Philo,
I'm going to try another approach. I hope I am not coming across as attacking and it's putting you on the defensive. The reason I asked you about if you had read Schama earlier is because it illustrates that everything even nuanced and complex historical constructions are laden with ultimately contestable, assailable, circular, disputable building blocks.
Yes, but of course.... we have to deal with this kind of stuff all the time in historical studies. There is very precious little, so far as I can tell, that is not disputed in some way or another.
Take what you just said to Huckleberry earlier:
Huckleberry said:
I am curious as to what clear examples of Christian writing can be found exist prior to the 20th century which describe a Jesus dying in the celestial realms as a divine figure come to us in a ritualistic portrayal .
You responded:
The Ascension of Isaiah fits the bill of your question amigo.....
Yep, so far.
Now I'm not attacking here, let's have a discussion.
But of course. All of this is discussion and learning. I see no attacks yet in this entire thread. I hope I am not seen as attacking anyone either.
That is a bit optimistic compadre. First, the dating that Carrier's framework requires (the same as the Gospel of Mark) is contestable and in dispute, see Robert G. Hall, "The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity," JBL 109 (1990), 289-306. Hall dates the Ascension to late 1st century/early 2nd century and evidences that dating by the contents of the Ascension demonstrating later reflection on debates found that were already present in the Gospel of John and in Revelation. That is strong stuff and incompatible with Carrier's framework, in fact would falsify it outright. It certainly has to be taken seriously. We can't say with any definitive percentage to plug into a Bayesian equation what date is correct, that's history - full of several consistent constructions that any one of which "could" be true. Carrier would argue his is because it fits in his greater framework of mythicism. But,
Agreed entirely. Dating is always notoriously difficult as witness the writings in the New Testament!
Second, there exist extensive journal articles that describe The Ascension in completely compatible terms with Docetism.
Well sure. That doesn't automatically follow however we are dealing with an either/or. It is entirely compatible with mythicist interpretations as well. There is nothing saying there can't be both. In fact, there is a lot of this kind of interpretations and evidences that show sometimes several different theories are compatible, even though they contradict, so this is good to note, and recognize it is part of our background knowledge. Most excellent.
Scholars have fit the Ascension very strongly with a Docetic view of Jesus and these Docetic views are found much more frequently in other literature not compatible with mythicism.
That can very well be, sure. But it is still also compatible with the mythicist interpretation even stronger when it is coupled with Hebrews as Carrier, Price, and others have shown. Again, we aren't in an either/or world. There were numerous contradictory as well as complentary views of dying gods in antiquity, some, as in the Ascension, completely living, dying, and resurrecting in the sky, in space, above the firmament, never getting to earth. Others were purely earth bound. We have gnostics views, the mythicist ideas, and later historicists, doceticists, etc. There were truly many dozens of different view as Carrier so properly noted as well.
Given the Ascension is the only possibility for the mythicist position the fact that it fits with a scholarly view quite compatible with plural Docetic writings and Docetism in general this leans us by a proper weighing against the mythicist position, because otherwise the mythicist position has this one lone wolf to support itself with when that wolf can be placed right in the pack with Docetic understanding.
That is one possible interpretation, yes. But again, this is not the only piece of evidence as Doherty has clearly shown in his book "The Jesus Puzzle," and which Carrier extended up into even the Dead Sea Scrolls 11Q Melchizedek which *also* shows a heavenly redeemer figure, yet different from the ascension or the book of Hebrews and also different from the gnostics as well! There are all kinds of views floating around in that day of various kinds of deities and theologies, world views, etc. We still may not be in possession of even the majority of them, those damn Christians destroyed most of it, so we wouldn't expect the evidence to have survived. All Bayes does for us is assess the evidence with the background, we arrive at no absolute certainty ever, just make sure we are approaching it honestly, fairly, openly, and working probabilities accurately.
The best carrier could hope for in this situation is 50/50 which would be as charitable as possible towards the mythicist position. But, that just leaves us in the same place that you criticize the traditional scholarship with, we don't know for sure.
Interesting, I certainly see it differently as there is more than the ascension in play with this theme, the Dead Sea Scrolls, gnostics, and New Testament materials also work in favor of the mythicist views, among others. 50/50 says we don't know, but our background and evidence shows us we can make statements that the evidence is what we would expect, if not even better considering so much was so damningly destroyed than what we could hope for, so that definitely appears to me to up the probabilities. This is the entire point of having discussions and learning with others and seeing what their take and evidence is also. THIS is the kind of discussion those damn scholars OUGHT to be having!
So, Carrier's interpretation could be right, could be. But by Carrier's own position his burden requires more than could be.
Agreed, as he is also.
To say as you do that it is a clear example of the mythicist position is just incorrect.
Not at all. It clearly is a mythicist piece of evidence, but that wouldn't exclude it being a gnostic piece of evidence also. It's not an either/or yet, or may never be, so fa as I can tell.
It is an interpretation that has to conform and do so within a very disputable, contestable historical landscape.
As is everything else in this field, yes indeed!
This is what is frustrating about your almost religious zeal and insistence that Bayesian reasoning is a cure.
Whoa. I have never said it is the cure, I have said it keeps us honest by exposing our assumptions so we can correctly reason about how much we can be warranted in believing a claim against other claims. Bayes Theorem is a method, it is not evidence in and of itself.
These very hard won views of traditional scholarship can be contested but Bayes reasoning doesn't change the fact that all is contestable and assailable.
Entirely agreed. It is precisely the reason that everything is contested and uncertain that we have no choice to make certain we are dealing with all our assumptions, all the evidence, every interpretation, etc., for its probability, and then discussing it with all others interested and working through the ins and outs of why one sees it one way and another sees it another. This is most excellent what you are doing here with this subject. It is too bad the professionals won't do it this way.
Just balance your reading with other positions for a couple months and you will begin to see this.
I have been attempting to do this for the last few years actually. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it intelligently until you came along. This is terrific!
Your falling for Carrier can build a consistent historical edifice with the same thing as that means it is true.
No. Bayes cannot ascertain what is true, only what may be more probably right based on the knowledge and evidence, conditionally! And that only in light of other claims and how they fit or don't fit with the same evidence also. But we must compare, we must test, we must assess, interpret and learn all we can in the process so we help eliminate subjectivity and confirmation bias. This can take years, if not a lifetime. It is not a quickie apologetic hey look! The evidence fits, I'm right, you're wrong! Nothing like that at all.
You have to compare and contrast that edifice with other constructions and edifices and weigh the whole with the best explanation.
I am! It is the professionals who refuse to do this but insist on continuing using their fatally flawed historicity criteria instead. THEY need to begin having this very kind of discussion we are in order for real comparison and progress to be made. They refuse to consider using Bayes Theorem with its contention that everything in BOTH the historicist and mythicist views needs to be carefully weighed. They have dismissed the mythicist view prematurely. That is precisely why Carrier wrote his books and blogs. NOW we must read everything there also. And then discuss, compare, weigh, and calculate.
Perception is the ultimate reality Philo, but that doesn't make it the ultimate truth. That remains in realm of alll is contestable. Welcome to the secular world.
[/quote]
Bayes theorem has never showed it to be otherwise. Historicists are the ones who imagine and pretend they already have the ultimate truth. Just read Ehrman's lousy attempt on the historical Jesus and his ridiculous amateur wrangling against the mythicists!
I simply must commend you on getting on with this discussion in this manner! FINALLY we have a foothold we can make progress with! This is fantastic!
Best to you and yours,
BYP
Well, and I mean, it's for every theological theme ever taken up as far as that goes.