Para una edición en español del siguiente artículo, consulte Antonio Piñero: El historicista vehemente at Mitos o Historia.
-:-
Antonio Piñero is sort of the Bart Ehrman of the Spanish-speaking world. He has made a public spectacle of attacking Jesus mythicism and defending the historical existence of Jesus to worried audiences across the Latinx world, as mythicism starts to make inroads there, freaking out the academic elite. Piñero’s battleship book on the point is Aproximación al Jesús Histórico (published by Trotta in 2018; with a third edition released in 2019). I have acquired a translation of some of the most relevant bits of that (and of a video interview with Piñero) from my friend, Chilean scholar David Cáceres González, who is slowly translating select blogs of mine into Spanish (which you should promote to Spanish-speaking audiences whenever you have a chance, or even hire him for translation gigs and lessons, he’s good—see Exposing the Jesus Myth in Spanish!).
Here is my initial analysis thereof (in English; there is also now a Spanish translation of the following at Mitos o Historia). I may in future more directly address some of Piñero’s own weird theories. But here I address only what he means to be a “rebuttal” to my work directly.
Piñero’s Stance
Like Ehrman, Piñero distinguishes between “the non-existence of a Galilean rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and the non-existence of Jesus Christ,” and worries that a lot of “popular” mythicism involves confusing the two. It’s a worry with some merit. Although it does not apply to scholarly mythicism—no peer-reviewed defense of mythicism engages any such confusion. Both my work On the Historicity of Jesus (soon to be summarized for a colloquial audience in Jesus from Outer Space) and Raphael Lataster’s Questioning the Historicity of Jesus discount the supernatural Jesus hypothesis as a non-starter and only take seriously “Galilean rabbi”-style theories to begin with (the same can be said of Thomas Brodie’s memoir, though that hardly counts; it challenged historicity but didn’t articulate a theory of Christian origins or fully examine the leading arguments pro and con).
Similarly, Piñero takes a fully secularist position on the historicity of Jesus, affirming that “Paul and the early Christians” did “not directly consider Jesus a god…in any way,” although he ironically confuses what we mean today by “a god” and what they then did, thus falling into the very same mistake he accuses (amateur?) mythicists of. I already warned against this mistake in my peer-reviewed work (OHJ, pp. 52, 60, 96, 104-05; summarized below). It is thus notable that though Piñero criticizes me in this book, he all but admitted on video he has never read my book (he tried but got “bored” he says). This is what typifies defenses of historicity: they will write literally an entire book claiming to rebut our thesis, without reading any of our thesis. This happens so often it is a recognizable trend in the field. So we’re not off to a good start. Obviously.
And yet, Piñero is no mere dogmatist or apologist. For instance, he is personally inclined to agree that the line about Christ in Tacitus was interpolated by later Christian scribes. And likewise he finds no other extra-biblical evidence relevant or usable—other than Josephus, yet whom he then treats bizarrely, with very little command of facts or logic (as we’ll see shortly). Likewise, Piñero agrees that Paul’s reference to the words of Christ before his death establishing the Eucharist were received by Paul in a vision from Christ, and were not a community tradition relayed by eyewitnesses. And yet he falls into gullible ruts again when he simply “assumes” the gospel had pre-resurrection eyewitness sources, even though Paul never once mentions any, and every time Paul does list the sources Christians received the gospel from, that is conspicuously never one of them—a problem Piñero never really deals with, despite it being fundamental to the mythicist critique of historicity.
Piñero’s Ignorance
A lot of what Piñero writes about early Christianity’s context and the mythicist thesis betrays shocking ignorance about both. This is also typical of historicity defenders, and one of the main reasons we don’t trust their judgment anymore. For instance, Piñero asks a series of rhetorical questions (on pp. 21-23, like “why build the Gospels with so many gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions between them?”) that entails he actually doesn’t know how those questions are answered even by mainstream historians of Jesus—even less, contemporary peer-reviewed mythicists (none of whom argue, for example—as Piñero weirdly assumes here—that the Gospels were all written by the same sect or even author).
When Was Jesus a God?
Let’s start with a recently significant example. On his attempt to insist Paul and the early Christians did not see Jesus as a god, Piñero has already been refuted by Ehrman, who thoroughly demonstrates the distinction Piñero wants to insist upon is misleading and anachronistic (see my summary in Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God). Just because Jews tried to avoid the specific Greek word theos when speaking of any other deity than the Supreme One (which Paul would recognize as the being who created Jesus as an archangel at the dawn of time), simply for reasons of honor and to avoid offense, does not mean they did not regard other beings as gods. Paul speaks of other gods all the time, including even classifying Satan as one, simply applying subtler terminology or careful qualification. For instance, Paul calls Satan a god, but only with a qualification as “the god of this world.”
Likewise, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 8.4-7:
We know … that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are ones called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not all have this knowledge.
In other words, Paul is describing monolatry, not monotheism. For he is here admitting there are many gods, but we worship only two of them, and the second of them we only worship as a subordinate of the other, so we choose to make this distinction by reserving in worship the specific word-of-honor theos (capital God) for their principal deity and kyrios (capital Lord) for his subordinate. Every other god and lord are just a god or a lord (lowercase), and we don’t worship them. But everyone else in society back then, who wasn’t a Christian or Jew, would readily call what they are talking about as a kyrios, a theos. In the same fashion, a daimôn, which became the pejorative “demon” in Judeo-Christian usage, actually is just the Greek word for “divinity,” which in English is simply a synonym for “god.”
Note how the distinction they were making between the words “god” and “divinity” does not exist in English. Nor even in ancient Greek outside Judeo-Christian practice. At most, some pagan theologians would use daimôn to mean minor- or half-god and theos for major- or full-god, but that’s not a distinction that exists in English either; and both are still gods in popular parlance, then as now. Likewise the distinction they were making between “God” and “Lord” or between “God” and “god,” and “Lord” and “lord.” So it is anachronistic to keep using that description as if this meant Jesus was not thought of as “a god” (in the English-language sense). Those distinctions were esoteric and idiosyncratic to them, and it is misleading to English speakers today (as likewise Spanish speakers, since all the same points hold across all modern European languages).
In both modern language and ancient, that distinction was not normal, and pretty much did not exist outside the peculiar Judeo-Christian cult framework. And in terms of what we are talking about—primordial, supernatural, celestial, eternal entities possessed of godlike power—it is incorrect to say Jesus was not understood to be a god. Yes, he was not then believed to be identical to the God (despite what modern Christian theologians insist; see Element 10 in Chapter 4 of OHJ). But he was most definitely understood to be in every pertinent sense, as then understood and now, a god. You can’t understand early Christianity if you do not understand this. Piñero doesn’t understand it.
Why Make Things Up?
Because Piñero abandoned his professional and moral responsibility as a scholar by writing a book about Jesus mythicism after reading none of the peer-reviewed work in Jesus mythicism, he asks a bunch of stupid questions he would know the answers to if he would only do his job—as his profession should require him to do—and actually read the peer-reviewed scholarship he is talking about and asking questions of.
For example, Piñero inexplicably asks, if Jesus is mythical, “why give him brothers and sisters?” Well, the same reason the Jews gave the mythical Moses brothers and sisters, just as pagans gave their mythical gods and heroes brothers and sisters. How does Piñero not know this? How does he not know that we’ve already explained it—and under peer review no less? (See OHJ, pp. 371-75 and 453-56.) Likewise, Piñero inexplicably asks, “if Jesus was, like an aspect of Yahweh, totally made up, why doesn’t” that equation “appear clearer in the Gospels?” Well, the same reason Osiris “actually” being an eternal celestial deity whose death and resurrection is really only a sublunar event in outer space “does not appear” in his Gospels, which concealed the real truth behind earthly fables, composed as allegory, so only those of sufficient understanding would gain the salvation the real truth provided them. All exactly as Mark has his Jesus explain to his readers: “to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven” (Mark 4:10-12). Which was commonplace and well understood in antiquity (see Element 14 in Chapter 4 of OHJ). This is literally our entire thesis. And we’ve demonstrated it with extensive evidence and analogies. Piñero doesn’t have a clue about any of it.
I won’t belabor the point by examining every stupid rhetorical question Piñero asks here. They are all easily dispatched just as these were (in On the Historicity of Jesus, particularly Chapter 10, or in Chapter 5 of its peer-reviewed methodological prequel, Proving History). And so easily dispatched, in fact, by simply reading the peer-reviewed literature, which has already answered them, and grounded those answers in surveys of evidence and prior published scholarship. Which Piñero here demonstrates he never did. His book is therefore of no use whatever. It will inform you of nothing, and challenge nothing in any scholarly defense of Jesus-mythicism. It is literally a “non response.” As if someone came to a debate, slept through their opponent’s thorough, evidence-based defense of the non-existence of the founding messiahs of the Cargo Cults and Luddite movements (for real: see both in the index of OHJ), then got up to the podium and extensively defended the historicity of Christopher Columbus. It completely fails to respond to anything that’s been said. A complete waste of time.
We don’t need to rebut this. Because we already did. Just read the peer-reviewed defenses of mythicism. You won’t need any further refutation of Piñero’s weird and ignorant ideas than that.
What’s Piñero’s Case?
Piñero’s ignorance extends throughout his four leading “arguments” for the historicity of Jesus, as represented in his video interview with González. Piñero mostly just makes bizarre claims there and gets weirdly angry at any moment the truth of what he says is challenged. Not a single one of his arguments is factually informed or logical; and all are already refuted in the peer-reviewed literature he didn’t read.
- Argument 1: No Jew ever questioned the assumption of historicity in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with [Piñero says “the Rabbi”] Trypho. Indeed no Jew would “bother” arguing with a sect whose leader never existed. And Judaism has “always” admitted Jesus existed.
This is the same mistake Christian apologist Michael Jones just got called out for. Trypho was not a Rabbi. He was a Christian fiction, a “mythical” Rabbi Justin invented. And yet he was still depicted as not being committed to the historicity of Jesus. Justin has Trypho say Christians “invented” Jesus, and imagines him arguing all Christian evidence of there ever being a Jesus was “groundless hearsay,” lacking any evidence, “empty myths.” And yet Trypho (and the real Jews he represents) still argued with Christians, precisely because they were trying to poach Jewish converts with those myths. So Piñero’s first argument is refuted by his own cited evidence.
