It does a great job explaining in what situations consensus should be challenged.
The evidence for and against these three examples is contested to varying degrees. The Josephus example is 90% a forgery. Let's say Tacitus and James examples are each 50% likely to be valid evidence for a historical Jesus.
> it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers
It's not. We're not contesting the words, we're contesting the meaning. James was called by his followers "Brother of the Lord." This could mean biological brother, or it could mean he was metaphorically considered him to be the brother or the lord. It's not clear or explicit, we have to admit this.
> But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising
This is not the case at all. I am happy to consider all of the scholarship done by Christians. I have looked at tons of work by Christians.
> it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
You may think this is the case, but it's not. I would love to see new research from anyone that can shed light on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I just find Carrier's arguments and research superior to those that contest his points. I have read extensively through both points of view. I actually came into this search with an open mind under the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. I was surprised to learn of Carrier's findings and even more surprised by all the people who try to discount his research merely on the basis of it being "not consensus." I haven't heard many good arguments used to contest his work, just appeals to authority.
If you have better evidence for Tacitus, Josephus, or James, I would love to see it.
This is a very weak argument. Of course, almost anything you imagine could be possible.
> These are all minority views in scholarship
You should read this article on evaluating argument from consensus: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
It does a great job explaining in what situations consensus should be challenged.
The evidence for and against these three examples is contested to varying degrees. The Josephus example is 90% a forgery. Let's say Tacitus and James examples are each 50% likely to be valid evidence for a historical Jesus.
> it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers
It's not. We're not contesting the words, we're contesting the meaning. James was called by his followers "Brother of the Lord." This could mean biological brother, or it could mean he was metaphorically considered him to be the brother or the lord. It's not clear or explicit, we have to admit this.
> But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising
This is not the case at all. I am happy to consider all of the scholarship done by Christians. I have looked at tons of work by Christians.
> it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
You may think this is the case, but it's not. I would love to see new research from anyone that can shed light on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I just find Carrier's arguments and research superior to those that contest his points. I have read extensively through both points of view. I actually came into this search with an open mind under the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. I was surprised to learn of Carrier's findings and even more surprised by all the people who try to discount his research merely on the basis of it being "not consensus." I haven't heard many good arguments used to contest his work, just appeals to authority.
If you have better evidence for Tacitus, Josephus, or James, I would love to see it.