okay, the most reasonable conclusion that I can draw from this is that Jesus actually did exist. Mr. Carrier's arguments concerning the passage in Galatians just aren't convincing. He just seems to be over-desperate to believe that Jesus didn't exist, and bends the evidence to support his conclusion. That little bit from Galatians might not be
conclusive proof that Jesus existed, but Mr. Carrier should at least concede that this represents at least a tiny bit of evidence that Jesus might have really existed, even if he has a ton of evidence against Jesus existing.
07 Feb 2014, 2:01 am