Piñero’s argument here is not only factually inaccurate and totally ignorant, it’s also illogical. We have no evidence any Jew ever even read Justin’s Dialogue, much less regarding what they did or didn’t “question” about it. In fact we have no (that’s: zero) Jewish sources discussing Jesus at all for the first four hundred years of Christianity (once we recognize Josephus never discussed it). So how does Piñero “know” what Jews thought or said about it? The claim to “know” the contents of documents and conversations we have no record of, to “know” what people thought from whom we have not a single mention of what they thought, is a common fallacy of historicists. And one of their most absurd. (See Chapter 8 of OHJ for a corrective.)
Piñero’s argument is even more illogical than that, because by the time Justin was writing, it was over 120 years after the fact, and a thousand kilometers away. Even Jews by then could not know whether Jesus had existed. Imagine you had no access to any surviving records for the last 120 years (as was the case in Justin’s day, for something as impossible to research as an obscure convict of common name, in a distant foreign land, in whom no living witnesses or even their children remained alive), and someone comes knocking on your door claiming a miraculous John Frum had come to an island somewhere preaching salvation and “wouldn’t you like to get in on some of that.” How would you know John Frum existed or not? You wouldn’t. You couldn’t. Even if you lived on that island. Much less another continent.
No. Your most likely response to this pitch would not be to make a challenge you had no evidence to support—that John Frum didn’t exist. Because then a single smart question, “How do you know?”, would shut you down. To the contrary, you would say the stories about him must have been exaggerated or false, that he’s just another quack guru like so many others everyone has heard about—because then you could adduce countless examples (thus, evidence) that that’s usually the case for such claims about wondermen, and that shifts the burden of evidence back on them. And lo, this is the same argument Celsus appears to have made around the very same time as Justin, having as his only evidence the Gospels and countless examples of similar quack gurus that sound a lot like this Jesus guy. Celsus also had no way to know or present evidence that Jesus didn’t exist. But he did have a way to present evidence fraud and fakery were common—so now the Jesus or John Frum people have to answer the question, “How do you know he wasn’t just another one of these other hucksters around whom tall tales got spun?” So that’s the only evidence-based response you or a Celsus or a “Trypho” could ever have made.
That this is how things would always go, regardless of whether Jesus existed or not, is why this being how things went cannot be an argument that Jesus existed. To think otherwise is simply being a lousy historian—illogical, factually inaccurate, and uninformed of how the world works in general, and particularly back then.
- Argument 2: What about “James the Brother of the Lord?” “How can Paul visit the brother of a ‘mythical construct’?”
Thus demonstrating Piñero has never read our books and knows nothing at all about what we even propose this passage he’s referring to means, much less any of the evidence we’ve adduced regarding our take on it. (See Chapter 11.10 of OHJ for a corrective. Or Chapter 9 of Jesus from Outer Space, which I hope to publish a Spanish edition of within a year or two.) Long story short, all baptized Christians were Brothers of the Lord. And there is no evidence Paul ever meant anything else by the phrase. Every attempt to “argue around this” fails. But you’d have to actually read the peer-reviewed literature to know why. We actually don’t know that Paul meant James was biologically related to Jesus. And that’s that.
- Argument 3: The Testimonium Flavanium in Josephus is a “negative” passage, after taking “all the interpolations” out. So if Jews accept it, then Jesus existed. When Josephus says right after, “Another horrible evil happened to the Jews,” that refers to false messiahs and “pernicious characters” like the Egyptian, Theudas, the Baptist, and thus Jesus.
Not a single claim here is true. Even the completely hypothetical (in other words: completely made-up) “version” of the Testimonium Flavianum, which is invented by modern scholars by “removing” everything they know Josephus would never have said, is not a “negative” passage. You can see for yourself: try any way you might, remove anything you want; there is no way to get a story that’s critical of Jesus out of it. Scholars who “claim” they can are completely reinterpreting ordinary statements in Greek in ways that no ancient reader would read them. In other words, they are stacking up huge piles of implausible ad hoc suppositions to get the evidence to be exactly the opposite of what the evidence is. That’s shit history.
There is no evidence of any such “version” of the passage anyway. If we stack up no assumptions—if we just take the evidence as what it is—we get exactly the opposite result: Josephus never wrote any of this passage; the bit about “Another horrible evil” happening to the Jews refers to the passage that originally preceded that line, in which Pilate had just committed multiple sacrileges against the temple and slaughtered the pious Jews protesting. An actual horrible evil. There is not even an “evil,” much less a horrible one, in the Testimonium.
By contrast, Piñero’s claim that what “preceded” that line was an account of “the false messiahs and pernicious characters like the Egyptian, Theudas, the Baptist,” and therefore also “Jesus,” is completely false. None of those stories precedes the Testimonium. They all come far afterward. John the Baptist’s story begins in section 106 of book 18; Theudas, section 97; the Egyptian, section 167. The Testimonium is section 63. Worse, not a single line about Jesus in the Testimonium resembles Josephus’s accounts of those rabble-rousers in any way whatever. This is in fact the clearest proof the Testimonium was never in the text of Josephus at all. (Just see my discussion of this very point even last week.)
It really looks here like Piñero is engaging in a fraud—his statements are not only illogical, they are directly contrary to the actual facts. How could a competent historian be so egregiously uninformed about the very texts he is talking about here, and supposedly wrote a whole book on?
- Argument 4: Finally, the “internal struggle of the authors of the Gospels,” to try to make a mere man into a god: that struggle is not understandable if there is no a core of a historical person to do that to. Besides, why would his followers put their lives at risk for a mythical Jesus?
No Christians “put their lives at risk” for a mythical Jesus. The earliest Christians didn’t die for a historical Jesus at all (most didn’t even die for anything so far as we have any record of, but that’s a needless digression here). Later Christians simply believed the Gospels, and died for a lie told them, not a lie they told. Even though we well know religious people will indeed die for a lie, and for all manner of applicable reasons, so Piñero’s logic is invalid yet again. But so are his facts, yet again. (See Did the Apostles Die for a Lie? and How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?)
Fact is, all mythical godmen had multiple contradictory “Gospels” written about them, placing them in history, often with family, and struggling to make them look amazing amidst setbacks and foibles. Everything Piñero imagines as “struggling” to depict Jesus as a godman, or something comparable or analogous, can be found said of other mythical heroes in antiquity, even mythical Jewish heroes (see Elements 44 through 48 in Chapter 5 of OHJ). All mythical heroes and demigods were “placed in history” with stories like these. So that Jesus was also cannot be evidence he really existed, any more than it’s evidence they did. Piñero’s argument thus appears uninformed by the entirety of ancient mythography, historiography, literature, and religion. And this once again demonstrates he doesn’t even know what’s in the peer-reviewed books written by recent mythicist scholars; much less has any response to it.
So How Does Piñero Answer My Refutations?
Since Piñero didn’t read and doesn’t even know what’s in the latest peer-reviewed books on Jesus mythicism, what could possibly be his rebuttals to it in his own book? He knows at least that somewhere in On the Historicity of Jesus I do math. And this horrifies him. Where he introduces my work (on pp. 19-20), he inaccurately says I there make “a statistical calculation of odds,” but this confuses “statistics” with “probability.” I never make any statistical arguments in OHJ. I only make arguments from and to a probability in OHJ. That is not the same thing (see Bayesian Statistics vs. Bayesian Epistemology).
Piñero thus does not seem to know how I arrived at my conclusion. But he does know I concluded that “the probability” some pertinent Jesus existed is somewhere between “1/3 to 1/12,000,” which he interprets as saying “the probability that Jesus existed is minimal.” But 1 in 3 is not usually described as a “minimal” likelihood of something. Just test it out: “the odds I’ll die of electrocution if I touch this rail here are 1 in 3, therefore the odds I’ll die of electrocution are minimal” … does that sound right? Indeed, even if those odds were 1 in 12,000 you wouldn’t touch the rail. Certainly not if they were a whopping 1 in 3! Honestly. This is sixth grade math here.
Piñero then says “Carrier argues in passing that Jesus is a character based on personal revelations from Paul and others” and on mystical readings of scripture, and “the Evangelists are the ones who fictitiously model the figure of Jesus” as an earthly Rabbi, which stories were originally “to be understood allegorically,” but “the struggles of the first communities among themselves for control and supremacy caused these literary fictions to be taken seriously” and thus later Christians “believed in a historical figure.” I devote over six hundred densely argued and footnoted pages to these points. I don’t think that can honestly be described as “arguing in passing.” But in other respects Piñero at least correctly describes my hypothesis.
But that’s all he gets right. Piñero then says “what is novel about Carrier’s thesis” is that “the modern argument for the historical existence of Jesus is based on erroneous methods.” That’s not a novel argument. In fact historicists themselves have been making that argument for years—in fact, every single study specifically of those methods has come to that conclusion. I demonstrate this, citing and quoting the mainstream scholarship arguing this very point, from Morna Hooker and John Gager to Stanley Porter and Rafael Rodríguez, and half a dozen others, in Chapter 5 of Proving History (a book Piñero doesn’t even seem to know about, despite it being referenced repeatedly in OHJ). Mind you, this is not just a thesis. I prove it. Piñero never presents any rebuttal. He does not even seem aware of my case or the evidence and peer-reviewed scholarship it rests on.
Piñero gets that the overall gist of my point is that “the current consensus on” the existence of Jesus “does not take into account” any discernible “calculation of probabilities of the value of” its own “arguments.” Awkwardly worded, but true, if what he means is, no historian of Jesus has ever explained, logically, how or why any argument they make increases the probability of Jesus existing, much less enough to be confident he did. They haven’t. This is the whole point I make in Chapter 1 and the introduction to Chapter 5 of Proving History. Historians also, however, get tons of facts wrong, too. So it’s not just that historians forming the consensus today can’t explain why their conclusions should be deemed probable from the evidence they present, but the evidence they present often doesn’t in fact exist. Piñero just gave us an example in that video interview, when he claimed Josephus’s line “another horrible evil happened to the Jews” followed Josephus’s account of false messiahs and other rabble-rousers (in fact it precedes them, by quite a lot of material even).
