Richard Carrier: a credible historian regarding rejecting Hitler's anti-Christian views being...

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@razncain

Yes, I pointed out in post #50 that I got that link and others from those threads. And with that thread you gave us, your post to follow devoted about five sentences of addressing about 15 pages of the Jim Walker’s Table Talk material, so equally, I’m not convinced or impressed with the effort you put forth with your lack of arguments that should have at least addressed the six main points.

True, I didn’t spend that much time on them, but (1) I don’t have time or resources to check up on everything he said (the same can be said for web pages that deny the Holocaust); (2) he’s not a professional historian nor a credible source; (3) any idiot non-historian can make up crap or come to ill-thought out conclusions; (4) I pointed out serious flaws in his reasoning that gave me sufficient grounds to question his judgment.

At the end of the day it’s probably best to see what professional historians say, and there we get into trouble. So far the only historian who questions Hitler’s anti-Christian statements in the book is a man who’s devoted considerable effort into arguing against Christianity and promotes crackpot historical theories against the religion. It seems like things could be a lot better.

@razncain

Whether Trevor-Roper could have commented on it while ill is unknown to me, but let’s suppose he couldn’t have. It’s nonetheless possible for the next addition of the book to have some distinguished historian say something like, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations.”

Would it really make a hill of a beans difference to you?

Well, yeah. With that kind of corroboration I’d believe it at once.

@razncain

Carrier is an historian but a suspect one for a variety of reasons, among them the fact he promotes crackpot historical theories when grinding his anti-Christian axe.

None of your reasons were valid.

Can you explain to me why a historian who’s promoted crackpot historical theories against Christianity puts forth an uncorroborated historical view when has an anti-Christian axe to grind isn’t a valid reason?

@razncain

There are many scholars that take the historical nature of Jesus very seriously, and I have yet to find one that considered it a crackpot theory if they doubted this particularly Jesus during that time and area existed at all.

The Christ myth theory (that Jesus never existed) is extreme fringe scholarship. Let’s take some sample quotes:

* Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.
    Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008

* There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.
    Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

* No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this.

    Craig A. Evans, "The Shout of Death", in Troy A. Miller, *Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened*, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009, p. 3

* Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus's existence is abundant.

    Paul Johnson, *Jesus: A 21st Century Biography*, New York: Viking, 2010, Introduction

* I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.
    Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

The idea that Jesus never existed is authentic, genuine, crank scholarship. You’d be awfully hard pressed to find a genuine historian other than Carrier who thinks the Christ myth theory is very probable.

@razncain

With the other links you gave us, I see you’re not willing to let go of the Shroud of Turin either.

Considering I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is genuine (I’m agnostic, and that was only after the radiocarbon dating had been discredited), what is there to let go of?

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@Lightsaber

Wade,

I mentioned a book titled The Holy Reich up thread. That book says that historian Ian Kershaw alludes to the “questionable nature” of Hitler’s Table talk. You probably saw the same thing since it shows up in the same search you linked above. Anyway, Kershaw is unquestionably an expert in this area. You might wish to dig into what exactly he wrote about Table Talk in his book Hitler 1889–1936.

It’s unfortunate that you didn’t provide a quote here or a source where he said this (you cited a book but no page number). Fortunately this was kind of discussed in the ancestor thread. As it turns out at least one relevant fact was left out.

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

It doesn’t mention the sources on that site, but I have come across some refs for historians that have doubts about Table Talk.

The historian Ian Kershaw, considered by many one of the leading figures on Hitler, with many published biographies, said of table talk “the table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution”

That’s true of any historical document; it doesn’t imply that what Hitler said about Christianity should be rejected. Kershaw’s wording in its context (which you omitted somewhat) is notable; he says that even the table talk monologues should be treated with due caution, suggesting a level of reliability that is superior to other sources.

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@bonzer

To expand on my most recent post, the continuing emphasis on whether there’s been any substantial reaction to Carrier’s article seems to me to miss the real point. The “Trevor-Roper edition” of the Table Talk had pretty much always been regarded as somewhat problematic, regardless of that attack. In this instance, Carrier can be seen as staking out an extreme - even unreasonable - position, but he wasn’t dropping a bombshell in 2002.

