PolyColumbus and The Columbus Space for Alternative Self Expression are hosting a new talk I’m giving this June 14th (Tuesday, 2016) at 7 – 9pm (Eastern time). The Space is located at 180 Outerbelt Street in Columbus.
I will be speaking on Polyamory, Kink, and Philosophy. I’ll be outlining the role and importance of philosophy in kink and poly life.
Topics will include:
- What should philosophy have to say about ethical non-monogamy and kink?
- What use does philosophy have for those pursuing either?
- How can ordinary people become good philosophers?
- And how can philosophy help them become better non-monogamists and explorers of kink?
From the epistemology of consent to the metaphysics of love and sex to, of course, moral theory, even politics and aesthetics, philosophy has a lot to do with polyamory and other modes of ethical non-monogamy and kink.
Note:
- Snacks will be available for purchase. Please bring you own soft drinks.
- All activities at The Columbus Space are open to those 19 and over only.
- The Columbus Space is a drug and alcohol free zone.
- Discounts for annual & lifetime members of PolyColumbus? See note here.
- Get your tickets early; least year when I spoke, it was a packed house!
-:-
Wish I could be there! Sounds like a talk straight (hah) up my alley.
Dr. Carrier,
I was unable to comment on your previous blog entry, which included another unnecessary personal attack on the reputation of Dr. Bart Ehrman. Since commenting is closed on that entry, I am commenting here. You make several errors in your critique of Dr. Ehrman’s arguments, but my discussion deals mainly with your assertions against the overwhelming probability that either Jesus existed or a historical figure existed whom the Jesus of the Gospel was based upon, which was then embellished and deified with other narratives.
I have just finished reading OHJ, and here is a summary of points which you fail to sufficiently address in the book, or address at all, on why the probability is actually strongly in favour of Jesus’ historicity:
1) Followers of the Other 1st Century Jewish Messiah Claimants, Zealots, Preachers, etc. – You fail to properly treat the very first Christians – Peter, James, John, etc. – in the context of their most similar Jewish peers. These would have been the other Jews who followed the other Messiah-claimants or figures from Galilea, Golan, Perea and the Decapolis. Some of these include Simon of Perea, Judas of Galilee and his sons James and Simon, Menachem ben Judah, Menachem the Essene, John the Baptist, Theudas, “the Egyptian”, etc., and are all described by Josephus in either The Jewish War or Antiquities of the Jews, or both in the case of some. At least four of them are also mentioned in the Gospels: Judas, Theudas, John the Baptist and “the Egyptian”. With this in mind, the Jews who have been most like the earliest Christians/apostles all followed actual historical figures. Thus, it is extremely unlikely the earliest Christians/apostles would have been so different as to concoct a mythical person, and they would have no reason to, as they could and likely did follow one of these other historical figures, especially John the Baptist, Judas of Galilee’s sons James and Simon, Menachem the Essene, or Menachem ben Judah.
2) There is NO Record, None, in all the History of Strictly Monotheistic, Second Temple Judaism of ANY Jewish Sect or Group Concocting Another Deity Different from the God of Judaism, or of Concocting a Mythical Man as a Messiah and Following Him – You do not address this issue in OHJ because likely you have not been aware of it. The earliest Christians would have been taught the same Messianic prophecies of their contemporaries, which all state that the Messiah is an actual man, and a Jew. This is why all their closest peers followed and claimed actual men to be Messiahs. In fact, in all the history of Judaism, every single Messiah-claimant and the movements started by them have been from actual, historical men. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that Peter, John James, etc. would have concocted a mythical man from nothing, and then face horrible persecution from their fellow Jews (described by Paul) for it. Given the strict monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, and especially of the Jews of 1st century Roman Judaea, it is as far-fetched they would have concocted a deity first, and then “historicized” it later. Again, there is no other example of this in all of Second Temple or Rabbinic Judaism.
3) Ability of First Apostles to Concoct Such a Figure and Start a Persecuted Movement – Although you do address some of these concerns in OHJ, including likely illiteracy of many of the apostles, your discussions are not in line with the most reliable depictions we have of what the earliest Christians would have been like. The best information we have outside of the New Testament is based on their closest contemporaries, as mentioned previously, who all followed actual historical figures. Thus, given their lack of education and knowledge on several matters, it is very unlikely Peter, James, John, and others would have been able to concoct such a movement, let alone that they would seek to.
