I am skeptical of his argument on that point but I have no strong opinion, since I haven’t deep-dived it. All I know is that, unlike his other claims which have widespread support from dozens of scholars, this one so far as I know hasn’t convinced anyone.

My skepticism stems from the fact that even if we grant every factual premise, his argument suffers several principle defects of logic: it starts from an implausible premise of Mark accurately recording anything Jesus actually said or did; it ignores how Matthew reacted to what Mark said; and it ignores all the evidence that Mark is reifying Paul; and it assumes (again implausibly) that Mark is translating Hebrew rather than using the Greek Septuagint as his base text for explaining what he wants to Gentiles (not Jews).

And in the Septuagint, the exact same word is used for non-kosher food (e.g. Lev. 11:7, pigs are “unclean”, the exact same word as “clean” but with the negative a- prefix). So when Mark says all foods (literally all food: panta ta brômata) are now “clean,” his audience (Greek, mostly Gentile, yet possibly even fans of the LXX text) can only understand him to mean what he says: all foods declared unclean (like pigs) are now declared clean. At a glance I don’t really see any good case from Boyarin that we should read it differently. Again, I haven’t deep dived this to have a conclusive opinion, but this is how it looks at this stage of analysis.

And I think this would be an example of the folly of historicity as a paradigm: it leads scholars to entirely the wrong pathways of interpreting the texts, like Boyarin here. Maybe if Jesus existed, and said anything remotely like this, and it was preserved reliably to Mark, and being translated from the Hebrew by Mark, and Mark was writing for a Jewish audience, maybe then Boyarin would have a point. But none of those things are true. So he doesn’t.

When we look at the text as written in Greek, by someone writing for Greeks, who at best are familiar with Jewish mythology through the LXX but are not themselves Jews, “all foods are clean” can only have one meaning. Trying to advance a convoluted multi-layer exegesis to get “all” to not mean “all” is generally bad method; but typical of historicist method.

His argument seems pretty strong.

I was surprised because I’ve never heard that suggestion before. Every scholar I can remember remarking on that passage seems to take it as clearly meaning that Jesus is saying that all foods are permitted and you don’t need to keep Kosher.

Interested in your thoughts

As I noted in the conclusion above, I will not spend time reading Simone’s multi-thousand-word word-walls anymore. Her comments on my blog have already been atrociously irrelevant and useless, thus confirming my judgment.

So, if you want to know my thoughts, please quote any statement in her new article that:

(1) …actually pertains to something I have actually said.
(2) …is not already refuted in this series here or the original text of OHJ.
(3) …and still in your judgment requires any reply.

That, and only that, will justify my spending any more time on this. I will then reward your labor with mine.

But if you understandably decide you have better things to do with your time, then I will have better things to do with mine.

Agreed. And it’s an example of why that kind of pedantry actually lets down its own supposed good goals. Pedagogically, Simone could have jumped off what you wrote, saying, “Actually, Carrier is if anything understating the diversity of Jewish thought”, and then discussed her points. The need to correct others actually makes it less likely they will listen, whether one is right or not, especially when one’s correction is trivial or misleading in context. It’s sealioniing at best.

https://simonereadstexts.substack.com/p/the-last-word-on-richard-carrier

This is the very error I am calling out. I have never said “late sources are useless.” I have always argued in each individual case why they are useless. Indeed, I have elaborated in some detail on that.

For example, Tacitus is not useless because he wrote almost a hundred years after the fact. He is useless because he wrote after the dissemination of the Gospels, and gives no information indicating he had any other source than the Gospels (or informants reliant on them); therefore his information is second-hand to sources we already have and thus cannot corroborate them.

I explain this, which is a standard rule in history as a field, in Ch. 7 of OHJ. This is why apologists keep trying to tack the phrase “independent source” onto Tacitus without having established that being the case. The error they are making is not in trusting a late source. The error they are making is falsely claiming the existence of an independent source.

The same goes for even later sources, e.g. Celsus literally identifies no other sources than the Gospels we already have. So he is of no use in corroborating them; and, catastrophically, so does even Eusebius, the one guy who should and would have cited other sources if he had them.

Another example is why I do not argue that the Talmudic chronology for Jesus is early:

It might be. But we have no specific evidence that it is. So I cannot argue from that late source that its content is early. But if I did have evidence to cite, then I could. This is why I am not following any blanket rule “late sources are useless,” but acknowledging that one always needs an argument (evidence) for a late source attesting earlier information before you can claim it—and therefore, if you want to contradict such an argument, you need countermanding arguments and evidence, not a blanket rule.

She has since confirmed her gender here. But I’ll correct that to keep the article in a consistent neutral style.

Thanks for the typo catch. Fixed.

I think Simone is pre-assuming what is in a text (in my case, pre-assuming what I will say in my book), then reading the text against the grain of its actual wording and context to get it to fit that preconception, and then getting bewildered when they are told they didn’t actually read the text as written and are projecting claims into the text that aren’t there.

This is of course backwards epistemology. One should not pre-assume things, but read with charity and steel-man the text you intend to critique. This would result in far less pedantry and much more utility.

For example, consider the nuances of the evolutionary links between Phariseeism and later Rabbinical thought: one could acknowledge what I am saying accommodates all that (because it literally does), and recognize that it even strengthens the point I am actually making (as it demonstrates even less rigidity and even more innovativeness, than some scholars—usually Christian apologists—have claimed for Judaism, which is the entire purpose of my Element 5 to dispel), and then build-out a discussion of that with even more evidence proving my point.

Instead, Simone mistakes me for denying this, and burns tons of words on the futile task of “correcting” something that didn’t need correcting, rather than building on the point already (actually) made so as to reinforce it.

This is what David Mitchell does with his sources, and thus why I find him so useful to cite. Which might be why Simone throws such shade at him. She doesn’t want anyone (even herself) to recognize that he’s better at this than she is.

“Simone is inexplicably perplexed why later sources, when combined with other sources and internal evidence, can be used to support conclusions about earlier periods. It is a basic principle of historical method that the first extant reference to a thing will not usually be its first existence. Almost all ancient history relies on this principle. For example, our most reliable source for Alexander the Great is the historian Arrian, who wrote five hundred years after the fact (see my discussion of this point in Historicity, p. 22). And we do not simply rely on Arrian. We triangulate conclusions using Arrian and earlier sources and other evidence. Simone seems to be confusing the fact that one cannot assume a later attestation evinces earlier facts with the fact that we nevertheless can (and routinely do) use later attestations as part of a broader argument for a conclusion about earlier facts. Thus one has to address the argument, not simply say “the source is late, therefore irrelevant.” That’s incompetent.”

Do you suppose that others who have repeatedly offered up later sources as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, only to have you quickly dismiss them as being too late (therefore not useful), might read that paragraph and cry foul?

You did explain that we triangulate evidence using earlier sources. I’ve just don’t recall you ever indicating that later sources could (potentially) be of any use as evidence concerning the historicity of Jesus, So this kind of surprised me.

Also, there is a break in form in the paragraph right above the “Okay. Then What about the Sukkah?” section. Simone is referred to as “she”.