In Proving History I show many historians making many mistakes like this in defense of the historicity of Jesus—and when you correct all these mistakes (both of fact and of logic), there is no case left over for a historical Jesus. This is how we know the modern consensus is malformed and thus no longer citable as reliable.
Needless to say, Piñero hasn’t read any pertinent peer-reviewed literature, and thus doesn’t know he needs to respond to any of this, and accordingly he never does. Rendering his book useless. Likewise when he moves on from there to “rebut” me solely by stringing together a series of rhetorical questions (on pp. 21-23 as I already noted above), as if I had no answers to any of them, when in fact every single one is answered in the peer-reviewed books I published that he didn’t read! And since, again, he did’t read them, he doesn’t even know how I answered them, much less what arguments and evidence I gave for my answers being correct or credible, and accordingly he never responds to any of that either. Rendering his book, again, useless.
The only other time Piñero mentions my work is later (on pp. 43-44), where he says my “work makes a promising start by using new (statistical) methods to support the probability that Jesus never existed” (in fact, as I already said, no statistics were involved; the only thing new I did was make explicit the logic of probability in my statements of “what’s likely and unlikely,” the very thing other historians have failed to do), but “the critical reader is then disappointed” to find “serious flaws of method in” it. He never mentions any such flaws. Much less presents any evidence that it is a flaw. This is very typical of historicists today: assert, without evidence, that something I said was “flawed,” without explaining what, or why.
For example, Piñero’s only argument for that assertion is that, he declares, “Carrier’s estimation of the methods of current philologists and historians is superficial and erroneous, since he does not take into account the countless studies that show that there are sections of the Gospels that undoubtedly contain historical data.” Since I wrote a whole book on those “countless studies,” citing numerous studies refuting them, and likewise demonstrating why they are in error (often even factually, and just as often logically), Piñero rests his entire claim on a demonstrably false fact: that I “did not take into account” the stuff that in fact I extensibvely took into account. Just read Proving History, particularly Chapter 5. As I instructed every reader of On the Historicity of Jesus to do (explicitly on pages 21, 32, 251, and 391; in fact PH is cited in OHJ 99 times).
In other words, all Piñero does to “prove” my methods are erroneous is to falsely claim I didn’t address the methods of other Jesus historians. Piñero seems not even to know that I did. And consequently he does not know that I proved the contrary of his claim that “countless studies show that there are sections of the Gospels that undoubtedly contain historical data.” In fact I demonstrated in Proving History that to date no study has accomplished that. They are all dependent on false claims to fact or logically invalid inferences. And I am not the only peer-reviewed scholar who has done this. Piñero has no response to this. Not even in general, much less in any particular case. Because he didn’t actually read any of the peer-reviewed literature he is supposed to be responding to and thus doesn’t know what any of it argues, and accordingly provides no reply to any of it. Hence his book is entirely useless.
Of course, Piñero falsely laments that if we were to abandon all the methods I show invalid, “any possibility of doing ancient history would collapse.” No. Real history—history done by real historians, not Jesus historians who seem to have a hard time doing what real historians do—has numerous well-tested methods that work just fine. When you input real, correct facts into them, and not made-up facts, imaginary evidence, mere conjectures, or lies. As I also explain in Proving History, particularly Chapter 4. I think really Piñero is here just uttering a lame, badly articulated version of what I call the Argument from Spartacus. Which is fallacious even when better articulated. (See Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus? and So What About Hannibal, Then?)
Piñero also falsely claims I “hardly take into account the documents themselves,” when in fact OHJ devotes hundreds of pages to them; “nor,” he falsely claims, “what are the best possible explanations for the historical data they undoubtedly offer,” where he presents not a single example of any “best possible explanation” I fail to take into account anywhere—I don’t think he can, as he has repeatedly demonstrated he didn’t read either PH or OHJ (indeed it seems he doesn’t even know PH exists, despite OHJ referencing it nearly a hundred times). Piñero then falsely claims I “do not take into account the critical analysis of the Gospels” in particular. In fact I devoted over two hundred peer-reviewed pages to it (85 pages in Proving History plus 122 pages in On the Historicity of jesus).
This repeated lying about what’s “in” or “not in” my books is a standard operating procedure for historicists. And note: it is the only argument Antonio Piñero has. At no point does he ever address any actual argument, evidence, or content of either peer-reviewed book I published on this. All he does is tell a string of lies about what isn’t in them. Ask yourself a simple question. Why can the historicity of Jesus only be defended with lies? The fact that this is what historicists have to do is what wholly discredits them. They simply hope you don’t notice. And indeed if they succeed in convincing you not to actually check, and thus actually read my books, you won’t. That they are trying to manipulate you like this should, frankly, piss you off.
Lying or Incompetence?
It only gets worse when Piñero tries to claim (!) that “religious myths almost always crystallize around a historical personality that is reinterpreted and idealized.” That statement is literally false; which betrays Piñero’s complete ignorance of mythographic studies. It also, again, proves he didn’t read OHJ, where I present numerous examples proving that generalization false: entirely mythical heroes, demigods, and founders are very common (Moses, Joseph, Abraham, Israel, Noah, Romulus, Hercules, Isis, Osiris, Aesop, Attis, Dionysus, Asclepius, Tom Navy, John From, Ned Ludd, King Arthur…I could go on; and yes, I cite the peer-reviewed scholarship on these being mythical persons). And I show, repeatedly, that Jesus has more in common with them than the few examples of only partially mythical heroes, demigods, and founders you could even list. In other words, I prove my generalization with vast quantities of actual examples and extensive citations of the actual scholars who study these things. Piñero presents no evidence for his assertions to the contrary, and cites no scholars whatever for them. You do the math.
Piñero likewise makes unsupported claims like that “Carrier’s interpretation of the ancient sources seems to me subjective and sometimes very strange, as if dictated by the a priori” assumption “that a religion like the Christian one, so similar to the mystery cults of antiquity, must be false in principle, since their God is false and all these cults are false.” This is never an argument I make. The falsity of Christian theology never bears any relevance in either PH or OHJ, since I never spend any time on any supernaturalist Jesus, the only Jesus who requires God and Christian theology to be true. And again, Piñero never gives any example of my presenting a “subjective” interpretation of anything—as opposed to my demonstrating my interpretations probable with evidence, which is the opposite of giving a “subjective” opinion about them.
Since we’ve seen ample proof Piñero has not read OHJ or PH, is this lying or jaw-dropping incompetence? What do you think? It certainly would appear to be explicitloy lying now, when Piñero speaks of my “subjective interpretations” of texts; he clearly has no knowledge of my interpretation of any text at all. Which certainly explains why he can give no examples of what he means, and attributes to me a form of argument I never make. He doesn’t know any examples. He’s just making shit up about me and my work. And that’s how historicity apologetics operates. Ironically, too, since as we just noted, Piñero doesn’t know that I presented extensive evidence and scholarship that mythical heroes, demigods, and founders are commonplace, and the only argument that comes anywhere near what Piñero falsely attributed to me that I do make from Christianity’s demonstrably being a Jewish version of the then-popular mystery-religion construct, is that every other savior god in them didn’t exist. Which would actually seem to be a rather relevant reason to doubt Jesus was the lone exception among them. Piñero doesn’t even know I made this argument. He thus never describes it. And accordingly he never responds to it.
And so Piñero’s book is useless.
Conclusion
Except when describing their thesis, Antonio Piñero never says a single true thing about my peer-reviewed books Proving History and On the Historicity of Jesus, the very thing he is professionally obligated to have actually read and be talking about and responding to in his book. That’s tantamount to lying. It deliberately deceives the public, as he is certainly representing himself as having read them, and his arguments as being pertinent to their content, as responding to them, when not a single one of his arguments actually does. He doesn’t even know what my arguments and evidence are. Instead, he just strings together lie after lie about what is and isn’t in my books.
Why?
Piñero makes one final argument in the section where he addresses me, noting that “as a general rule in the methodology of ancient history, the simplest ‘economic’ argument should be adopted, which explains as much data as possible at the same time, although perhaps not all.” Indeed. And yet look at all the false epicycles he had to add to get his geocentrism (er, I mean, theory of historicity) to work. Historicity is not the most economical explanation of the evidence. Historicists have to make up tons and tons of excuses to get the evidence to say or mean what it doesn’t say or mean. Mythicism doesn’t. It requires no assumptions not also required by historicists or matched by a comparable assumption required by historicists; and every other “assumption” it relies on, I prove with evidence, so it’s not an assumption.
Until historicists actually engage with our actual arguments and evidence, we should condemn them all for this abject failure to do their damned jobs.
-:-
Piñero responded to my observations in a two part blog series of his own, to which I have also replied. See my article Piñero Returns.
-:-
Richard, I am not knowledgeable enough to say anything worthwhile, I merely want you to know that I always enjoy reading your posts- easy to follow, logical and entertaining. Thanks very much Paul
Dr. Carrier wrote:
Response: I get the impression that what Paul was saying that while others had belief in other ones (called gods), that there is in actuality but one God. If that is the case then this is no different than modern day Christians that would obviously acknowledge that there are other religious believe systems with their own god claims but that those are not based on the one true God.
Are you saying that Paul actually believed in the actual existence of other Gods? Because I’m certainly not getting that from reading that passage.
Indeed. Your reading is putting words in Paul’s mouth that are not there. This is a modern anachronistic reading. I show this extensively in OHJ, Ch. 5, Elements 36 and 37.
For example, modern Bible translations will put “scare quotes” in the text (e.g. indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”) but there is nothing in the Greek to justify that; in fact, had that been what Paul meant, the Greek he would choose would be different. He is admitting there are other beings people call gods and lords, real beings. Paul will on other occasions call them demons, or fallen angels, “principalities and powers,” and the like; and as I point out, Paul once identifies Satan as one of them—he does not say Satan is a fiction, but a real superbeing many will call a god. He means these other gods are, too.
Paul is thus talking about Christians not dishonoring the One God by giving that title of honor to those other (he would say evil) beings; worship demands they call them something else. But that’s a semantic distinction that does not exist in English; and didn’t in most ancient Greek either. You can’t change what a thing is by changing what you call it. And what he is calling “demons,” “principalities,” “fallen angels,” “Satan,” are what we mean by the word gods today—and what most ancient Greeks would all recognize as such, too. The peculiar insistence of Jews calling their gods angels was quaint and weird among their Hellenic peers.
