Is Mormonism so bad?

[mentalgymnast]

As I see it the most significant points he raises are not whether Jesus really lived, or whatever, but is to show that there is so much evidence to show that the stories were largely cribbed from many sources, were repeated myths of jewish and other antiquity.

It’s interesting to hear/watch some of the same sorts of things that I remember being hashed out back in the eighties. The Jesus Seminar blew on the scene and thought they were turning the world upside down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

At the time it was quite fashionable to cut against the grain...and still is.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

It is hard to inform your adult children of your funeral wishes because they do not want to contemplate your death unless you are leaving a sizable inheritance.

Ouch.

[dastardly stem]

I don't know that the decisions in his personal life say anything about his scholarship. He could be seeking fame and adoration, and such could suggest he's lying or fooling people. Or it could mean he's let things go to his head even if he's offered some good work to consider. I haven't decided.

I would say he is a smart guy, a fathead, and kind of a wing nut. I would not say he is a great historian or primarily motivated by good history. Sometimes I think he nails things, like when he is assessing the work of others and not riding on his Bayesian hobby horse.

Thanks, Kishkumen, for your input. I'm going back to what I said at the first of this trail, it doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus actually lived or not. It's an inconsequential question.

[Physics Guy]

The Wikipedia article on Carrier seems informative.

His own webpage announces that the title of his latest book is "Jesus from Outer Space".

[Kishkumen]

Thanks, Kishkumen, for your input. I'm going back to what I said at the first of this trail, it doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus actually lived or not. It's an inconsequential question.

You mean, I hope, that you feel it is inconsequential to you. I assure you that as a historical question it is not at all inconsequential. If we really are "all about the history," then let's actually be for it.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks, Kishkumen, for your input. I'm going back to what I said at the first of this trail, it doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus actually lived or not. It's an inconsequential question.

You mean, I hope, that you feel it is inconsequential to you. I assure you that as a historical question it is not at all inconsequential. If we really are "all about the history," then let's actually be for it.

Yes. Of course.

[Meadowchik]

No, Richard Carrier has found a shtick that can feed his ego. The guy wanted to be a Skeptics Movement rockstar, pick up chicks, have everyone think he was some kind of genius, and make bank. Have you read his cv, where he mentions his rank in Boy Scouts and other important Crap? Or read about how he is polyamorous and just wants the ladies to understand how he needs to spread his love around? Or how he was banned from certain Skeptics events for unwanted advances toward various women?

Yeah, he is all about the history.

LOL indeed, Kish.

He might be all that, sure, but of course that does not make him a bad historian. Considering the fact that applying Bayesian analysis to historicity is a relatively new approach, and because of his thoroughness, I would venture to say that there are very few people who are qualified enough to competently assess his works' significance.

If it gets explored more and becomes a fully-formed discipline, perhaps time will tell.

[Kishkumen]

LOL indeed, Kish.

He might be all that, sure, but of course that does not make him a bad historian. Considering the fact that applying Bayesian analysis to historicity is a relatively new approach, and because of his thoroughness, I would venture to say that there are very few people who are qualified enough to competently assess his works' significance.

If it gets explored more and becomes a fully-formed discipline, perhaps time will tell.

Yes, we don't want to commit the error of argumentum ad hominem. At the same time, if stem wants to claim that Carrier is "all about the history," when I think that is questionable, I think it is entirely fair for me to point these things out.

You are right that Bayesian analysis is new in the way it formally deals with the issue of historical probability. I don't think what I am saying is necessarily to be taken as a rejection of the concept. What I do take issue with is Carrier's application of Bayesian analysis.

Consider, for example, Carrier's bit about the Book of Daniel that stem quoted. Neither Carrier, the guru of Bayesian analysis, nor stem can apparently grasp the problem with using Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as parallels to Pontius Pilate in such a way that invalidates the value of Pontius Pilate as an evidence in favor of Jesus' historicity. I explained it, and I thought it wasn't at all difficult to grasp. An author writes pseudepigraphically about fictional events set in the deep past in part to gain attention for their work. For this reason, we can expect them to focus on important people like kings, and not a lot of other real but minor historical figures. They usually do not focus on minor historical characters such as Pontius Pilate. If we are really interested in historical probabilities, then we would honestly acknowledge that Carrier has not weighed these probabilities well, and no amount of Bayesian analysis seems to have prevented this error.

[dastardly stem]

Yes, we don't want to commit the error of argumentum ad hominem. At the same time, if stem wants to claim that Carrier is "all about the history," when I think that is questionable, I think it is entirely fair for me to point these things out.