4) James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:18-19) – Paul mentions James more than once in his epistles. You argue in OHJ that Paul may have been referring to James as “a brother of the Lord”, but Paul specifically describes James as THE Lord’s brother. Furthermore, Paul clearly is stating the familial relation of James to Jesus in this passage, because in the sentence just prior to it he mentions another follower of Jesus, Peter, as an apostle, not “a brother”. In fact, in all of Paul’s epistles, he never once refers to any of the early Christians, either those who preceded him or his contemporaries as THE brothers of Jesus. Never. That being said, why would Paul concoct an existing human relation of Jesus known to the early Christian community in his epistles where he spends most of his efforts arguing for Jesus’ divinity ? An existing human relation, and numerous other siblings of Jesus described in Mark, detract from his divinity. It can also be argued that Paul also would not have conjured this up because that would make James a greater authority than Paul, like Peter was. Paul alludes to this in Galatians 2:6, 9 and 11 where he claims that James and Paul “seem” to be the leaders, as well as his oppositions to them on doctrine. Mentioning James as Jesus’ biological brother in Galatians 1 would reduce Paul’s authority on such matters and disputes mentioned in the following chapter. Thus, it would be detrimental for Paul to make up the familial relation of James to Jesus in Galatians 1.
5) The High Accuracy and Reliability of Josephus – In OHJ, you argue that Josephus would have received the information he had about Jesus only from Christians in Judaea, and that they are the source for his two description of Jesus, and one of James, in his Antiquities of the Jews. This is a flawed argument, especially in the case of Josephus. Josephus is one of the most detailed historians of his age, and his two largest works – The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews – are two of the most thorough and extensive historical documents of the Roman imperial period. It is extremely unlikely Josephus’ sources would only have been Christians, or even been Christians at all, especially in the time Antiquities was written around 90 AD, as even in Rome, where he wrote his works, the Christian community was precarious, tiny and persecuted (as per Tacitus). Josephus would not have had access to the just recently completed Gospels of Mark or Luke-Acts. No Christians at the time would trust a non-Christian anyway to have access to the only existing copies they had of such documents, especially in Rome. Perhaps most importantly, Josephus had significant knowledge of the conditions, leaders and communities in Galilea, as he himself was a former Jewish military commander of the Galilee area between 60 and 70 AD. He would have thus certainly encountered non-Christians who had heard about or witnessed Jesus in his lifetime.
6) Paul Does Describe Events of Jesus’ Life, and the Existence of Other Gospels Which Did – In OHJ, you fail to give proper credibility to passages by Paul, in his genuinely authored epistles, where he does mention a few details about Jesus’ life, including the last supper he had on the night he was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23 -25), that he had lived a life of service to others and died on the cross (Philippians 2:8), and that he was born a descendant of David (Romans 1:3). Another point to make here is that even though Paul claimed that Jesus revealed to him directly the Gospel he preaches, other information he mentions about Jesus is not said by Paul to have been revealed to him in such a way. When mentioning the Last Supper, Paul does say that the Lord has revealed it to him, but this does not mean that it was not revealed to him by the Lord through being passed on from the earliest apostles. In other words, given Paul his trying to assert the reliability in asserting the divine origin of his teachings, just because he claims he received information directly from Jesus does not mean what he is stating about Jesus actually was not passed on from Peter, James, John, or others. Perhaps more interestingly is that Paul refers to other figures teaching a Gospel about Jesus’ life and message which was passed on to them, such as in Galatians 1:6. Thus, there were others in the early Christian community or outside it who had heard or knew about Jesus. This is likely connected to groups and individuals in the area who had heard about Jesus, maybe even witnessed him, but who did not think he was divine. Such groups continued for centuries, and some of their descendants today are likely the Mandaeans and Druze of the Levant. To the Mandaeans, Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or “false messiah” who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist, thus lending support that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. The Gospel of Thomas, which has a first straturm dating to between 40 and 60 AD, may be a product of such a group of individuals who knew about or witnessed the historical Jesus, but rejected his divinity.
