LOL. Shrug. I don't think it is an insult. I think of it as an observation. What is your idea of evidence, stem? I see you say a lot about what you don't consider to be evidence, but I see it as evidence. One of the two of us does history for a living. I am not saying you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of evidence according to every use of the word. Presumably you watch police procedural dramas and know about evidence there. But what is your sense of what makes for evidence in history?dastardly stem wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:50 pm*Shrug...not really. I haven't adopted Carrier's view as my own. As I pointed out I fall just on the other side of the issue as he--when it comes down to it I think Jesus actually did live. But I'd agree in that many things pointed to as strong evidence is either really weak or not really evidence at all. We have to make some leaps and that isn't really a big deal, in my view.
I haven't adopted his "hyper-skepticism" so I guess I can take your insult as simply your lashing out, after having misunderstood where i'm coming from. Its unfortunate because I figured we could talk about these things and not get worked up like this.
Let me tell you what your rhetorical position reads like right now.I don't think history is not worth it. It is crucial to our lives. But you are right, I'm not so trained, nor am I an expert. And if it's true the Pilate mention can be considered evidence, then so be it. I'd be wrong. I could easily accept that. As I see it, I don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude the mention of Pilate is evidence that Jesus actually lived. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, I've considered what you've said and have stayed put in my position. Again...I could be wrong.
On this, though, I would think history is not about claiming some event with certainty. It's all about likelihood and probability. And as the discipline demonstrates some things are more likely than others.
"You know, if the name Pilate just shows up in the text, then that is not evidence that Jesus lived."
OK, if that were true, I would agree with you. Instead, we see Pilate relating to Jesus in a manner and setting that is entirely consistent with what we know of him from other sources. That is not what you seem to be saying, and the two positions represent quite different levels of historical probability. The mere mention of Pilate doesn't give us much. The other gives us quite a bit.
And, if you agree, then how do you conclude that Jesus probably did not exist or even only 50/50? Yes, the two cases have very different levels of evidence. One of them has almost none. The other has a fairly generous amount by ancient standards. Yet you say Jesus probably did not exist. That is, anyway, the position you seem to be arguing for, in agreement with Carrier.I agree. The example I offered was simply to point out that the disagreement between whether Jesus lived or did not live is decided upon the evidence. He who thinks he lives needs to supply the evidence for the claim. It was not an attempt to say Book of Mormon historicity and Jesus historicity are comparable in and of themselves.
I guess the rudeness enters this when you say you want to know more about something, I take the time to give you some useful leads, and without really making much effort--you admit you made very little--you say, "Oh, I just don't think that those cases are applicable," when a professional ancient historian has said differently. That is pretty mind boggling to me, but it should not be, as common an occurrence as it is.I certainly did not intend to be rude or disrespectful. I don't know what evidence I brushed aside. I did mention I think the Pythagoras and Apollonius examples were not applicable and said why I thought that. It was not meant to be disrespectful of course. It appears we simply disagree on whether there is some application here. Aside from what you quoted regarding Apollonius I have no particular issue. I'm not making the connection you seem to have here. I don't think Carrier or myself would be obligated to argue Apollonius never lived, nor should it even matter as a question in regards to whether Jesus lived or not.
If you want to know whether or not it is reasonable to treat Jesus as a figure who actually lived, then you should look at comparanda that fit the general profile. Pythagoras, Apollonius, and Alexander do. They are all Mediterranean holy men who allegedly performed miracles and attracted followers, about whom we know mostly through the writings of others. They did not leave much in the way of physical traces, such as coins, inscriptions, or autograph texts we can look at ourselves. All of them are generally believed by most ancient historians to have lived based on the evidence we have of their lives.
I doubt most historians would look at Jesus and say, "Oh, I give him about even odds to have lived or to have been made up." Most would say that he did live, and that is because they generally know on what evidentiary basis it is reasonable to treat a person as one who actually lived.