This edition has always been largely an irrelevance for serious historians of the Third Reich.

I wonder how true that is. While I kind of brought this up before, this book on page 399 nonetheless claims that “Hitler’s Table Talk is widely accepted as an authoritative source which make an important contribution to our understanding of Hitler’s philosophy and psychology.” It also claims that the “consensus regarding the validity and value of Hitler’s Table Talk” is ongoing (pp. 399-400), though the book is called In Defense of Faith and like Richard Carrier the author no doubt has his biases (though the author is Jewish rather than Christian). The author also concedes some question over the quality of the translation, giving two example historians. He brings up Ian Kershaw and his complaints about the translation but also says Kershaw repeatedly cites from Hitler’s Table Talk. Even then though, we still don’t have any historians other than perhaps Carrier about certain specific anti-Christian remarks Hitler allegedly made.

@bonzer

Largely because he was a non-specialist explicitly writing for a general audience, a lengthy, though hardly exhausive, pre-Carrier discussion of the problems with the Table Talk can be found in Ron Rosenbaum’s 1998 book Explaining Hitler. In his take, contrasted with his presentation of Trevor-Roper thinking that the transcripts captured the “real Hitler”:

Interesting, though considering a previous example where a relevant fact was left out I’d like to see it in context; unfortunately you didn’t provide a page number (for future reference, it’s page 72). Still, you did mention the author saying that “the words are (for the most part) really Hitler’s” and while that might provide adequate context, the particular Hitler remarks under question aren’t refuted or really addressed here, and the author still says on page 72 that “the Table Talk seems to be Hitler’s words” despite his clear reservations (since he says it’s e.g. at best an edited reconstruction of Hitler’s speech). We’re still left without a bona fide historian corroborating that all Hitler’s anti-Christian remarks here are phony.

I won’t comment on the parts you quoted Carrier, since I’ve already explained why I don’t consider Carrier a credible historical source, at least not when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind.

[sisu]

I would say that Hitler was what I would call a Social Christian. He grew up in a culture that was shaped by Christianity and as such he identified with it, just as most of us westerners do. He was not a religious Christian or at best not a very good one. Christianity is in your heart, not what you proclaim to be.

[bonzer]

Taking things somewhat out of their original order …

@Wade A. Tisthammer

I won’t comment on the parts you quoted Carrier, since I’ve already explained why I don’t consider Carrier a credible historical source, at least not when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind.

Sorry, but the objection is insane in this instance. I was quoting Carrier only to compare his translation against the original German [sup]*[/sup] and that of the “Trevor-Roper edition”. External issues of his reliability are just irrelevant to that comparison. You’re essentially objecting even to testing his argument against the actual evidence.

Interesting, though considering a previous example where a relevant fact was left out I’d like to see it in context; unfortunately you didn’t provide a page number (for future reference, it’s page 72). Still, you did mention the author saying that “the words are (for the most part) really Hitler’s” and while that might provide adequate context, the particular Hitler remarks under question aren’t refuted or really addressed here, and the author still says on page 72 that “the Table Talk seems to be Hitler’s words” despite his clear reservations (since he says it’s e.g. at best an edited reconstruction of Hitler’s speech). We’re still left without a bona fide historian corroborating that all Hitler’s anti-Christian remarks here are phony.

I considered giving edition details and the page reference for Rosenbaum, but decided against it purely on the grounds that that seemed a bit futtery when it’s a well known work and I was emphasising that it includes the particularly extended explicit discussion of the reliability of the Table Talk. There’s a lot I could have quoted from it to reinforce the point I was making, but then the point I was making was partly that you really should read Rosenbaum’s entire chapter on Trevor-Roper. Then judge whether my paraphrasing is fair or not.
(To forestall the inevitable irrelevant objection, no, Rosenbaum pretty much doesn’t discuss Hitler and religion. At all. Never mind specific quotes.)