7) A Historical Figure Being Deified or Mythologized as a “Different Class” – Although in OHJ you make the case that figures who have been subsequently mythologized, euhemerised and/or deified are of a separate class of historical figure described in historical sources, this is not a reliable argument against their historicity. Firstly, many of the other historical Messiah-claimants in 1st century Roman Judaea were somewhat deified by their followers. The only reason they did not reach the same level as that done to Jesus was because the Christian movement and writers succeeded, specifically among gentiles, and theirs did not. Secondly, a plethora of actual historical figures in history are later mythologized or deified in various sources. Many of the most famous Roman and Greek heroes, kings, commanders and figures are given mythological characteristics, or are described in such a context, including from sources like Herodotus. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle traces historical Anglo-Saxon kings of England to be descendants of the mythical Germanic god Woden. The Norse Sagas are heavily mythologized, yet they have been proven to be based upon descriptions of actual figures and events, though for a long period of time they too were treated heavily as mythical. It’s now known the Norse did reach the Americas, and that Vinland (Newfoundland), Markland (Labrador) and Helluland (Baffin Island) were actual places , and that Leif Ericsson, Thorfinn Karlsefni and Bjarni Herjolfsson were likely actual, historical figures.
My hope is that you at least acknowledge these issues Dr. Carrier, and that taken together and in addition to numerous other arguments, they weigh the probability more in favour of Jesus existing or a historical figure whom “Jesus” was based upon, embellished and deified.
All of this is addressed in OHJ. There is a whole section on the “alternative class objection.” I address all of the passages in Paul you mention, in detail. The problems with Josephus are addressed extensively (and I know you didn’t read it, because you evidently don’t know of Goldberg’s demonstration of the TF’s reliance on the Gospel of Luke, or my point that precisely because Josephus was a good historian he would have written a very different passage, more like he did on every other Jewish sect).
I also address the Why They Did It argument and the Why They Accepted Persecution argument. You seem unaware of anything I said on those points. You even seem to think I argued Peter was making it up, betraying the fact that you don’t even know what the book’s thesis is, nor do you know the content of its Element 15.
Worse, the pillar James (the top three disciples in the Gospels, Peter, James, and John) is the brother of John, not Jesus. This is fundamental to the field so that you don’t know this suggests you aren’t well-informed. There is no evidence Paul meant any other James. Except when he refers to one James only once as a brother of the Lord. And if you read OHJ, you would know what peer reviewed scholarship says about what the grammar of that meant. Since you show no awareness of that or any of my arguments, I must conclude you are lying when you say you read it.
And what really proves to me that you are lying, is when you say I argue the illiteracy of the apostles explains the later fabrications. In fact I argue the apostles were probably highly literate. And I never use their illiteracy as an argument for anything anywhere in OHJ. So to claim I did, proves you are a liar. You didn’t read my book. But just assume you know what’s in it.
P.S. Next time you want to embarrass yourself by letting me catch you in an outrageous lie, wait for a blog post that is at least on any topic in ancient history. It’s not like I don’t post one or more of those every month.
“The problems with Josephus are addressed extensively (and I know you didn’t read it, because you evidently don’t know of Goldberg’s demonstration of the TF’s reliance on the Gospel of Luke, or my point that precisely because Josephus was a good historian he would have written a very different passage, more like he did on every other Jewish sect).”
Except that in your book, you don’t address the issues I made with regards to your treatment of Josephus, or any of the other contentions I have raised. Whether the Testimonium Flavianum in its later, altered form may be based on the Gospel of Luke is also NOT a valid point here. It is the authentic, original core mentioning a non-divine Jesus which could not have been used by Josephus from Luke. There is no support at all for the notion that the original, authentic core was based upon the Gospel of Luke. There is certainly no way that Josephus, while writing Antiquities in Rome, would have had access to the one copy of it, just recently completed. The Christians would not have allowed him or anyone else access to the one, precious copy. The fact Josephus was such a thorough historian is actually why his authentic descriptions of the historical Jesus were accurate. Every time I mention the authenticity of Josephus’s two original sections mentioning Jesus, you conjure up the same flawed rebuttal – that Josephus would still have had to get information only from other Christians. I provided the evidence for the rejection of this notion, given that Josephus was a Jewish military commander in the Galilee between 60 and 70 AD, and thus would have had access to various people who heard of or witnessed the historical Jesus, not just the early apostles and followers.