Dr. Carrier stated: “He is admitting there are other beings people call gods and lords, real beings.”
But is he in actuality saying that these are real beings, which some call Gods, but for which he personally does not recognize as being an actual God?
Or his he going further than that and admitting that other Gods existed (in actuality), it is just that he only advocates worshiping a particular God.
I guess I’m getting caught up on his statement “one called gods”, which seems to me he is suggesting that they are not worthy of that title.
Or would it be like a boxer in one federation refusing to recognize another boxer in another federation as “champion” simply because he is in another federation that he deems less legit?
Yes. Paul is saying that. You seem to be ignoring the paraphrasis in which he specifies he means actual gods. He does not put any qualification in when he says there “are” other gods and lords (which he says after and in addition to saying there are beings called gods). So he didn’t mean any qualification. Only modern interpreters anachronistically put that in there; when it isn’t there. And if it isn’t there, proper translation should not be inserting it.
And remember, it’s not just this passage we are basing the correct reading on. We have tons of other evidence confirming this. Paul frequently talks about these other gods as real principalities and powers that God and Jesus must overthrow and Christians not submit to. Paul for instance even calls Satan “the god of this world.” And Paul very definitely believed Satan was real. He thus qualifies calling Satan a god by adding “of this [meaning, the lower, the inferior] world,” to mock Satan’s pretense to be equal to the “supreme” God, the Creator (which Jesus, to counterbalance Satan, refused to do, even though Paul outright repeats the Christian creed declaring Jesus to be “in [his very] form, a god”). But Paul has no trouble simply using “god” vocabulary for Satan, as long as he adds that qualification. Just as he does for Jesus (who has the “form of a god,” but is not “equal” to the supreme god, i.e. God, vs. merely “gods”).
Dr. Carrier I wasn’t trying to put words into his mouth.
It was just my interpretation based on what it seemed to me he was trying to convey.
Specifically concerning this part of the verse:
For even if there are ones CALLED gods,…”yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live”
It seems to me that if Paul consider the other Gods to actually be Gods he would not have used that expression “called” Gods. He would’ve said something to the effect of “For even if there are other Gods”.
And in that same sentence he appears to go on and qualify is God as the one true God by distinguishing him as the one “from whom all things came”.
How else could you interpret and explain from the standpoint of what he was trying to convey?
Note Paul immediately follows the “those called gods” with a clear statement that there “are” gods so-called, thus he is not talking about non-existent beings, but actual beings whom most call gods. Paul himself even calls Satan a god, using that same parlance. Judeo-Christian aversion to calling other gods “theoi” is precisely what I am saying was weird in ancient Greek culture generally, and is born of their honor-based monolatry.
You will benefit from reading my section on henotheism in On the Historicity of Jesus (see the index there), and my section on defining terms, esp. p. 60.
For example, Christians often called those other gods daimones, “demons” in modern translation, but in Greek that is not what the word means; it meant “divinities,” and is simply a synonym of “gods.” Again, a distinction between them didn’t exist back then (other than sometimes as one being minor and one major gods, but still all gods). And the entities are descriptively the same. Apollo is not the Creator, for example, the One, or any of those specific titles or roles; he is a subordinate, begotten, preternatural superbeing, immortal and supernaturally powerful, and an inhabitant of outer space. That’s what “a god” is. It’s what the phrase “a god” means in modern English. It’s what the word “god” meant in ancient Greek. And it’s what most Greeks called and worshiped as gods.
Paul means the same thing. When he says “there are many gods” whom people do call “gods,” he means the likes of Apollo, for example. Not an idea of Apollo. Not a false belief in a non-existent Apollo. But an actual, real Apollo, the very being the Greeks worshiped and themselves described as “a subordinate, begotten, preternatural superbeing, immortal and supernaturally powerful, and an inhabitant of outer space.” Thus we call, now, Apollo a god. We don’t say “he is only a so-called god.” A Christian then would say that, to communicate they do not hold that god in honor; but they would not mean by doing that that that god did not exist or was not a god in popular parlance (modern or ancient). Only modern Christians claim those gods didn’t even exist. Paul is very definitely not saying that.
Thus, in modern English, Jesus is a god. Even in Paul’s understanding. Paul would cringe at the misplaced honor of saying that (you are only supposed to confer the honor of that name, as a title, to the Begetter, not the Begotten), but he would not disagree that it was literally true in popular parlance. Moreover, any English speaking person today who asks “Did the first Christians regard Jesus to be a god?” would have to be answered “Yes,” when using standard English definitions of the word “god” (and not Paul’s monolatrist policing of vocabulary). Because they believed Jesus was a subordinate, begotten, preternatural superbeing, immortal and supernaturally powerful, and an inhabitant of outer space. Just like Apollo.
Do you follow?
Thanks for the article!
His comments about Religious Myths usually being based around historical people is very bizarre, unless he has a very narrow idea of what a “religious myth” means. I suppose he doesn’t think Greek, Roman, Egyptian etc myths don’t count as religious myths for some reason?
Apart from Joseph Smith, Haile Selassie, Julius Caesar and maybe Muhammed, are there any other people from history that have religious myths about them that are universally agreed to have been real historical people?
I think that’s what he’s confusing. He hasn’t studied mythography, so he thinks “mythic origin stories” means “accounts of historical founders,” but that equation does not exist in mythography. “Accounts of historical founders” is only a small subset of “mythic origin stories.” I actually use Haile Selassie in OHJ as a paradigmatic example of that paradigm, and show why the Jesus case is not sufficiently analogous to it, but conforms more to Moses, Osiris, Romulus (anciently) and Frum, Navy, Ludd (modernly).
The important distinction is degree of mythification (Jesus is far more mythologized, far more rapidly, than any of those guys you name) and degree of reversing evidence (they have far more evidence reversing any finding of “mythical” they might have started with, than Jesus does).
P.S. And of course I think he is also conflating mythical with actual founders. Joseph Smith might be the actual founder of Mormonism, but within Mormon myth its founder is Moroni—a non-existent, revelatory being. Likewise Mohammed may be the historical founder of Islam, but he claims its actual founder is the angel Gabriel, again an ahistorical person only seen in visions. Jesus looks more like Moroni and Gabriel in the earliest Christian documents. So, just because there were also myths built around the actual founders of Christianity (Peter, then for the ancestor sect to the versions that still survive today, Paul), does not mean Christianity did not also have a mythical founder, just as Mormonism and Islam do (and likewise the Cargo Cults and the Luddite movement, or literally any other religion, every single one of which that claims a mythical founder, obviously—by virtue of existing—had a real historical founder too). So you can’t get from “all religions have a real founder” to “Jesus was that founder for Christianity.” That’s a non sequitur. You have to look at what kind of founder he appears to be.
Thanks for the reply.
Out of curiosity, do you know what his training is in? I struggled to find much about him that was on an English website.
It seems to be a common trend that scholars who have been trained in Theology or New Testament Studies don’t have much understanding of myth making in the ancient world and they assume that the Gospels are completely unique as pieces of literature.
You are aware Dr Carrier that not all of the Quran was ‘revealed’ via Gabriel?
And nowhere does Muhammad claim Gabriel to be “Islam’s founder”..
But if you provide a reference?
“Gabriel only seen in visions”
Well, not really.
Several times Gabriel appeared in human form – this is found in several hadēth (but admitedly, it’s only Muhammad who indentifies him as Gabriel afterwards).
Visions of angels in human form are still visions. Everything else I said is correct. I didn’t say anything about “the whole Quran.” And there was no Islam as a religion before Gabriel revealed to Muhammad that there should be and instructed him in what it should look like. That’s what the English word “founded” means.
It wasn’t a vision but real life:
Eg:
‘Umar’ said “Whilst we were sitting with the Messenger of God, one day a man came up to us whose clothes were extremely white, whose hair was extremely black, upon whom traces of traveling could not be seen, and whom none of us knew, who sat down knee-to-knee with the Prophet…[…]
He then went away, and I (Umar) remained some time. Then he (Muhammad) askt, ‘Umar, do you know who the questioner was?’ I said, ‘God and His Messenger know best.’ He said, ‘That was Gabriel who came to you to teach you your Religion’.”
The link you cited is irrelevant. It doesn’t talk about non-Gabriel revelation/Quran.
Gabriel is more a conveyor. Founder implies originator. It’s truer to say God is the founder.
It is odd to call a postman the writer of the letter he delivers.
‘No islam before Islam (the Harvard link is access denied)’ – sure, in a secular sense- however if you’re talking of ‘revelation’ -then Islam has existed since humanity was created – ie Submission to the Will of God ie Adam was a Muslim Prophet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_in_Islam
This is pretty standard fare.
That’s just like Jesus: a later myth. The original thing was described as a vision, and we well know (scientifically) that’s what it was. There is no angel Gabriel. That’s a myth. Just as there was no Jesus letting people touch his wounds and eating fish. It started with visions. Then the myths of “a real fish-eating wound-feeling Jesus” was invented.
Had Gabriel not appeared to Muhammad, Muhammad would not have started Islam. The teachings Muhammad conveyed as founding Islam, he said came from Allah through Gabriel, not from Muhammad himself. Thus, Gabriel is the real founder (acting on behalf of God as his agent). Muhammad would have been horrified at the suggestion he created Islam. That would be vanity and hubris and entail the religion was a human-made fake.
Dr. Carrier, about the argument #3, I think Dr. Piñero is talking about this:
https://www.academia.edu/8139663/
No. That’s a different argument. Piñero’s specific argument requires more than that (that the account have been like that of The Egyptian and Theudas, or involve disasters like the account of The Baptist, as he says), so he means “negative,” not “neutral,” and there are scholars who have attempted this claim before him, as I note (they spin absurd reinterpretations of the words in the text to get that outcome). The article you link to is Bermejo-Rubio’s case against the neutral theory and in favor of the negative theory, though not the one Piñero is pushing (see below), but Bermejo-Rubio is an example of those very illogical historians I’m talking about (his case is all based on false claims, unsupported assumptions against the evidence, and illogical inferences, all in defense of Bermejo-Rubio’s bizarre obsession with insisting Jesus was an armed zealot terrorist).
