Reading Ancient Scrolls

Disclaimer: Ehrman is a friend of mine but opinion is my own

I would agree that Carrier doesn't get taken as seriously as he should be, but I think it's partly because he has a very abrasive approach and he has a very unorthodox style due to being an outsider. He also has a tendency to repeat claims like "they won't respond" when in fact they have responded[1]. Historians are people too, and much like the asshole genius programmer who is difficult to work with because he bitches about everybody elses style, the person's technical contributions may not get as much love as they deserve on their merits because things are colored by emotion and discomfort with the person.

Personally, I think the "outsider" perspective is important and welcome, especially given what we've seen are systemic problems in academia in general.

But that said I think "Ehrman just huffs and blusters disgracefully" is pretty unfair. Ehrman has addressed many of Carrier's claims seriously (on his blog for example)[1]. There are lots of other responses in various other places that I wish were much better organized. These sorts of debates can get insanely detailed and long, and especially when so much from the ancient world is (IMHO) ultimately unknown and unknowable, in the end I personally just have to enjoy the ride and accept (much to my dismay) that I may never really know.

Lastly, there is something about the debate behind "did Jesus exist" that I find makes a lot of agnostic/atheist people lose their minds. It feels a lot like the response from Christians when one of their traditions/dogma is challenged. I get it, it would feel really justifying to be able to say "Jesus didn't even exist" but I think the evidence that the stories of Jesus evolved over time to become more and more mythical is strong enough that it doesn't matter whether a real man ever existed. It's a very fun debate when it doesn't become heated and personal, which unfortunately is almost never nowadays.

That said I really hope Carrier continues his work. I've enjoyed his books and I think he is on to something. I'd love to see him work more toward building consensus and working together though.

[1]: https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

> The huff and bluster I encountered was in Ehrman's video appearances. I would never have guessed that he had actual arguments he just preferred never to mention in his presentations.

Haha, yeah that's fair. IMHO he's a great public speaker and I enjoy watching him, but he has been really bad at laying out his arguments against Carrier in videos. I think partly because he is a super classy (and incredibly nice) guy who hates personal insults and such, and a lot of interviewers try to juice the beef (because let's face it, it's entertaining :-) ). I think he's also just deeply uncomfortable with the whole topic because of past friction and tends to try to avoid diving into it.

> Carrier has been very abrasive in the past, but not as I have seen lately. He might be said to have mellowed with age.

That would be great! IMHO Carrier is one of the most interesting atheists nowadays, and he's very much inline stylistically with the new atheist movement from the 00s (which I kind of like actually), but I don't know if it's cultural change or what but that approach really turns a lot of lay people off now, leaving just people like us. I'd love to see his appeal broaden, and I'm excited to see the next generation of thought leaders (and partially afraid that there may not be any).

Regardless, thanks for the discussion! I've found your comments very interesting

The point I'm making and that you're missing, relates to one's hierarchy of knowledge.

If you have personal experience of something, and then someone comes along and says something that is the antithesis of your experience, which source should you accept? Your experience or the other person? What if the other person is not a person, but a famous science journal - which source should you accept then?

The answer, if you are authority of yourself - is your own experience, every time. This trumps all other sources. It is the only golden source you have. Of course it can be fallible, but you do not intend to deceive yourself.

Other external sources can claim whatever they like! There are lots of incentives and mistakes that can be made. But it should not count for you more highly than your personal experience. For your own sanity, you must be aligned with your own experience - the other is that you are susceptible to any provided story.

The uttermost essence of science is, exactly, distrusting what you think you know, and what anybody thinks they know. Literally all progress has come from discounting what somebody just felt dead certain about.

So, I know better than to base the self-assessment of my sanity on having been right.

Pompeii probably had a public library, but any scrolls that were in Pompeii, unlike in Herculaneum, burned to fine powder. And, any that were rescued from the eruption finally decayed and are lost; almost all of those, we don't even know the titles of.

Right - so you are saying a newspaper is not equivalent to papyrus. Fine. But there must be a material that we can prepare and burn that is. You have to reliably prove the methodology.

I remember when tvs weren't on for 24 hours - and there would be literal white noise being broadcast - it looked like lots of black and white dots moving. If you wanted and paid attention you could spot whatever you wanted on the screen - eg a red squirrel moving from left to right.

Why should viewing a red squirrel be discounted but finding 'ancient texts' be valid? Well, if you have a methodology that can read burnt newspapers (or a modern equivalent) and the text is correct - then you have a strong case.

If its just a case of 'trust the machine and its interpretation' well, I will trust my interpretation - that the machine is spotting red squirrels.