“I also address the Why They Did It argument and the Why They Accepted Persecution argument. You seem unaware of anything I said on those points. You even seem to think I argued Peter was making it up, betraying the fact that you don’t even know what the book’s thesis is, nor do you know the content of its Element 15.”
You fail to comprehend that your sections in the book on why they faced persecutions are insufficient. In OHJ, you are making the case that the probability is somehow slightly in favour of Jesus not existing at all. You seemingly continue to argue for this, and that not even a figure whom Jesus was based upon existed. Thus, if this is your stance, then you are arguing that the known first apostles and followers would have concocted a completely fictional person, and risked horrible persecutions from their fellow Jews for it, which they did face as described by Paul. This is unsupported by the facts we have about all other Messiah claimants in history, especially the others of 1st century Roman Judaea, who were all historical persons, as well as the Messianic prophecies of strictly monotheistic, Second Temple Judaism. These largely uneducated first apostles would have been taught these prophecies – that the Messiah is specifically an actual man and a Jew which who is an earthly leader in Israel. There is no evidence of the peers most similar to the first apostles who followed the other Messianic figures from Galilea, Golan, Perea, etc. followed mythical, completely fictional persons. They all followed actual, historical figures, as did the apostles in following Jesus, or the person whom Jesus was based upon. You, again, have failed to address any of this evidence for why Jesus was likely a historical person, or based on an actual person. AS for OHJ, these issues are not dealt with either.
“Worse, the pillar James (the top three disciples in the Gospels, Peter, James, and John) is the brother of John, not Jesus. This is fundamental to the field so that you don’t know this suggests you aren’t well-informed. There is no evidence Paul meant any other James. Except when he refers to one James only once as a brother of the Lord. And if you read OHJ, you would know what peer reviewed scholarship says about what the grammar of that meant. Since you show no awareness of that or any of my arguments, I must conclude you are lying when you say you read it.”
This again shows that you are ignoring every single argument I am making or you did not read what I said above. Where, anywhere, in the Pauline Epistles is this James referred to as the brother of John ?? Paul specifically says in GALATIANS 1:18-19 “James, THE Lord’s brother”, in a sentence immediately after he mentions Peter merely as an apostle. There is practically no one in the field claiming the James here is a brother of John, rather than Jesus’ brother, other than possibly Robert Price. Regardless, this argument that it is referring to “a brother of Jesus” has been completely refuted. I already point this out in the fact that Paul is specifically outlining the familial relation of this James to Jesus by 1) saying “THE” Lord’s brother, not “a brother”; 2) Paul never, once, refers to ANY of the apostles in any of his epistles as “THE Lord’s brother”, and no other figure is given such special attention as a familial relation as James is in this passage; and 3) in the immediately preceding sentence Paul refers to Peter, the leader of the movement after Jesus dies, as merely an apostle. Paul is thus deliberately outlining the familial relation of James to Jesus in comparison to another apostle, Peter.
“And what really proves to me that you are lying, is when you say I argue the illiteracy of the apostles explains the later fabrications. In fact I argue the apostles were probably highly literate. ”
Who is really the one lying here ?? Did you even read my arguments ? I did NOT say that you argued that the illiteracy of the apostles explains fabrications. You indeed claim in OHJ they were probably literate, but this is unsupported. Some may have been literate, but most of the actual, first apostles – Peter, James, John, and others – were likely not literate, especially given the rural and remote regions they hailed from of Galilea, Gaulanitis (Golan) and the non-Roman Decapolis region. Practically all the scholarship states that most likely were not very literate, and they definitely were not educated anywhere near the way Paul was. You again fail here to treat the first apostles in the proper historical context, by treating them like their most similar peers who were followers of the other Messiah-claimants and similar figures from Galilea, the Golan and Perea.