The different argument that “maybe” the original TF was a neutral not hostile or friendly account, which Bermejo-Rubio is attacking there, is less absurd than even Bermejo-Rubio’s position, but rests on some of the same errors of logic (ultimately, violating Ockham’s Razor and resting on no evidence at all, but instead numerous ad hoc assumptions for which there is no evidence; and contradicting even the evidence we have, such as from Origen, who would not have failed to mention a neutral or even hostile TF, as I noted before: see here and here).
Finally, Bermejo-Rubio is not advancing the argument Piñero is. Piñero is advancing the position that “with redactions removed” you get a negative passage (which is obviously false; as I showed here). Bermejo-Rubio is advancing the position that Josephus said a bunch of other stuff now lost, that was deleted (so his theory is even more convoluted and un-parisomonius than Piñero’s). Bermejo-Rubio is, again, operating from his own idiosyncratic a priori assumption that Jesus was a violent revolutionary. So he needs Josephus to have described him as such. So Bermejo-Rubio invents a universe in which Josephus did that, and then tries to insist we live in that universe.
We don’t.
P.S. Although it is interesting that that article by Bermejo-Rubio might be Michael Jones’s inadvertent source for his claims (different from Piñero’s), as it mentions patchwork theory, which Jones completely garbled in his debate, and didn’t cite Bermejo-Rubio for. (Although good he didn’t, as Bermejo-Rubio uses that argument as evidence against the TF’s authenticity.)
Dr. Carrier, is there a reason secular historians seem so dedicated to the historicity of Jesus? For the Christian historians, it’s obvious, though even they I’m sure could accept a heavenly (otherworldly or extra-dimensionally, however modern Christians have to square that) crucifixion/resurrection if the consensus changed enough. But for secular historians, what’s really the point? Is it as simple as inertia, that historicity has been the consensus for so long that people just don’t care to question it (certainly the secular defenses of it so far have seemed more like off-the-cuff rants than researched rebuttals)? Is it funding (I imagine many/most secular scholars of the new testament are probably funded by faith schools or religious interest groups)? Or is it maybe culture? I’m certainly not as “in” the historical community as you, but it does seem like the secular historians coming up with these rebuttals are still coming from countries that are culturally very Christian.
I mean, from an atheist perspective, it has zero bearing on me whether or not some guy named Jesus actually existed in history. There being an historical Jesus doesn’t make any of the god claims or miracle claims any more plausible. The religion having an historical founder in Jesus isn’t all that different from having historical founders in Paul and Peter. It would be like finding out Socrates very likely didn’t exist to me. It would be interesting, and I’d want to find out how that was determined, but it’s not like philosophy would stop working or that the ideas attributed to him would disappear.
It’s all of those things I suspect, and different ranking of reasons for different scholars. But the one reason I get the gist of the most is: no one wants to undertake the stress of defending a position they secretly hold but will be vilified for expressing, suffering a loss of status, reputation, or other complications (the cost-benefit just isn’t there), and so most remain silent; while the few who go on tirades against it (including, sometimes even, threats against any peers who would disagree with them, thus reinforcing the aforementioned silence) are defending a status quo for various reasons that may be personal to them (e.g. it “might” not be a coincidence that Ehrman has a Christian wife who has already been troubled enough by his publicly defending agnosticism about God; and many a supposedly secular scholar is actually, unlike Ehrman, a devout Christian, however liberal—because there is a known tendency in the field adopted by many scholars to keep their religious affiliation secret; and so on), but is often a matter of mere status quo bias.
Paul that Christians should not dishonor the true god lord and its father by giving titles of honor—such as kyrios (lord) and theos (god)—to evil beings.
How strong is it possible to get with the above given “fill-in-the-blank”:
• asserts
• likely held the view
* may of promoted the Jewish tradition
•etc..
I don’t know what you are asking. Can you reword this perhaps? And maybe use a sentence I actually wrote as the base text rather than a grammatically incorrect misstatement of what I said?
Sorry for the confusion, I tried to create a visual “fill in the blank” place-holder using the “less-than” and “greater-than” characters, but it was stripped out as HTML code when the comment was posted [cue: face-palm].
Elsewhere originally, I wrote the sentence I presented as:
• Paul asserted that Christians should not dishonor the true god lord…
but have revised it to:
• Paul likely promoted the viewpoint that Christians should not dishonor the true god lord…
Cf. “Jesus myth theory”. RationalWiki
So my question is: How would you couch Paul’s viewpoint that “Christians should not dishonor the true god lord…”
• Paul definitely asserted this viewpoint.
or
• Paul likely promoted this viewpoint.
or
• other.
I don’t understand your question at this point. Are you seriously asking “is the probability low that Paul believed Christians should not dishonor God”? Because I can’t fathom why you would ask that. The answer is so obviously no. Or are you asking only “is the probability low that Paul believed Christians should reserve the title of God for their God and Lord for their Lord, unless they qualify its use appropriately”? Then the answer is definitely no. Or are you asking “is the probability low that the reason Paul believed Christians should reserve the title of God for their God and Lord for their Lord, unless they qualify its use appropriately, that doing otherwise would dishonor their God and Lord”? Then the answer is a strong no; in that case it’s not based on Paul explicitly spelling that out, but putting Paul’s words into the context they were in, which is of a strongly affirmed honor/shame society, as analyzed by the likes of Bruce Malina et al.
I am Latina. I agree with Antonio Piñero’s article on the way he describes who Jesus really is and was. Although it sounds a bit harsh to those who are religious and dogmatic, it describes the stark truth. I would say that there are many other truths that have been hidden throughout history by those most interested in doing so. But if there is already someone making public some historical facts, more truthful and real information will be arriving. I love that it tells with historical support, and not as religion, especially the Catholic one, has led us to believe, with fairy tales and misusing the name of the real Jesus. That is painful.
In his facebook account Piñero seems to debunk all your claims about his ignorance on your work and roughly and generally on the mythicism body of evidence as you herein accuse him for. That is really weird from both sides. Anyway I think that Piñero is an excellent koiné expert, as he got his academic qualifications on that subject, but as historian is some sort of amateur.
Can you link me to that Facebook post here?
Source: https://www.facebook.com/antonio.pinero.54
First Post: Answer-rebuttal to Richard Carrier:
¡Esto no se acaba nunca! Sobre la pretendida inexistencia histórica de Jesús de Nazaret (Segunda parte)
Respuesta a Richard Carrier (Blog personal) (6-8-2020.- 1134)
Foto: otra de R. Carrier
Escribe Antonio Piñero
Sigo con el tema de ayer. Y hoy concluyo
6. No respondo a las críticas formuladas en su libro.
R. Todas las críticas a su libro que presento en el mío, están refrendadas por las críticas de otros “pares” a las evaluaciones de Carrier, que sí me he ocupado en leer también. No hay ninguna crítica mía que no pueda encontrarse en las reseñas al libro de Carrier. Por supuesto: todos nos hemos equivocado al juzgarle y es un delito mío que no haya respondido uno a uno a sus argumentos sino de una manera global junto con sus críticos. ¡Argumento inútil, dirá Carrier, pero también he leído a sus contradictores!
He respondido también a sus críticas con el argumento de que los Evangelios son infalsificables. Ni un grupito reducido ni una sola persona pudo componerlos tal como están. Utilizo las palabras de Puente Ojea –investigador súper independiente y ateo radical– en el libro mencionado ¿“Existió Jesús realmente?” pp. 170-171:
“A mi juicio, la prueba mayor de que existió históricamente un hombre conocido después como Jesús de Nazaret o el Nazareno radica en las invencibles dificultades que los textos evangélicos afrontan para armonizar o concordar las tradiciones sobre este personaje con el mito de Cristo elaborado teológicamente en estos mismos textos. Nadie se esfuerza por superar aporías derivadas de «dos» conceptos divergentes y contrapuestos del mismo referente existencial, si dichas aporías no surgieran de testimonios históricamente insoslayables. La imposibilidad conceptual de saltar de modo plausible del Jesús de la historia al Cristo de la fe constituye una evidencia interna -aunque aparentemente paradójica- de la altísima probabilidad de que haya existido un mesianista llamado Jesús que anunció la inminencia de la instauración en Israel del reino mesiánico de la esperanza judía en las promesas de su Dios. Ninguna otra prueba alcanza un valor de convicción comparable a los desesperados esfuerzos, a la postre fallidos para una mirada histórico-crítica, por cohonestar el Cristo mítico de la fe con la memoria oralmente transmitida, de modo fragmentario, de un hebreo que vivió, predicó y fue ejecutado como sedicioso en el siglo I de nuestra era” (El Evangelio de Marcos. Del Cristo de la fe al Jesús de la historia, 1992, 10).
En el librito aparecido en el año 2000, precisaba esquemáticamente su argumento:
“Nadie asume artificialmente datos o testimonios que dañen a sus propios intereses, a no ser que exista una tradición oral o escrita que sea imposible «desconocer», en cuyo caso sólo resta el inseguro expediente de reinterpretarla o remodelarla «tergiversando» su sentido genuino […] El deseo de apuntalar históricamente el nuevo mensaje soteriológico -cuestión que aún no le preocupó a Pablo- obligó a los evangelistas a usar reiteradamente -casi siempre de modo intermitente y elusivo- tradiciones muy antiguas sobre actitudes y palabras del Nazareno. De este precioso material, que podríamos calificar de furtivo, puede inferirse con estimable seguridad que Jesús fue un agente mesiánico que asumió sustancialmente los rasgos básicos de la «tradición davídica popular» y de la escatología de origen profético, aderezadas con acentos apocalípticos. Su mensaje anunció la inminente llegada del reino mesiánico sobre la tierra de Israel transformada por una suerte de palingenesia, un reino en el que lo religioso y lo político aparecían fundidos -sólo disociables con una mentalidad occidental- para entrar en él, y en el cual el arrepentimiento y la reconversión espiritual (teshuvah, metanoia) resultaba inaplazable y era requisito indispensable para la intervención sobrenatural de Dios. El verdadero tour de force que significó remodelar este material y verterlo en las categorías del misterio cristiano exigió una fe ciega y se desarrolló more rabbinico, es decir, acudiendo a los argumenta e scriptura y a los vaticinia ex eventu, aislándolos de sus contextos e integrándolos en una interpretación tipológica y alegórica extravagante e inverosímil” (El mito de Cristo, 2000, 18-20).
