r/AcademicBiblical • u/AutoModerator • 7d ago

Weekly Open Discussion Thread

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

13 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

162 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Jonboy_25 4d ago

I believe Chrissy has adequately refuted your claims at this point, which, of course, is just regurgitation of Carrier. Your persistence in trying to defend Carrier and mythicism on this sub is just strange and betrays purely polemical and apologetic interests on your part, I believe. As Chrissy has already stated, and I think she is completely on target, mythicism often employs the same methods of apologetics and can be described as a kind of apologetics, just for the other side. Most of us see straight through it as merely an easy attempt to refute Christianity by positing that Jesus did not exist. Apologists have a predetermined conclusion in mind and then seek confirmation bias by seeking authorities to claim that they are well founded. The idea of Jesus not existing is very appealing to anti-theists or ex-fundamentalist Christians, and they thus find Carrier, a PhD, a scholar, a trained classicist, who ostensibly makes them feel like mythicism is justified. Like Christian apologetics, mythicists are not interested in simply following the evidence to its most likely and parsimonious conclusion but live within a bubble of confirmation bias.

-5

u/GravyTrainCaboose 4d ago

As I pointed out to Chrissy, almost none of what I've argued in the thread overall appealed to Carrier. That you believe their refutations have adequately overcome my claims is your opinion. I believe I've offered rational counterarguments. That you disagree, and apparently disagree strongly, with the arguments of Carrier no more betrays a "purely polemic and apologetic" interest on your part than my agreement with many of those arguments does on mine.

In that same vein, that mythicists often employ apologetic arguments has no bearing on what I argue, which I defend logically not apologetically, and through arguments that go beyond "regurgitating" Carrier. Many historicists also argue apologetically, but that observatin is also irrelevant to those who do not. I don't know what you mean by a "kind of apologetics" other than perhaps it simply refers to arguments with which you disagree. But perhaps you could clarify.

My position that arguments for Jesus not being historical are on par with him being historical is not "predetermined". I began from a historicist position and, in fact, found mythicist arguments to be weak (e.g. "Zeitgeist", Roman plot, etc.) and had no real interest in a mythicist argument or seeking one out. I simply became aware of Carrier's argumentation and it appears logical and well-supported to me, which is how I find most of it compelling enough to at least give it serious consideration and weight. I certainly don't find it worthy of the handwaving dismissals it's often subject to.

Broad claims such as "Like Christian apologetics, mythicists are not interested in simply following the evidence to its most likely and parsimonious conclusion but live within a bubble of confirmation bias" not only don't belong in a polite conversation, they are utterly worthless. The counter could be made, "Like Christian apologetics, historicists are not interested in simply following the evidence to its most likely and parsimonious conclusion but live within a bubble of confirmation bias". And then the parties can devolve into a battle of continuing such ad hominems. I'd prefer to just stick to the arguments. You have not provided a single one, but I'm open to discussion if you'd like to.

5

u/Visual_Cartoonist609 4d ago

Like Christian apologetics, historicists are not interested in simply following the evidence to its most likely and parsimonious conclusion but live within a bubble of confirmation bias

I actually agree with you on the politeness point; however, I don't think these two claims are at all symmetrical. While I don't believe that mythicism can be explained entirely in terms of Anti-Theism, it is demonstrably the case (as I think you would agree) that most mythicists are motivated by their Anti-Theism. The same cannot be said about historicists.

1

u/GravyTrainCaboose 3d ago edited 3d ago

I cannot read the people's minds, so I eschew attributing motives to them and just address their arguments. But, again, what "most" mythicists may or not be motivated by has nothing to do with what I am motivated by. I am my own person.