To expand on my most recent post, the continuing emphasis on whether there’s been any substantial reaction to Carrier’s article seems to me to miss the real point. The “Trevor-Roper edition” of the Table Talk had pretty much always been regarded as somewhat problematic, regardless of that attack. In this instance, Carrier can be seen as staking out an extreme - even unreasonable - position, but he wasn’t dropping a bombshell in 2002.

This edition has always been largely an irrelevance for serious historians of the Third Reich.

I wonder how true that is. While I kind of brought this up before, this book on page 399 nonetheless claims that “Hitler’s Table Talk is widely accepted as an authoritative source which make an important contribution to our understanding of Hitler’s philosophy and psychology.” It also claims that the “consensus regarding the validity and value of Hitler’s Table Talk” is ongoing (pp. 399-400), though the book is called In Defense of Faith and like Richard Carrier the author no doubt has his biases (though the author is Jewish rather than Christian). The author also concedes some question over the quality of the translation, giving two example historians. He brings up Ian Kershaw and his complaints about the translation but also says Kershaw repeatedly cites from Hitler’s Table Talk. Even then though, we still don’t have any historians other than perhaps Carrier about certain specific anti-Christian remarks Hitler allegedly made.

You can wonder all you like, but you merely seem to be ignoring my observations - notably about Trever-Roper’s own reservations concerning the edition, despite your repeated indignant demands that someone produce just something of the sort - by repeating yourself and largely at cross-purposes at that. In being that dismissive there, I was clearly - which your quoting helps obscure - specifically referring to the English translation. The passages your quoting above seem less careful about the distinction. When Kershaw quotes from that translation, he isn’t remotely dependent on this single flawed edition. And that I acknowledge that the German source material it was based on is generally still relied on - with lots of caution and taking nothing at face value - by historians was, I’d have thought, pretty fucking obvious from the rest of the post.

• [sub]Technically, Carrier and the “Trevor-Roper edition” were translating the other German version (the latter via the French). The Picker version, however, was the one that we could get Google to display the passage in. Google uniquely hits multiple keywords (most notably “Moses”) on a particular page of the other edition, but happens to appear reluctant to display the specific passage including them. With this as the best evidence to hand, I’m provisionally willing to bet that, in this instance, the two German sources match.[/sub]

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@bonzer

Sorry, but the objection is insane in this instance. I was quoting Carrier only to compare his translation against the original German [sup]*[/sup] and that of the “Trevor-Roper edition”. External issues of his reliability are just irrelevant to that comparison. You’re essentially objecting even to testing his argument against the actual evidence.

Not at all. The problem is I don’t have the actual evidence to test Carrier’s argument against. The “original German” is Carrier’s translation of it, and I don’t know how accurate his translation is. I’ve seen Carrier misinterpret things before. Did he do so with this German text? Maybe not, but I can’t test the evidence for myself. Even so, Carrier seems to think the whole book is worthless, which strikes me as a hasty generalization, but lacking the expertise and resources to do a thorough job of looking at the evidence (the original German, which if Carrier is correct, there currently exists no English translation of) I’m wary if the only historian to question (some) of the Hitler’s alleged anti-Christian remarks is a man who promotes crackpot historical theories when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind.

@bonzer

I considered giving edition details and the page reference for Rosenbaum, but decided against it purely on the grounds that that seemed a bit futtery when it’s a well known work and I was emphasising that it includes the particularly extended explicit discussion of the reliability of the Table Talk.

I don’t see why you considered not giving a page number to be a good idea, and “futtery” wasn’t in the dictionary. Is this a typo? If not, what does it mean?

@bonzer

(To forestall the inevitable irrelevant objection, no, Rosenbaum pretty much doesn’t discuss Hitler and religion. At all. Never mind specific quotes.)

So it seems my point still stands: We’re still left without a bona fide historian corroborating that all Hitler’s anti-Christian remarks here are phony.

@bonzer

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

@bonzer

To expand on my most recent post, the continuing emphasis on whether there’s been any substantial reaction to Carrier’s article seems to me to miss the real point. The “Trevor-Roper edition” of the Table Talk had pretty much always been regarded as somewhat problematic, regardless of that attack. In this instance, Carrier can be seen as staking out an extreme - even unreasonable - position, but he wasn’t dropping a bombshell in 2002.