Si a Carrier le parece que estos son malos argumentos…, no tengo nada más que comentar.
7. No hay documentos judíos en los primeros 400 años que hablen de Jesús.
R. Sí los hay. Y es el testimonio flaviano de Flavio Josefo. A propósito de la reconstrucción del tenor auténtico del documento, me remito a Louis Feldmann, al que conocí personalmente, el famoso editor judío de Josefo. El estudio (esta vez estadístico) del vocabulario de Flavio Josefo en su reseña sobre Jesús (en Antigüedades de los judíos XVIII 63-64, más el parágrafo 200) da el resultado de que la utilización, sobre todo de los verbos y otros vocablos son de uso negativo en Josefo. Que la enumeración diez u once de los agentes mesiánicos ? más o menos a mesías o rey de Israel), después de la muerte de Herodes el Grande hasta el final parcial del primera Gran Guerra Judía (en el 70 d. C.), aparezca desordenada y no solo en las “Antigüedades” sino también en la “Guerra de los judíos”, no invalida en absoluto la argumentación: la mención de Jesús es negativa y está colocada en una serie de individuos que hicieron un gran daño al pueblo judío y le instaron erróneamente a creer que Dios les ayudaría en el combate final contra el Mal, la Roma invasora, elevando la temperatura mesiánica, Es un testimonio, y negativísimo, sobre Jesús que no puede rechazarse.
8. Pretendo positivamente defraudar y soy un mentiroso.
R. Sin comentario alguno.
9. Considero que toda su obra es una “mierda” (sic); fallo continuamente al realizar mi trabajo.
R. Sin comentario alguno.
10. Mis argumentos están formulados sin el pertinente cuidado, lo que demuestra mi total ignorancia.
R. Por mi parte, no hay comentario alguno. Dejo al lector de “Aproximación al Jesús histórico” la respuesta.
En conjunto, lo que podría ser un debate interesante ha quedado en una suerte de pelea de barrio. Quien insulta, creo que pierde parte de la razón que tiene al criticar. Y como mi defensa puede ser farragosa y demasiado amplia, hago una síntesis:
1. Considero que el debate sobre la existencia de Jesús de Nazaret (para el Imperio Romano un personajillo sin interés, crucificado por ellos junto a dos de sus seguidores), bien distinto del personaje mitad mítico, “Jesucristo” ha llegado ya casi a un punto casi muerto. No hay que gastar más tiempo en él.
2. He introducido el libro de R. Carrier en mi crítica en el libro “Aproximación al Jesús histórico” porque desde 2008 me parecía que era el único que merecía la pena discutir.
3. La construcción de un mesías mítico, sin base alguna en un ser humano real, es una hipótesis implausible en el siglo I d. C.
4. El testimonio, depurado de glosas, por los propios historiadores y filólogos judíos actuales, de Flavio Josefo, es válido, por lo negativo que es. Tenemos al menos un historiador independiente, judío, buen conocedor de la mentalidad de su pueblo, que sitúa a Jesús como personaje histórico en una lista de gente dañina para el pueblo judío, porque calentó las mentes de sus gentes con vanas esperanzas mesianistas que chocaban frontalmente con el dominio del Imperio Romano sobre Israel.
5. El testimonio de Justino Mártir en su Diálogo con Tarfón/Trifón (recuerdo/reflejo de un famoso “rabino” [¡ojo! la palabra entonces significaba solo gran conocedor de la ley de Moisés] de la época, del que se cuentan chuscas anécdotas, como que iba predicando la ley mosaica a los judíos de la Diáspora y que cada vez que llegaba a una ciudad distinta se divorciaba de su mujer anterior y se casaba con otra local) es, sin duda, una plasmación literaria de las discusiones que tenían “rabinos” (maestros en la Ley judeocristianos) con “rabinos” (simplemente “judíos normativos”) acerca de la interpretación de la Ley y del mesianismo de Jesús.
Pero esta plasmación literaria refleja en el fondo la verdad de la existencia de esas discusiones, en las que jamás se negó la existencia histórica de Jesús. Tales disputas habían comenzado mucho antes (peleas dialécticas ente judeocristianos y fariseos reflejadas en el Evangelio de Mateo, sobre todo cap. 23) y tienen una base histórica indudable. El testimonio de los Evangelios sobre los fariseos es la base principal del estupendo estudio sobre el fariseísmo anterior del año 70 d. C. del muy afamado Jacob Neusner. Otro reflejo de las disputas se halla en el Evangelio de Juan 9,22 sobre la expulsión de judeocristianos de la sinagoga por reconocer a Jesús como mesías. Pero jamás pensaron que este tal Jesús no hubiera existido.
6. Los Evangelios tal como nos han llegado (nuestro texto actual procede del 200 d. C.) son infalsificables. Ahora bien, suponer que la crítica histórica-filológica-literaria actual no tiene medios para separar el posible sustrato histórico de la figura de Jesús de Nazaret entre el fárrago del engrandecimiento, mitificación, divinización posterior, es una hipótesis también implausible. Así pues, la crítica interna, científica, histórico-literaria, actual, a los Evangelios y a Pablo tiene instrumentos para distinguir entre lo mítico y lo que no lo es. Proporciona argumentos difícilmente rebatibles sobre la existencia histórica de Jesús.
7. El consenso actual, 99 %, entre los historiadores independientes (entre los que hay muchos agnósticos y ateos), sobre la existencia de Jesús de Nazaret es válido.
8. La obra de Carrier no ha logrado consenso alguno, sino solo respeto por su tremendo y novedoso esfuerzo por poner en duda la existencia histórica de Jesús. Yo me cuento entre los que la respetan, pero no la comparten.
9. La hipótesis de la existencia real de Jesús de Nazaret, que luego fue ensalzada, mitificada, engrandecida, y en último término divinizada (pero no en el primitivísimo “cristianismo de los orígenes”, súper judío, sino más tarde) explica mucho mejor la existencia del corpus de escritos judíos que es el Nuevo Testamento, que la de Carrier. Es mucho más plausible que la de este último.
10. Debe insistirse en que la discusión científica ha de ser cortés y educada; no soez e insultante. Quien practica y recurre al insulto da la impresión, al menos, de que no confía en sus argumentos. Pierde ante los ojos de la mayoría de sus lectores una buena parte de la fuerza de sus tesis.
Saludos cordiales de Antonio Piñero
http://adaliz-ediciones.com/home/36-el-jesus-que-yo-conozco.html
See Piñero Returns.
Second Post from Piñero’s blog. Rebuttal to Richard Carrier:
¡Esto no se acaba nunca! Sobre la pretendida inexistencia histórica de Jesús de Nazaret (Primera parte)
Respuesta a Richard Carrier (Blog personal) (5-8-2020.- 1134)
Escribe Antonio Piñero
Foto: R. Carrier
Queridos amigos: Desde que en 2007 empecé a escribir postales–al principio y durante mucho tiempo diarias, a veces dos distintas por día—no he respondido nunca a las críticas, y eso que mis publicaciones de Blog (y ahora también de FBook) suman unos 11.000 folios. Sí, no exagero: once mil. Siempre he pensado que tener un coro de críticos en torno a mi trabajo afilaba mi ingenio y me ayudaba. Se aprende mucho de la crítica constructiva. Se sufre con la destructiva.
Por ello agradezco a Carrier su crítica, aunque en parte. Y al reflexionar sobre ella sé que estoy aprendiendo mucho a refinar mis argumentos. En este caso, sobre la existencia de Jesús de Nazaret (¡no de Jesucristo!). Es posible que cuando David Cáceres cuelgue en la Red la entrevista que me hizo a propósito de mi “Aproximación al Jesús histórico”, (Trotta 4ª edición, contando al final la digital en dos años), se puedan aclarar mucho las cosas con mi exposición en esa entrevista.
Pero no me parecen bien las descalificaciones y las descortesías. La ciencia avanza a base de crítica, despiadada si se quiere, honesta, pero no a base de insultos. Estos son los siguientes:
“Soy un historicista loco de atar; mi ignorancia sobre el contexto del cristianismo y sobre las tesis de los mitistas y las publicaciones actuales es absoluta; he abandonado mi responsabilidad moral y profesional por no haber leído la bibliografía actual sobre los mitistas; doy la impresión de asumir que todos los evangelios fueron escritos por gentes de la misma secta o incluso por el mismo autor; no entiendo bien la naturaleza de Jesús según Pablo y no sé qué es lo que los judíos entienden por “Dios”; formulo preguntas retóricas estúpidas; mis argumentos están expresados sin el pertinente cuidado, lo que demuestra mi total ignorancia; no hay documentos judíos en los primeros 400 años que hablen de Jesús; mi lógica no vale; pretendo positivamente defraudar y engañar; al no responder a sus argumentos, mi libro no tiene utilidad alguna (tres veces); considero yo que toda la obra de Carrier es una “mierda” (o más bien en el leguaje que él utiliza “Me cago en su obra”); fallo continuamente al realizar mi trabajo”.
Demasiadas descalificaciones hay en esta reseña carreriana. Espero que tal cúmulo de reprobaciones sirva por sí solo para intuir que algo raro pasa con la crítica de Carrier a mi trabajo. Especialmente me duele que diga que no he leído su libro. Lo tengo, y lo he leído hace años. Hay que tener en cuenta que salió hace ya un tiempo (en 2014). Desgraciadamente está además “fusilado” en Internet. Me temo que será muy pesado para los lectores el que yo responda uno a uno a los argumentos vertidos en la crítica y en el libro. Y supongo que aunque lo haga bien, dado que Carrier descalifica sin más a todos los “historicistas”, no valdrá de nada. Responderé, sin embargo, lo más brevemente que pueda.
