You must log in or register to comment.
😂😂😂😂
Imagine writing a piece on biblical scholarship and using Richard Carrier as your one and only authoritative source.
He has a PhD in history, not biblical studies, and his work is broadly rejected by most of the field, particularly some of his arguments for mythicism.
Some of his most lampooned ideas, such as the cosmic sperm bank one, managed to miss otherwise much more interesting nuances in his commitment to his foundational thesis relying on crap methodology.
His ‘formula’ for calculating the odds Jesus was mythical in that book is also probably one of the funniest and most ridiculous things I’ve come across.
While I do think opposition voices are important in scholarship, Carrier is pretty poor even in that role due to his lack of rigor and personal vendettas he takes on against his own critics.
And for the article linked to cite his work as if representative of the field is utter nonsense.
Attack the argument and not the person.
The argument is basically “I find it unlikely so it cannot be true”, which isn’t very convincing. Not saying that the conclusion is right or wrong, but the logic is flawed.
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn’t exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Virtually every historian of the time period, religious and secular, agree that Jesus the man did exist.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don’t have facts.
Could just answer the questions instead of depending on someone else to do the work.
Question 1: Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
Question 2: If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus?
Pretty simple questions, maybe just answer them.