“Next time you want to embarrass yourself by letting me catch you in an outrageous lie, wait for a blog post that is at least on any topic in ancient history. It’s not like I don’t post one or more of those every month.”
You didn’t catch me “lying” at all, and you also did not properly explain or address any of the contentions I make in my original post. None of these are sufficiently addressed, and some are not addressed at all, in OHJ which is why I am trying to discuss them with you. As for posting on an unrelated post, you close the comments section after 5 days, so it wasn’t possible to post on your entry about Bart Ehrman. You also censor every single comment which entered, so I don’t even know if my comments will be allowed to be posted on any entry. This is why I attempted to post it multiple times in multiple entries.
You continue not only to ignore all the arguments and evidence against you in OHJ, but further confirm you are a liar. As it is very clear now you have never read my book and have no idea at all what is in it. You said you read it. You have not. The evidence you didn’t is now extensive and indisputable. That is called lying. You bore false witness. You are evidently no respecter of your own Ten Commandments.
One more thing about the James who is Jesus’ brother, which you failed to sufficiently address. There is debate about which James is being referred to in the Gospels at a different points, and yes of course I am aware of this; but a James is clearly mentioned which is Jesus’ brother in several locations, such as when Jesus returns to Nazareth in Mark 6:1-5.
In any case, I am referring specifically to the James mentioned in Galatians, possibly Paul’s earliest epistle. As I already described in my earlier entry, if you actually bothered to read it, Paul is specifically outlining here (Galatians 1:18-19) the familial relation of this James to Jesus; he is referred to as THE Lord’s brother. It is nearly universally accepted by scholars that Paul is referring to Jesus’ familial brother here, and I explain why in my earlier entry. No other apostle or follower is referred to in this way by Paul, ever, in any of his epistles. No other follower is contrasted with an apostle in such a way either in the way James is here from Peter. He then mentions this James again, along with Peter, in the subsequent chapter about later events where Paul encounters them in Jerusalem and in Antioch.
You clearly don’t know what you are taking about. There is no confusion in the field as to which James is referred to in the Gospels. And in the letters of Paul it cannot be known which James he refers to when he doesn’t say. Google argument from ignorance. You don’t even know how logic works. Much less the facts in the field of New Testament studies.
One more thing Richard, you know that much of the contention about James not being Jesus’ actual biological brother are from Catholics and others who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is, as you would know, is a doctrine only established and accepted more than 200 years after Paul had lived.
Most scholars dealing with the actual historicity of Jesus regard James as the actual biological brother of Jesus. In Mark 6:3, Jesus was said to have 3 other brothers – Judas, Joseph and Simon – as well as sisters.
Frankly, given how James is uniquely referred to as the brother of Jesus in Galatians, he indeed was a biological relation of the historical Jesus.
Given you did not properly address my other contentions, I am re-posting the most pertinent issues which you do not address either here or in OHJ:
1) Followers of the Other 1st Century Jewish Messiah Claimants, Zealots, Preachers, etc. – You fail to properly treat the very first Christians – Peter, James, John, etc. – in the context of their most similar Jewish peers. These would have been the other Jews who followed the other Messiah-claimants or figures from Galilea, Golan, Perea and the Decapolis. Some of these include Simon of Perea, Judas of Galilee and his sons James and Simon, Menachem ben Judah, Menachem the Essene, John the Baptist, Theudas, “the Egyptian”, etc., and are all described by Josephus in either The Jewish War or Antiquities of the Jews, or both in the case of some. At least four of them are also mentioned in the Gospels: Judas, Theudas, John the Baptist and “the Egyptian”. With this in mind, the Jews who have been most like the earliest Christians/apostles all followed actual historical figures. Thus, it is extremely unlikely the earliest Christians/apostles would have been so different as to concoct a mythical person, and they would have no reason to, as they could and likely did follow one of these other historical figures, especially John the Baptist, Judas of Galilee’s sons James and Simon, Menachem the Essene, or Menachem ben Judah.