1. Mi ignorancia de la literatura actual sobre mitistas y negacionistas (“Abandono de mi responsabilidad moral y profesional por no haber leído la bibliografía actual sobre los mitistas”)
R. Es esta una acusación muy dura y ofensiva. Me temo que a lo largo de la lectura de esta crítica puede sentir alguien –ojalá no sea así– que subliminalmente Carrier esté afirmando que soy un ignorante general en temas del Nuevo Testamento (ciertamente no es esto lo que dice; pero me consta que la gente piensa que sí lo dice en el fondo). Por ello, debo defenderme hablando sobre mi propio trabajo –algo odioso salvo para un “narcisista”… que no lo soy– que elimine un tanto la impresión de la crítica carreriana. Digo como Pablo en 2 Corintos 11,1: “¡Ojalá pudierais soportar un poco mi necedad! ¡Sí que me la soportáis!”.
En 2008 edité un libro comunal sobre la existencia de Jesús, que Carrier no conoce, cuyo título era “¿Existió Jesús realmente? El Jesús de la historia a debate”. Madrid, Editorial Raíces. Creo que en él se da cuenta de toda la literatura pertinente hasta el momento sobre la posible no existencia de Jesús. Obsérvese además que en ese libro escribe gente de talla internacional junto a otros menos conocidos porque el libro está escrito en español, como Bermejo-Rubio, Jaime Alvar, Lautaro Roig-Lanzillota; J. Peláez; G. Puente Ojea; G. del Carro; Víctor Mora Mesén; Pablo de la Cruz Díaz. El libro principal de Carrier, que –según él– recoge y pone al día toda su producción anterior es On the historicity of Jesus. Why we might have reason for doubt, es el que he leído y comento en “Aproximación al Jesús histórico”. Y no he leído más ni de Carrier, ni artículos de fondo –solo reseñas– de sus críticos precisamente porque me pareció que lo único interesante que había aparecido en el mercado es el libro del mismo Carrier!!!
Después de leer a Carrier y siendo la filología del Nuevo Testamento un campo amplísimo, me dije a mí mismo que el tema de la existencia histórica de Jesús era un asunto en el que no se debía emplear más tiempo una vez hecha la pertinente distinción entre Jesús de Nazaret y Jesucristo. Si alguien me pregunta si existió Jesucristo le diré que no, porque es una mezcla de un personaje histórico, aunque para su época insignificante, y un concepto teológico. Pero naturalmente diré que Jesús como personaje poquísimamente importante en el Imperio Romano, sí existió sin duda alguna. Y diré a quien me lo pregunte, que el que conozca bien el judaísmo de la época y haya estudiado a fondo el Nuevo Testamento le resulta casi incomprensible negar la existencia histórica de ese carpintero, porque ello supone que todo el Nuevo Testamento es un mito y hay que explicar como mito absolutamente todo ese corpus si uno es consecuente. ¡Imposible salir de ese pantano intelectual!
Pongo un ejemplo que aclare por qué pienso que no tenía que leer más sobre el tema “la existencia de Jesús”. Supongamos un oncólogo, un médico acostumbrado a leer mucha literatura científica sobre lo suyo, el cáncer, y que está muy dedicado muy especialmente a una parte de su especialidad, por ejemplo, a la detección del cáncer de próstata o de mama. En su caso no puede perder el tiempo en absoluto, cuando de una ojeada cae en la cuenta de que lo que se va escribiendo de su especialidad es solo general (“tempus fugit”). No es que no le interese ya, sino que tiene que concentrarse en lo que le ocupa, el cáncer de próstata y deja lo demás hasta que aparezca algo en la materia general que le haga cambiar su postura en lo particular. Y apenas hay que decir que lo malo se detecta enseguida. Pongo otro caso más específico: si hojeo un libro de historia del cristianismo primitivo, y veo que el autor defiende la idea de que el cristianismo fue inventado, en su fórmula actual naturalmente, por Eusebio de Cesarea y que este escribió el Nuevo Testamento allá por el 320 d. C. … cierro el libro y no leo una página más. Pues eso me pasa con la eterna cantinela de que Jesús no existió. Carrier, en el subtítulo de su libro se guarda muy mucho de decir que Jesús no existió, sino que hay lugar para la duda… Pero el lector sabe que el autor está convencido de que el personaje es un puro mito literario.
Este par de ejemplos explican por qué yo –trabajando intensamente sobre otros temas, como un Comentario al Nuevo Testamento y la edición de la novela clementina de los siglos III y IV (cuya transmisión está en griego, latín y siríaco)– no haya dedicado más tiempo a leer la literatura más o menos científica sobre la no existencia de Jesús de Nazaret. Insisto en que para mí es un tema ya resuelto, precisamente después de haber leído a Carrier y no convencerme en absoluto su perspectiva sobre los libros del Nuevo Testamento (pondré algún ejemplo) y sus argumentos de cálculo de probabilidades sopesando los argumentos para su existencia.
Carrier se centra sobre todo –ciertamente entre otras varias cuestiones– en la idea germinal de su tesis doctoral. Sin duda ahí, en ese tema, sabe más que nadie. Ahora bien, que dé gracias al cielo de que comenté su texto en mi libro porque, insisto, es el único que merece la pena después del examen de la cuestión de la historicidad de Jesús en 2008. Por eso lo incluí en “Aproximación al Jesús histórico”. A otros, no.
Aunque con el paso de los años, uno cae cada vez más en la cuenta con inmensa nitidez de todo lo que ignora, creo que es difícil y muy descortés llamar “ignorante” a quien ha tenido una vida de estudio como la mía. Además una vida de estudio (“Más sabe el Diablo por viejo que por diablo”) pasada por la dura criba de dos oposiciones públicas de las de antaño, durísimas, ante un tribunal de cinco miembros, más los que quisieren estar presente del público académico. Todo con “luz y taquígrafos”. Tuve otros tres contrincantes más en la oposición a cátedra de universidad en 1984 (en la Adjuntía, 1978 me presenté yo solo), con ejercicios prácticos a montones de traducción y comentario de textos en latín, griego, hebreo, arameo, copto, siríaco, eslavo eclesiástico antiguo y etíope clásico (insisto en que las pruebas eran públicas)… demasiada criba par un ignorante de campeonato como dice Carrier que soy. Un opositor que al menos da muestras de haber trabajado como hormiguita, ya que tiene publicadas traducciones de todas esas lenguas antiguas mencionadas (menos de eslavo); además de 16 traducciones científicas de libros extensos –muchos de ellos–, en alemán, inglés, francés e italiano, parece poco probable que sea un ignorante en general. Insisto en que Carrier no lo dice así; se refiere a lo particular, la literatura negacionista, pero indica que es como una tendencia de mi persona.
Item más, un sujeto que ha escrito la “Guía para entender el Nuevo Testamento” (6ª edición, si no me equivoco, en 2020); “La Guía para entender a Pablo. Una interpretación del pensamiento paulino: 2ª edic. de 2019) no puede ser tan ignorante en cosas del cristianismo primitivo, porque ha recibido el espaldarazo de las gentes, público y crítica, a pesar de que tales obras no están compuestas siguiendo el pensamiento clerical dominante.
Sobre otro libro mío, que tras estar hecho compartí con Jesús Peláez –quien hizo una revisión general y añadió tres capítulos– es el que lleva por título “El Nuevo Testamento. Introducción al estudio de los primeros escritos cristianos”. Fue traducido al inglés en 2003, por Deo Publishing, The Netherlands con el título “The Study of the New Testament. A Comprehensive Introduction”; Stanley Porter en el “Journal for the Study of the New Testament” escribió sobre este libro “The volume is an outstanding introduction to the study of the New Testament, and deserves to be widely read. The volume treats most issues of importance in New Testament exegesis in a depth virtually unknown in introductions to exegesis in English. This is the best overall discussion I know”. Otros como Simon Légasse (“Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique”) y G. Marconi (“Gregorianum”) escribieron más o menos lo mismo.
También durante 15 años (cada semestre) escribí en inglés, en la revista “Filología Neotestamentaria”, resúmenes bibliográficos, con brevísimo comentario, que tenía los siguientes apartados: “General Grammar. Tools. Characterisation of Biblical Greek / Textual Criticism / Stylistics / Structures / Literary Studies and Criticism / Phonetics and Accentuation / Morphology / Rhetoric / Semantics / Semiotics / Semitisms / Syntax / Translation / Vocabulary / Mixed philological methods). Esto me obligaba a estar al tanto de todo en el ámbito de la filología del Nuevo Testamento.
Además me he dedicado a la edición en castellano de textos antiguos jamás publicados en español, como 1. “Los apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento” (5 + 1 volúmenes, de los que soy editor general –que debe revisar todo aunque la colección llevaba el nombre de Alejandro Díez Macho, por ser el autor exclusivo del volumen primero–; y autor de la traducción y comentario de bastantes de las obras contenidas en cinco de esos 6 volúmenes. Los textos transmitidos están en las lenguas arriba mencionadas y de las que, como dije, me examiné en público); 2. “Textos coptos de la Biblioteca de Nag Hammadi” (3 volúmenes: hice la misma tarea); 3. “Todos los Evangelios” (1 volumen con traducciones de diversos colaboradores), 4. “Hechos apócrifos de los Apóstoles” (3 volúmenes, por ahora, el cuarto casi terminado, coeditados con G. del Cerro).
Y si todo sale bien, hacia octubre del 2020 empezarán los tratos para la publicación de “Los libros del Nuevo Testamento” (espero que en la Editorial Herder), que es el título del Comentario ya mencionado al Nuevo Testamento, escrito por Josep Montserrat, Gonzalo Fontana y yo. Espero que quien lo lea no podrá decir que no está bien informado y que sus autores no son lectores críticos del Nuevo Testamento y que están carentes de argumentos al partir de la base de que Jesús de Nazaret existió (no Jesucristo).
Así pues, confieso paladinamente que yo no sé tanto como Carrier de su tema, ni mucho menos, pero sí lo suficiente como para leer y juzgar su libro. En la entrevista que me hizo David Cáceres dije que al llegar a un punto (preciso ahora que en torno a la p. 400 en adelante), el libro se caía de mis manos, porque opinaba –y opino– que mucho juicios interpretativos de Carrier no son de recibo. De la p. 400 a la 600 más o menos, y de esto hace casi cuatro años, vi con toda claridad que las percepciones de Carrier sobre los textos del Nuevo Testamento –por mucha bibliografía que citara– no iban en absoluto bien encaminadas en el ámbito de la crítica, por supuesto no confesional, como es la mía.
