Philosopher Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,” (Sheffield phoenix Press, Sheffield, 2014), is probably a book which most readers here, practical men of action, will not be reading in a hurry. There are 618 pages of scholarly text, and one mother-fucker of an argument to get one’s head around, namely a Bayesian probability framework. The aim of the book is to get a probability estimate of the historicity of Jesus, which, spoiler alert, is) .008.
The idea of getting a probability estimate in such an area, is to my mind, absurd. Why .008, and not .007? Well, it could be, as it just depends on one’s prior subjective probability assessment.
It is the wrong way to go, I believe. Far better to assess the historicity of Jesus hypothesis by examining whether there is any positive evidence for it. If there is, then one should start the probability machine going, otherwise, game over.
Thus, Carrier concludes, for example that there is no independent extra-biblical evidence, that is, sources outside of the New Testament, which stand up to scrutiny. (See p. 279) As well, the New Testament has numerous problems of inconsistency; there is the problem that Jesus is supposed to be from the “sperm of David according to the flesh” and from the Judah tribe: Rom.1.3; Heb. 7:11-17; Rom. 15.12, Ro. 9.5, but also the “Son of God in power, according to the spirit.” Phil.2.5. all of these sorts of contradictions, which would sink anything else are defended by numerous arbitrary and ad hoc hypotheses by Christians, such as the cosmic sperm bank idea, with God storing David’s jungle juice, or just rolling out miracles and creating it, in a “just so” story. Anything in principle could be explained, which means, nothing is explained.
Then there is the problem that Jesus believed that Moses existed, yet no credible biblical scholar today does, outside of crazed fundamentalism, and the book of Daniel, and other books, which Jesus accepted are complete fictions. (p.10) So, how could this guy be God, or even a god? He got the basics wrong. And, if things fail here, who really cares if Jesus existed or not, because he is certainly not going to save our bacon, whatever glazed eyed Sunday schoolers dribble.
I bought a few kindle books dumping shit on Christianity, and if the Nordic war gods agree, further diatribes will be forthcoming.
Eirik, I highly recommend Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the gospels, by Michael Grant, who read the gospels in their original three languages. The focus was not in Jesus’ existence, but if any of the earliest accounts of his teachings said anything for non-Jews. Grant’s work basically points the finger at Saul, as having fathered Christianity.
Turd America
Trumpapocalypse Now: The Advent of an American Usurper at the fall of Western Civilization
Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:
The Great Train Wreck of the West
link › jameslafond.blogspot.com
Masculine Axis: A Meditation on Manhood and Heroism
I like the theory that Jesus was an invention of the Romans. Josephus' history of Titus Flavious pretty much mirrors the history of Jesus. Read the book Ceaser's Messiah, by Joseph Atwill, or watch the documentary.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zBZH0uoUZH4
My favorite part is Titus spearing the Judeans in the Sea of Galilee after destroying their boats, and proclaiming "Today, we shall go fishing for MEN!"
" There are 618 pages of scholarly text, and one mother-fucker of an argument to get one’s head around, namely a Bayesian probability framework. The aim of the book is to get a probability estimate of the historicity of Jesus, which, spoiler alert, is) .008."
I hate to burst your bubble, but probability laws suffer enormously from GIGO (garbage-in, garbage out). You would never apply probability to historical events for which you have no data or N=1 (the Incarnation was a singular event). People in the humanities try to make their field look like a hard science. For example, economists try to create models (probability laws) and run historical macroeconomic data through them to predict the future. Steven Li did this with his Gaussian copula model of the US housing market upon which the credit default swap market was based. Look how hilariously bad that turned out. Probability models work best with substantial data sets using few parameters. With too many parameters and too little data, such as a Bayesian model of the Incarnation, you can fit an elephant in your model (to paraphrase Lord Kelvin).
Everyone wants to look smart, including postmodern historians. The trick is to avoid looking stupid in the process.
In my screenplay "IN Search of the Hysterical Jesus" I have him blown off course and landing at the leper colony from Papillion where he and the disciples are welcomed and of course, treated nicely. I will mention the scenes ending where all the inmates come to the beach for the big send off, lepers kissing the hem of Christ's garments, find that upon standing their lips are still stuck to the garment. Camera pans into crowd singing "Everything is Beautiful In It's Own Way" and lepers are snapping their fingers in time........fingers are flying off. Camera pans in on guy picking his nose, takes his hand away and his finger is still in his nose. He then goes to remove finger and his nose falls off. I am writing a book now that has Jesus placed into witness protection for showing up before the elections and fucking things up. He blows his cover and winds up in a Dade County facility where every other guy's name is Jesus. He is finally sprung by the story's take of the Dominionists - The Cult of Wayne Newton - and they free him on the Orinoco river with a dugout canoe and a fishing pole. There he lives out his days with a broken heart as they would not free his lover, Kinky - the hospital attendant -. I'll get the Rushdie treatment from the Xtians for it, I'm sure, but it's a job someone has to do. I recently read Zealot, stating that Jesus was not a pacifist but a violent revolutionary and I would like to think that was more the case. A very edifying read on the subject is Robert Graves somewhat scholarly work for an historic novel, "King Jesus". I highly recommend it. All this said, truly history has pitchforked many poor souls together in the creation of this myth......can you imagine the Jewish Court system of the time opening on Saturday to adjudicate the case of yet another plain white rapper? Methinks not. Prophet then is the rap star of today.......like the burgeoning popularity of Taliban and Isis kill videos in Assramistan and Pakivania. One must filter any of these bronze age stories through a modern lens. We all know that the insane were revered as touched by the divine (not an uncle....) and therefore were prophets of whatever flavor of religion was out there. Those of us that are dwellers of large cities know the finger clicking rhymes and shouts of the dope ravaged denizen of the street. Keep in my, anyone of these people could be, or have been, anyone of those prophets. And Saul, attacks Jesus, then on his way home has a capitalist epiphany, returns as Paul and tries to wrest control of the church from Jesus' brother James................go fig.
Or a Jewish strategy to avenge Titus' destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d.
theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/01/30/nietzsche-and-the-origins-of-christianity
Trying to marry logic and metaphysics is a fool's errand.
That said, what can be asserted without recourse to faith is the crucial contribution of the Church in the unique biological profile of the European man. Out-breeding, imposed by the Church over some 1400 years, created the civil society that characterizes the West only. Elsewhere, tribalism is still the reigning paradigm.
hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes