Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I would worry a little on the outset that Carrier's method of historical inquiriy is excessively pessimistic, very much like the "presentists" or the so-called new historiography. While I am keenly aware of the fragile nature of ancient history, and of the historical record rather generally, it makes little sense to me that we approach the subject as pure skeptics. At some point, I must exercise some confidence that perceptions of the past can be both accurate and accessible.
As for Jesus, an exceptional amount of "faith" must be exercised with regards to the historical record, simply because it is not—nor could it be otherwise—very strong. We can never validate Jesus historically the way we have Augustus or Plato or the Judaean King Hezekiah. Because of his social and economic station, the record of Jesus existence is simply not accessible. However, my belief in his historicity comes from a recognition of its very reasonable plausibility. Simply put: Jesus, his activities, teachings and death fits well within a first century Jewish context. It makes no sense to me to deny this, unless one is driven by ulterior motives, as I suspect that Carrier too often is. One can very reasonably assert a real Jesus whose fingerprints remain in the gospels and in the writings of Paul, and can still quite happily maintain a fiercely anti-Christian worldview.
So, while I can affirm Carrier's observation about the poor burden of proof for Jesus's existence, I cannot agree that it is in any way necessary or even wise to draw his conclusions from it. To me, the vociferous arguments of the mythicists appear too much like special pleading—it is much-ado-about-nothing, and far to often begs the question.
|
Lets talk about the highlighted portion above. This is the part that most interests me and others of my/our ilk?
To suggest there is a great deal of historicity on many of the famous peoples of that time, why is it that the record shows little/nothing on one of the most important people of that time? Are you/we basing his existence on the gospels alone? Is it the writings of Josephus or gnostic documents that lead you to your beliefs? I still have GREAT difficulty coming to any assertion that there was a "historical" Jesus, and if there was such a man he surely was no more than the "man on the bus" who had great swagger (so to speak) and the ability to sway people with his words, but certainly not to the position and esteem he is held to today.
What exactly are you basing your theory on, because outside of faith I still do not see that proof in a substantive manner.