Un ejemplo: la interpretación de Santiago en Gálatas 1,18-19 “Luego, de allí a tres años, subí a Jerusalén para conocer a Cefas y permanecí quince días en su compañía. Y no vi a ningún otro apóstol, y sí a Santiago, el hermano del Señor”, en la línea de que Santiago era al igual que todos los creyentes “hermano en el mesías” es absolutamente errónea teniendo en la mano todos los datos sobre los hermanos carnales de Jesús en el Nuevo Testamento y en el cristianismo primitivo hasta el siglo IV. Y no digamos Flavio Josefo, Antigüedades de los judíos XVIII 200…, donde describe la muerte de Santiago, hermano carnal, naturalmente, de aquel a quien los creyentes llamaban mesías.
Y a propósito: otro dato, salvo error por mi parte, de la existencia real de Jesús es la noticia de que Domiciano condenó a muerte a hijos de primos del Nazareno (los denominados “Desposyni”) por miedo a que pudieran incitar (¡eran parientes de un sedicioso contra Roma = Jesús!) a una rebelión contra el Imperio. Según Carrier, Domiciano se habría dejado llevar también por el mito.
Retomo la idea anterior: al llegar casi al final del libro me pareció que los análisis de Carrier –a pesar de la admiración hacia sus argumentos de cálculos de posibilidades para mí deslumbrantes– no eran efectivos, ya que no iban al meollo de la comprensión de los Evangelios ni tampoco de Pablo. Opino modestamente que Carrier no se ha metido dentro de la piel de esos judíos del siglo I que los escribieron. Esto quiere decir que no me convencen en absoluto muchos de sus análisis básicos de Pablo y de los Evangelios.
A este propósito igualmente recomiendo a Carrier que lea toda la literatura judía de la época del Segundo Templo y que intente meterse en la piel de los judíos del siglo I, muy fanáticos en los religioso, crédulos hasta el extremo en la intervención divina para expulsar a los extranjeros de la tierra sagrada, Israel, pero que jamás pensaron, ni pudieron pensar, en construir un mesías a partir de un personaje mítico. Piénsese que los primerísimos cristianos del grupo de Jerusalén eran judíos estrictos (Hechos 2,46: “Acudían todos los días al Templo…). Piénsese también que todos los autores del Nuevo Testamento (probablemente “Lucas” era al menos un prosélito) son todos judíos a carta cabal. El Nuevo Testamento es la perla de la literatura judía del siglo I.
Pues bien, todos los judíos fanáticamente religiosos del siglo I que esperaban un mesías partían del supuesto ineludible de que ese mesías era un hombre real, escogido por Dios por sus cualidades religiosas. Tenía que ser un hombre, de algún modo “hijo de David (en el siglo I este concepto se entendía ya laxamente). Ese ser humano, ungido por el espíritu de Dios y con la ayuda de su todopoderoso brazo (las legiones de ángeles), liberaría a Israel del yugo de los romanos. Jamás, nunca jamás, habrían inventado los judíos del siglo I míticamente un mesías que no fuera un ser humano existente en la realidad. Nunca jamás. Y quien piense que un grupo de judíos –los primerísimos cristianos eso eran– hizo eso (es decir, inventarse un mesías mítico, que no partía de la existencia de un ser humano real, que como Gedeón, podía ser insignificante), no entiende el judaísmo del siglo I.
La hipótesis del invento mítico, no real, de un mesías que muere en la cruz, en una crucifixión colectiva en un juicio romano por un motivo político es una suposición absolutamente implausible para quien conozca bien la mentalidad judía del siglo I y se haya metido en la piel de los judíos. De nuevo: recomiendo vivamente a Richard Carrier que se meta de nuevo (ya sé que la conoce bien) en toda la literatura judía de le época del Segundo Templo y que intente pensar como un judío del siglo I.
2 “Historicista loco de atar”. Según Carrier, aquel que crea firmemente en la existencia de Jesús de Nazaret y no dude de ella, aunque critique ferozmente las fuentes principales, los Evangelios, es un historicista. Su obra –sostiene Carrier– está viciada de base al creer firmemente en la existencia histórica de Jesús. Por tanto, desde Martin Seidel, a finales del siglo XVII. siguiendo por Reimarus (finales del XVIII), Baur, Strauß (siglo XIX), Wrede, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Dibelius, Guignebert, Loisy, etc… cientos de estudiosos magníficos han escrito libros que no valen para nada. Prácticamente toda la investigación está viciada. “It is useless”. ¡Qué suerte para mí que Carrier me meta en el mismo saco lleno de historicistas de inmensa talla y sabiduría histórica y filológica! ¡Yo en el mismo saco en donde están Martin Seidel, Reimarus, Wrede, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Dibelius, Guignebert, Loisy! ¡Es un honor insospechado!
En historia antigua no hay verdad alguna absoluta. La verdad va cambiando conforme la posesión de datos sobre una figura o hecho del pasado va aumentando, si se producen nuevos descubrimientos numismáticos, arqueológicos o de textos. Y como siempre hay poquísimos datos, o muchos menos de los que quisiéramos, la investigación sobre historia antigua se hace a base de reconstrucciones, de hipótesis plausibles. Solo plausibles. Evidentemente eso quiere decir que en historia solo hay pruebas –numismáticas, arqueológicas o textuales independientes– de poquísimos personajes entre los miles y miles que existieron. Salvo esos pocos, de los demás, incluido Jesús de Nazaret, no podemos “probar” estrictamente, al modo casi matemático por tener pruebas tangibles, su existencia… pero sí tenemos medios para salir de las dudas razonables por crítica interna de los testimonios.
Cuando muchos investigadores independientes están de acuerdo en que una hipótesis es totalmente plausible y hay consenso… eso es la “verdad”, aunque Carrier dice que el consenso no prueba. No prueba cuando no había crítica histórica bien formada (pongamos desde Aristóteles hasta el siglo XVII). Pero después sí. Hubo consenso en el geocentrismo desde Aristóteles a Galileo… pero ahora es muy distinto. El consenso científico sí vale para la verdad “provisional”. Un adagio latino: “Distingue los y concordarás los derechos” nos avisa de que no es lo mismo el consenso de una época precrítica que el consenso de otro época con más o menos de unos 250 años de ejercicio del espíritu crítico. Afirmar –como hace Carrier– que la crítica filológica, afilada desde hace casi esos tres centenares de años, no es capaz de distinguir el trigo de la paja ? lo mítico del sustrato real que hay debajo) en los escritos judíos que hablan de un mesías… es mucho afirmar. Si se forma un consenso entre investigadores independientes de cualquier tipo de fe, o que han superado las barreras confesionales, hay que tenerlo en cuenta.
Por ejemplo, si apareciera, un ejemplar, y además completo, de la “Fuente Q”, y la investigación se pusiere a estudiarlo, y pasado un tiempo prudencial se llegara a un consenso sobre cómo interpretar la figura de Jesús, es decir, se emitieran hipótesis plausibles teniendo en cuenta el nuevo documento, esa sería la “verdad” por el momento… al menos en historia. Por tanto, insisto, sí me parece que vale el consenso (el actual, después del uso masivo de la crítica desde inicios el siglo XIX) en la aceptación de hipótesis plausibles. La obra de Carrier y sus resultados no han llegado a conseguir ese consenso, ni mucho menos, entre investigadores independientes, no creyentes, no sujetos a iglesia alguna.
A este propósito una observación sobre la repetición por tres veces por parte de Carrier de que mi “libro es inservible”. Así, sin matices. Pero obsérvese: mi tratamiento de la historicidad de Jesús de Nazaret en “Aproximación al Jesús histórico” (que junto con el complemento electrónico son más de 500 páginas, si no me equivoco) va de la pp. 11 a la 41. La crítica de Carrier está en las pp. 21-22 y 41-42, no completas. No llegan a 2 páginas sobre 500. Que el lector haga la cuenta del tanto por ciento que suponen dos páginas frente a más de quinientas.. Carrier declara que toda la obra “no vale nada” (repito: tres veces) juzgando, como digo sobre dos páginas entre más de 500 en total. Este juicio es injusto y pienso que quizás inaudito.
3. “Doy la impresión de que asumo por mi parte que todos los evangelios fueron escritos por gentes de la misma secta o incluso por el mismo autor”
R. ¿Dónde he escrito yo eso? Jamás. Ni lo pienso.
4. “No entiendo bien la naturaleza de Jesús según Pablo y no sé qué es lo que los judíos entienden por “Dios”.
R. En mi opinión y después de muchos años pensando sobre Pablo y editando textos judíos, y estudiando todo el judaísmo de la época del Segundo Templo, creo modestamente que quien no entiende bien a Pablo es él. No estoy de acuerdo con su interpretación de 1 Cor 8,4-7. En absoluto. Ni hay únicamente monolatría en ese texto, sino en verdad un monoteísmo monárquico y subordinacionista como llegaron a pensar prácticamente todos los judíos cultivados hasta mediados del siglo II, sin nunca explicarlo claramente ni hacerse cuestión alguna de esa creencia. Remito a mi capítulo de la “Guía para entender a Pablo”, Aclaración “Sobre la naturaleza del mesías”. Hasta después de la momentánea condenación (prácticamente excomunión) de Rabí Aquiba por sus colegas –por defender la doctrina de que “había dos poderes en el cielo”– hacia el 130 d. C., no había problema alguno entre los judíos en aceptar que existían los llamados dioses, pero que eran en realidad demonios aunque la gente los denominara así. Ni Pablo ni ningún judío cabal pensó que los demonios eran equiparables por ejemplo, a Dioniso o Hera.
5. Formulación de preguntas retóricas estúpidas.
R. Esas preguntas estúpidas fueron ya formuladas exactamente tal cual por Charles Guignebert. Tal cual, insisto, y eso lo digo en alguna parte. Si alguien se atreve a llamar estúpido a Guignebert, allá él. ¡Qué suerte tengo de que me equiparen en la “estupidez” que tuvo igualmente alguno uno de mis maestros!
Mañana concluyo, deo favente.
Saludos cordiales de Antonio Piñero
http://adaliz-ediciones.com/home/36-el-jesus-que-yo-conozco.html
See Piñero Returns.
https://www.facebook.com/antonio.pinero.54
It’s in Spanish, though.
Indeed. Thank you. I’ve also responded to that.