Hold up...I didn't say he's all about the history. I suggested he's respectful in his work to the discipline of history. I think that's largely true. And I don't think his personal business argues well against that position.

You are right that Bayesian analysis is new in the way it formally deals with the issue of historical probability. I don't think what I am saying is necessarily to be taken as a rejection of the concept. What I do take issue with is Carrier's application of Bayesian analysis.

Consider, for example, Carrier's bit about the Book of Daniel that stem quoted. Neither Carrier, the guru of Bayesian analysis, nor stem can apparently grasp the problem with using Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as parallels to Pontius Pilate in such a way that invalidates the value of Pontius Pilate as an evidence in favor of Jesus' historicity. I explained it, and I thought it wasn't at all difficult to grasp. An author writes pseudepigraphically about fictional events set in the deep past in part to gain attention for their work. For this reason, we can expect them to focus on important people like kings, and not a lot of other real but minor historical figures. They usually do not focus on minor historical characters such as Pontius Pilate. If we are really interested in historical probabilities, then we would honestly acknowledge that Carrier has not weighed these probabilities well, and no amount of Bayesian analysis seems to have prevented this error.

I grasped it, I just didn't think it carried the weight you thought it did. To a first century Greek speaking Jew, what other historic figure would have been behind it if not Pilate? That was my question, essentially. It seems to make sense to me that he would have been used, fitted into the story if it were made up. goddammit I'm doing it again. But seriously, if you in your expertise do not think a first century Jew would have felt it reasonable to include Pilate, I say, fine. That is genuine disagreement. I don't think the genuine disagreement amounts to anything near the conclusive claim of error though.

[Kishkumen]

Hold up...I didn't say he's all about the history. I suggested he's respectful in his work to the discipline of history. I think that's largely true. And I don't think his personal business argues well against that position.

Oh, I think the fact that he has become a counter-apologist for hire is very much about his personal business. I do not agree that he is motivated by a respect for the discipline at all. He barely operates in the discipline. His treatment of the discipline is more akin to John Gee's, truth be told.

I grasped it, I just didn't think it carried the weight you thought it did. To a first century Greek speaking Jew, what other historic figure would have been behind it if not Pilate? That was my question, essentially. It seems to make sense to me that he would have been used, fitted into the story if it were made up. goddammit I'm doing it again. But seriously, if you in your expertise do not think a first century Jew would have felt it reasonable to include Pilate, I say, fine. That is genuine disagreement. I don't think the genuine disagreement amounts to anything near the conclusive claim of error though.

Let me ask you this, stem: how many different provincial governors or Herodian rulers do you think were in charge of Jerusalem in the first century CE? Do you have even the foggiest idea? You say Pilate because you know the name, and then you assume that he must have been just as important and obvious to all the people of ancient Jerusalem as he is to you. You should test that theory.

Moreover, do you think that the Gospels were written by people who lived in Jerusalem? How many people agree with you? What other views do they hold? Would you agree with the Fundamentalist Christians that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses? Or do you agree with Carrier that they were made up by people who really had no idea what was actually going on at the time, and thus they were forced to make it up?

So, if you agree with Carrier that they must have made all this crap up, and perhaps threw in some history-ish tidbits to make people buy into it, then why pick Pontius Pilate? Why would we assume that these historical fiction writers would not pick someone else governing Judea under Tiberius, such as, say, Annius Rufus or Valerius Gratus?

The more arguments you make that suggest they did so for historical verisimilitude, the more you also add to the positive arguments for the likelihood these accounts are simply based on an actual historical situation.

I want to thank you for forcing me to think these things through more thoroughly. The more I dig into this, the less persuasive I find the argument that Jesus is a figment of someone's imagination, and, yes, that matters because his movement eventually developed into one of the world's dominant religious communities.

To get back to the topic, let's say for the sake of argument that Mark is the first Gospel. Mark provides no information about when Jesus was born. Moreover, I don't think he even mentions the emperor Tiberius. Tiberius is only mentioned by Luke. Now we are left to float freely and pick any procurator, equestrian prefect, or Jewish toparch who may have controlled Judea in the late first century BCE or first century CE.

Why pick Pilate? And why do the details about Pilate match his portrait in Philo and Josephus?

Take for example the little bit I quoted about the Tower of Siloam and the butchered Galileans from Luke 13. There we find out that Pilate butchered Galileans who were sacrificing. I love how this part is a lot more accurate in its depiction of Pilate in comparison with the governor who washes his hands of Jesus' death. The latter part is less believable. The butchery is absolutely believable.

You might say that the author of Mark had to have read his Philo. It is most unlikely that he read Josephus. Yet we have no good reason to believe that he had read Philo. So where is this interest in Pilate in particular coming from?