This edition has always been largely an irrelevance for serious historians of the Third Reich.

I wonder how true that is. While I kind of brought this up before, this book on page 399 nonetheless claims that “Hitler’s Table Talk is widely accepted as an authoritative source which make an important contribution to our understanding of Hitler’s philosophy and psychology.” It also claims that the “consensus regarding the validity and value of Hitler’s Table Talk” is ongoing (pp. 399-400), though the book is called In Defense of Faith and like Richard Carrier the author no doubt has his biases (though the author is Jewish rather than Christian). The author also concedes some question over the quality of the translation, giving two example historians. He brings up Ian Kershaw and his complaints about the translation but also says Kershaw repeatedly cites from Hitler’s Table Talk. Even then though, we still don’t have any historians other than perhaps Carrier about certain specific anti-Christian remarks Hitler allegedly made.

You can wonder all you like, but you merely seem to be ignoring my observations - notably about Trever-Roper’s own reservations concerning the edition, despite your repeated indignant demands that someone produce just something of the sort - by repeating yourself and largely at cross-purposes at that.

Well, “of the sort” is hardly within the ballpark, considering that Trever-Roper believed the record to be authentic. What observations do you believe I am ignoring?

You did, incidentally, seem to ignore the reference I gave.

@bonzer

In being that dismissive there, I was clearly - which your quoting helps obscure - specifically referring to the English translation. The passages your quoting above seem less careful about the distinction.

I thought it was clear that Table Talk refers to the English translation. The German records, I thought, went by a different title, something like Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Führerhauptquartier.

@bonzer

And that I acknowledge that the German source material it was based on is generally still relied on - with lots of caution and taking nothing at face value - by historians was, I’d have thought, pretty fucking obvious from the rest of the post.

All cursing aside, I never said nor implied that you considered the German original to be something that wasn’t relied on.

[Razncain]

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

True, I didn’t spend that much time on them, but (1) I don’t have time or resources to check up on everything he said (the same can be said for web pages that deny the Holocaust);

Judging from the dates you’ve had three months to think about it and dig up something or for somebody else to dig it up for you if you’ve taken this much of an interest in it. I can’t say my interest is as high in this matter as yours.

(3) any idiot non-historian can make up crap or come to ill-thought out conclusions;

True, see one of several of your sources, starting with Habermas.

(4) I pointed out serious flaws in his reasoning that gave me sufficient grounds to question his judgment.

Surely it must have been more than what you said with those four or five sentences, with two of those being questions themselves.

And back to your many references of considering those that doubt a historical Jesus as a crackpot time and time again. McCabe went through a long list of works of those denying or putting more doubt on Jesus’ historicity than his probability, and while he still found them lacking in their arguments overall, he certainly didn’t think they were crackpots. Van Voorst mentions over 100 books by his latest count during the last two hundred years that dealth with those doubting Jesus’ historicity. I didn’t get to track down the historians, biblical scholars, philosophers of how it all broke down, I doubt he did either, but I think it’s safe to say it was more than one historian in that group.

It’s safe to say that a historian is a crackpot if he accepted traditional biblical views as actual history. This might be what is grinding your axe too after some of these sources you keep citing. Carrier is definitely a minority view by placing more doubt on his historicity aspects; it’s certainly even farther past a minority view and probably considered whacky even laughable among traditionalists, but they hardly count. Of your author list towards the end of your posts, of all of those names you quoted that were historians, I still didn’t see them calling it a crackpot theory or another historian a crackpot other than you. Oh, I know, you have stated you’re not qualified, but want to voice a strong opinion on it anyway…just cause.

Can you explain to me why a historian who’s promoted crackpot historical theories against Christianity puts forth an uncorroborated historical view when has an anti-Christian axe to grind isn’t a valid reason?