2) There is NO Record, None, in all the History of Strictly Monotheistic, Second Temple Judaism of ANY Jewish Sect or Group Concocting Another Deity Different from the God of Judaism, or of Concocting a Mythical Man as a Messiah and Following Him – You do not address this issue in OHJ because likely you have not been aware of it. The earliest Christians would have been taught the same Messianic prophecies of their contemporaries, which all state that the Messiah is an actual man, and a Jew. This is why all their closest peers followed and claimed actual men to be Messiahs. In fact, in all the history of Judaism, every single Messiah-claimant and the movements started by them have been from actual, historical men. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that Peter, John James, etc. would have concocted a mythical man from nothing, and then face horrible persecution from their fellow Jews (described by Paul) for it. Given the strict monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, and especially of the Jews of 1st century Roman Judaea, it is as far-fetched they would have concocted a deity first, and then “historicized” it later. Again, there is no other example of this in all of Second Temple or Rabbinic Judaism.
5) The High Accuracy and Reliability of Josephus – In OHJ, you argue that Josephus would have received the information he had about Jesus when he wrote Antiquities in Rome only from Christians, and that they are the source for his two description of Jesus, and one of James, in his Antiquities of the Jews. You also claim the TF was from the Gospel of Luke. These arguments are flawed. The TF in its original, authentic form would not have been taken from Luke as Josephus would not have had access to the only copy of this just recently completed Gospel. The original non-divine, non-Christ depiction of Jesus by Josephus in the TF is very much authentic. The also fails to address the section depiction of Jesus by Josephus, as the brother of James. No Christians at the time would trust a non-Christian anyway to have access to the only existing copies they had of such documents, especially in Rome. As for your argument that his information in these authentic depictions was only taken from Christians is also false. Josephus is one of the most detailed historians of his age, and his two largest works – The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews – are two of the most thorough and extensive historical documents of the Roman imperial period. It is extremely unlikely Josephus’ sources would only have been Christians, or even been Christians at all, especially in the time Antiquities was written around 90 AD, as even in Rome, where he wrote his works, the Christian community was precarious, tiny and persecuted (as per Tacitus). Perhaps most importantly, Josephus had significant knowledge of the conditions, leaders and communities in Galilea, as he himself was a FORMER JEWISH MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE GALILEE AREA BETWEEN 60 AND 70 AD. He would have thus certainly encountered non-Christians who had heard about or witnessed Jesus in his lifetime.
Repeating arguments already refuted does not magically make them work again.
All you continue to do, in all our correspondence, is refer to sections on OHJ or direct me to OHJ, even though it does not sufficiently address the issues and evidence I am raising.
You are doing this because you do not have a proper reply to these arguments and this evidence, either now or when you wrote OHJ. This is especially the case with regards to my points about: 1) the apostles being placed in the context of their most similar peers – the other 1st century Messiah claimants or similar figures and their followers; 2) the lack of any record of any other Jewish group concocting a mythical person or Messiah (who has to be an actual man and Jew) in all of highly monotheistic, Second Temple Judaism; 3) James, THE brother of Jesus, and Jesus’ other siblings; and 4) the fact Josephus had extensive knowledge of Galilee, served there between 60 and 70 AD, and wrote original authentic descriptions of the non-divine Jesus that came from non-Christian sources.
You mean, all I do is refer to the book, a work of peer reviewed scholarship by a qualified expert that documents six years of dedicated research, that you claimed to have read and claimed did not say the things in fact it does? In other words, all I did was prove you are a liar and that the book does address everything you said it didn’t?
That’s your complaint?
Seriously.
Think this through.
You have only two options: continue being a liar before Your God; or read the fucking book.
Complaining that those are your only two options, amounts to choosing the first of them.
A new fascism is on the rise and likely to take over in this country, currently promoted by a man who preys on the ignorance and hatred of a large segment of the American population. We need people with public platforms and relevant knowledge to oppose him and help educate the public… and you are doing speeches about “kink.”
And there are stores that still sell ice cream. And people are watching shows on TV. And going to sci-fi conventions and attending talks on completely fictional stuff. And whole documentaries are still being made about cats. And people are still hosting public discussions of how to better manage your finances. And writing books about cake. What has this free country come to!