First of all, you haven’t established that it is a crackpot theory only that you’ve come up with a few that wouldn’t consider it a serious position. Your invitation is still open to that thread to discuss this matter. Secondly, maybe you need to put your cards on the table, to see what kind of axe you’re grinding. Please, pretty please. Some of these other sources you bring up in other threads, I would find an embarrassment to use, and wonder how close you are to their beliefs. Thirdly, Burton Mack is one of the premiere most qualified NT scholars today and states it’s neither necessary or possible to say much of a historical Jesus. If one of his education and background can’t say much about him and think it is possible, how can others so confidently find him or be so cock-sure that he did exist?

Which brings us to the minimum requirement of what would be considered a historical Jesus. Sure, if the goal posts are moved enough, or basically taken down, eventually you’ll start to come up with many Jesus’ during that time and area since it was a popular name. But do you ever wonder or have any doubt as to why Paul never talked about his miracle healings, or the teachings as laid out in the gospels, when his epistles were written closer to when Jesus was supposed to have existed and before the gospels were written? How could this Jesus be the same one talked about in the Gospels? He does seem to think someone was executed, and spends quite a bit of time on the Resurrection, but so do a lot of other books of antiquity stating similar things about others. Do they get equal time with you on their historicity too? It’s possibly that many of these Christ’s were loosely based on some kind of historical person, but is still doesn’t get us any where other than it’s a possibility. And concerning the early stages of Christian development, for those sects that always considered him some kind of a spirit, and not of human form, that’s also a concern.

The Christ myth theory (that Jesus never existed) is extreme fringe scholarship. Let’s take some sample quotes:

You had them stating they were not ‘serious historians’ concerning this matter. Bart Erhman, I respect. His is one opinion of many. A couple of the names I didn’t recognize. Graeme Clarke, wasn’t a historian from what I gathered, but raised the same arguments as you, I suppose, trying to align anyone that raises questions or doubts Jesus’ historicity as those doing the same to Obama birthers, and Holocaust Deniers. Clarke is an embarrassment for him and anyone else that would think his arguments are worthy. These are not even remotely comparable to questioning or doubting Jesus historicity; but it would be more comparable, to say, denying Krishna’s historicity or many other mythical figures alongside with Jesus. If you were discussing this with someone that had such views with Holocaust denial, I could see were you could still make a point out of it. But I don’t, and I doubt anyone else does on this thread.

No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this.

This is flawed for several reasons, a few of which I’ll get to. Joseph McCabe, e.g., thought the probability high for Paul was writing about an actual person that was executed, but he doesn’t rule out that the few verses in the Epistles may have been interpolations concerning Pontius Pilate. It’s also probably safe to say that there is no serious historian that will take any of Jesus’ trial seriously either. I’ll be happy to give you a point by point description by Burton Mack on that.

There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn’t exist. But I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

There is a hell of a lot more money to be made putting positive spins on Jesus, and by far more money made in books, lectures, preacherville, tax writes offs galore, and other benefits.

Considering I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is genuine (I’m agnostic, and that was only after the radiocarbon dating had been discredited), what is there to let go of?

You stating you didn’t know of its authenticity in the other thread, but also spent a lot of time in the other thread trying to defend it giving it credence. So it doesn’t sound like somebody that is willing to let go. Nor did Habermas give it or you any credibility by you going to him. That brief exchange with you and Dio you wrote on 12/27/10 starting with # 155 in this [thread.]( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579662&highlight=shroud+turin&page=4

You were given some background on Habermas, and I’ll add some more by reiterating some of it. Habermas is a conservative apologetic evangelical; and if I gather correctly, he is also some form of biblical inerrant who also thinks the Resurrection really happened; and is a professor at Liberty U. How far is he away from your views?

Gary Habermas
Liberty University

[bonzer]

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

Sorry, but the objection is insane in this instance. I was quoting Carrier only to compare his translation against the original German[sup]*[/sup] and that of the “Trevor-Roper edition”. External issues of his reliability are just irrelevant to that comparison. You’re essentially objecting even to testing his argument against the actual evidence.

Not at all. The problem is I don’t have the actual evidence to test Carrier’s argument against. The “original German” is Carrier’s translation of it, and I don’t know how accurate his translation is. I’ve seen Carrier misinterpret things before. Did he do so with this German text? Maybe not, but I can’t test the evidence for myself.

But in this instance you can test it. The German passage I quoted wasn’t taken from Carrier - it comes directly from the Picker edition. Even if you didn’t bother to follow the original link, I was rather clear about where it was coming from in my footnote to the very comments you were responding to here.
(Incidentally, this is one of the quotes you touted, in the disputed translated version, way back in this post.)

I don’t see why you considered not giving a page number to be a good idea, and “futtery” wasn’t in the dictionary. Is this a typo? If not, what does it mean?

From the first Google hit": “Futtery: Fiddly (e.g. I can hardly see in your ear - it’s a bit futtery).” It’s a Scots and Irish colloquialism, rare in written English, but commonplace in speech in the UK.

Well, “of the sort” is hardly within the ballpark, considering that Trever-Roper believed the record to be authentic. What observations do you believe I am ignoring?

Having repeatedly appealed to Trevor-Roper’s authority to defend the reliability of the English edition in this way, you had then wished:

It would be nice if, for example, Trevor-Roper had in a future edition written, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations” but we don’t have any such thing.

It’s nonetheless possible for the next addition of the book to have some distinguished historian say something like, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations.” (Particularly since another edition ha been made of the book.)

When someone then points out that Trevor-Roper had already publicly expressed misgivings about the translation, you really think that an appropriate response from you was to pass over the new information in silence, as if nothing had been said?

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@razncain

Judging from the dates you’ve had three months to think about it and dig up something or for somebody else to dig it up for you if you’ve taken this much of an interest in it.

How much is “this much”? I have almost no interest taking the time to refute everything that atheist web page said.

@razncain

(3) any idiot non-historian can make up crap or come to ill-thought out conclusions

True, see one of several of your sources, starting with Habermas.

Habermas isn’t an idiot non-historian (he is both an historian and evidently an intelligent man considering his Ph.D.), and while I don’t agree with him on everything (I am not a conservative Christian) he brought up valid points with evidence I could easily verify, and his position on Jesus existing fits comfortably within mainstream scholarship.

@razncain

And back to your many references of considering those that doubt a historical Jesus as a crackpot time and time again…Graeme Clarke, wasn’t a historian from what I gathered, but raised the same arguments as you, I suppose, trying to align anyone that raises questions or doubts Jesus’ historicity as those doing the same to Obama birthers, and Holocaust Deniers.

According to this page he was the “Senior Lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia in Perth until 1966.” He has also been a “Council Member of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens…Since 1969 he has been receiving Australian Research Committee grants for his archaeological surveys in Syria and other projects.” He’s also published in the Journal of Religious History.

@razncain

There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn’t exist. But I don’t know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

There is a hell of a lot more money to be made putting positive spins on Jesus, and by far more money made in books, lectures, preacherville, tax writes offs galore, and other benefits.

(1) that’s not really an option for a non-Christian person; (2) even if true, it doesn’t contradict Ehrman’s point; (3) you avoided Ehrman’s point entirely. Go ahead; name me some genuine living historians besides Richard Carrier that believe Jesus never existed. I know you can name some liberal theologians, but bona fide historians? Go ahead, rattle off a list.

@razncain

Considering I don’t believe the Shroud of Turin is genuine (I’m agnostic, and that was only after the radiocarbon dating had been discredited), what is there to let go of?

You stating you didn’t know of its authenticity in the other thread, but also spent a lot of time in the other thread trying to defend it giving it credence.

If you look back at the [thread]( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579662&highlight=shroud+turin&page=4 you’ll see what I really defended was the radiocarbon dating apparently being flawed. I said specifically that “I don’t pretend to know whether the Shroud is genuine myself” but my main reason for thinking it was phony was the radiocarbon dating, and that has now apparently been refuted. The scientific articles also speak of some circumstantial evidence suggesting a more ancient origin. So while I will for the moment defend the proposition that the radiocarbon dating wasn’t quite up to snuff (we have two relatively recent articles published in peer-review scientific journals saying as much; so far nobody’s been able to find any articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that say the opposite) I’m still agnostic.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The carbon dating of the Shroud has not been refuted.

[Wade_A.Tisthammer]

@bonzer

Not at all. The problem is I don’t have the actual evidence to test Carrier’s argument against. The “original German” is Carrier’s translation of it, and I don’t know how accurate his translation is. I’ve seen Carrier misinterpret things before. Did he do so with this German text? Maybe not, but I can’t test the evidence for myself.

But in this instance you can test it. The German passage I quoted wasn’t taken from Carrier - it comes directly from the Picker edition.

Which, correct me if I am mistaken, is written in the original German. I’m afraid I can’t test it because even if I had a copy available to me (which I don’t) I couldn’t read it.

@bonzer

From the first Google hit": “Futtery: Fiddly (e.g. I can hardly see in your ear - it’s a bit futtery).” It’s a Scots and Irish colloquialism, rare in written English, but commonplace in speech in the UK.

I guess that explains why it wasn’t in dictionary.com, though for what’s worth my first Google hit was somewhat different.

@bonzer

Well, “of the sort” is hardly within the ballpark, considering that Trever-Roper believed the record to be authentic. What observations do you believe I am ignoring?

Having repeatedly appealed to Trevor-Roper’s authority to defend the reliability of the English edition in this way, you had then wished:

It would be nice if, for example, Trevor-Roper had in a future edition written, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations” but we don’t have any such thing.

It’s nonetheless possible for the next addition of the book to have some distinguished historian say something like, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations.” (Particularly since another edition ha been made of the book.)

When someone then points out that Trevor-Roper had already publicly expressed misgivings about the translation, you really think that an appropriate response from you was to pass over the new information in silence, as if nothing had been said?

The misgivings (which so far you’ve described only vaguely) in question don’t seem to fall into the ballpark of what I was asking for though, since Trevor-Roper still believed the record to be authentic.

[Razncain]

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

Habermas isn’t an idiot non-historian (he is both an historian and evidently an intelligent man considering his Ph.D.), and while I don’t agree with him on everything (I am not a conservative Christian) he brought up valid points with evidence I could easily verify, and his position on Jesus existing fits comfortably within mainstream scholarship.

Now, I just found a bunch of horseshit from just the main page to his cite; nothing mainstream about his position at all. His Jesus consists of what he thinks are strong philosophical arguments for miracles and the historicity of the Resurrection. From his site: * Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event.*

This once again is traditional scholarship, not mainstream, which is why he’s a professor at Liberty University and not something respectable. This is not where you go if you’re trying to impress somebody with your intelligence or credentials. There are more educated idiots being turned out by this University than probably Bob Jones and Oral Robert U put together.

According to this page he was the “Senior Lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia in Perth until 1966.” He has also been a “Council Member of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens…Since 1969 he has been receiving Australian Research Committee grants for his archaeological surveys in Syria and other projects.” He’s also published in the Journal of Religious History.

Then, I stand to be corrected on his background, and read more into a right wing site using arguments that I realize now were probably not his. I couldn’t find that specific Clarke on wiki, but another.

1. that’s not really an option for a non-Christian person;

What’s not an option for them? For a non-Christian to write positive things about Jesus? or make money by doing so, or both? An atheist probably wouldn’t make much money by doing so, neither would a Christian writing positive books on atheism.

(2) even if true, it doesn’t contradict Ehrman’s point; (3) you avoided Ehrman’s point entirely.

Then you’re not paying attention to post #67 of which you didn’t cover hardly any of the material I presented. I devoted quite a few paragraphs to it actually. So why don’t you go back and read post #67, otherwise, I’ll just copy and paste if you want to play obtuse.

Go ahead; name me some genuine living historians besides Richard Carrier that believe Jesus never existed. I know you can name some liberal theologians, but bona fide historians? Go ahead, rattle off a list.

Live historians, eh? I take it you’ve finally started to read a bit of McCabe in which he lists quite a few names over time, and obviously they are dead, so now it’s live historians.

Anyhoo, that’s all too easy, and I’ll just basically reiterate my position again, and that ALL bona fide professional historians will deny the historical Jesus as portrayed in the bible. So strip the miracles from it for starters. And while you there questioning them, ask them how they feel about the nativity stories too. Most Christians have given up on that one too, and actually have given some of the best arguments for it being fiction. Same for the trial.

But I’m sure Ehrman, and these others have probably given up on that Jesus too, and that’s not the Jesus they want to talk about. The traditionalists have their Jesus. The others have an infinite amount of Jesus’, and altogether I still haven’t been able to determine which particular Jesus they think is historical, only possibly them saying someone lived during this time and area named Jesus, I suppose, qualifies. Okay, and next? Ehrman’s work with Metzer with what I have deals with the text of the NT, and unless you know his specific position better, or are prepared to state yours on what your historical Jesus would consist of, I’ll just continue to agree with McCabe and Mack here and say it’s not possible to know really what a historical Jesus was since the evidence is so scanty for it. Paul didn’t seem to have much of a clue other than someone was crucified.

If you look back at the thread you’ll see what I really defended was the radiocarbon dating apparently being flawed. I said specifically that “I don’t pretend to know whether the Shroud is genuine myself” but my main reason for thinking it was phony was the radiocarbon dating, and that has now apparently been refuted.

It hasn’t. From that wiki article below cited it says: “Criticisms have been raised regarding the sample taken for testing (it may have come from medieval repair fragments), although not the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself.”

And what parts do you exactly think might be genuine about theShroud of Turin? There has been a lot of non-sense written about this, including the image itself of how it was produced.

[bonzer]

@Wade_A.Tisthammer

Which, correct me if I am mistaken, is written in the original German. I’m afraid I can’t test it because even if I had a copy available to me (which I don’t) I couldn’t read it.

Fair enough, you don’t read German. The admission would have sufficed as a simple explanation back in post 63 after I’d dug out the original German. Perhaps coupled with an invitation to any German speakers amongst whatever few readers the thread has left to comment on the appropriateness of the disputed English translation in this instance. Rather than drag the blustering on through several posts.

But this is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Like David Brog, you want to discuss Hitler’s private beliefs and recognise that this should ideally be done on the basis of primary sources, but you don’t read German. By default, you’re forced towards the English translation of the Table Talk. This immediately introduces a potential bias. Are you in danger of falling into the drunk-searching-for-the-keys-by-the-lamppost trap: are you talking up the English edition, because otherwise you’re stuck? And then someone points out that there might be problems with that edition.

One response - other than the obvious one of learning German - might be to acknowledge your limitations and find something to argue about that’s a better match to your knowledge and expertise.
Brog’s response, from what I’ve seen of it, also strikes me as defensible. He wants to discuss Hitler’s views, presumably as part of some wider argument of his book, so acknowledges there are potential problems, admits he’s not qualified to judge the technicalities and then (I’m guessing) announces that he’ll still provisionally use the English translation. He’s thereby being nicely academic, provisional and open-ended. Any particular reader may or may not find this stance convincing in the wider context of the book, but he knows that. If someone more knowledgeable then points out that any particular passage he quotes isn’t supportable in the German, I suspect he’ll take this with collegial good grace and chalk it up to having learnt something new - or, at least, he should. Nor should anyone greatly hold any such errors against him: he was being open and honest about potential problems in advance.

Another response is to start demanding things from those who can read German. Expecting them to check out the quotes you’re using. That they pronounce on Carrier’s paper. That they produce a new English translation if the old one is faulty.
But, to reiterate a point I made earlier, the specialists who can read German - these “bona fide historians” - are precisely those who have no reason to care about any of that. For the last thirty years, none of this has really mattered to most of them. It might be nice if they did these things, but they’ve got more serious matters they can use their time and skills for. Most have quite probably never heard of Richard Carrier.

(There is another response. Rather than getting hung up on a single disputed - in lots of ways - source, read widely and critically amongst the secondary works by those who can read German. Though, goodness knows, not all of that is reliable and certainly don’t expect unambiguous answers.)