Comments on: Biblical Archaeology Review = Crappy Christian Propaganda Mag

By: Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier — Mon, 04 May 2015 02:26:06 +0000

(1) “Tacitus so despised Christians that he would have instinctively distrusted practically anything they said.” This is not how Tacitus operated. What he reports he considers so embarrassing, he wouldn’t need to fact-check it. It is precisely because he finds this story so ridiculous yet the Christians were admitting to it (if they were his source) that he would report it just as they relayed it. Meanwhile, there is no evidence Tacitus did any fact checking of it, or that he even could have done so, much less would have wasted the countless hours needed to do so, to verify an embarrassing story that was already being conceded as true by the Christians themselves.

(2) I mention and already rebut your attempt to invent as a fact that Tacitus used other sources. I explained why there is no evidence for that nor any reason to believe it likely or even possible. Whereas I referenced the considerable evidence supporting Pliny as his source, which means, Christians Pliny interrogated—and didn’t fact check. You haven’t provided any counter to any of this. You just repeated the same claims my argument refuted.

(3) Claiming you were writing a popular article does not excuse you from ignoring and failing to cite or include in your article the results of the most recent scholarship. You had plenty of space for a lot of citations and even lengthy comments in notes. Yet you didn’t have space to mention the latest research and keep the text of your article up to date with it? There is no excuse for that. Popular articles should get the audience up to date on the latest research. Not decades old research that has been superseded or even overthrown since.

(4) You “find other works that deny the existence of Jesus to be more important” — Like what? Name a single book written by an expert in ancient history under peer review at an academic press that presents a case that Jesus didn’t exist.

By: Elsie Hughes

Elsie Hughes — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:16:14 +0000

I am reading your book “Not the Impossible Faith”. I became interested in your writings and I will probably buy more of your books. I have just began reading in your book and you were talking about Isaiah around Chapters 52-53. I have read a couple of books by Jewish Scholars and they referred to the chapters as “Song of the Servant.” In Isaiah 49:3 it says, “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” I read that those chapters were referring to Israel. Isaiah is poetry, so to me, it is difficult to read. I didn’t know from what I have read, if you think it is referring to Jesus. I am a secular humanist and I read a lot of science books on the Universe. I was once a Christian and after reading the Bible and it’s history and most of Bart Ehrman’s books, I am no longer a believer. I am new to your blog and trying to find my way around. If you have an answer for me, my email is “marie_hghs@yahoo.com. Thank you, Marie Hughes

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:58:37 +0000

Might be a good place to ask this: Dr. Carrier, awhile ago I had asked if you had responded to David Marshal’s Amazon review of your book and you said you had done so in the comments there, but I wasn’t able to find them.

I even resorted to emailing Marshall too, and he hadn’t seen your comments either, speculating that maybe you wrote the reply but forgot to post it. Could this have been the case? I’m eager to read your response 🙂

By: Emmanuel Goldstein

Emmanuel Goldstein — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 09:22:32 +0000

Dick, you do realized you are not a respected academic historian, don’t you?

I mean, did you every get a job offer from anyone? Even a Community College?

I admit I find that hard to believe. Heck, Harvard should be begging a mind like yours to join the faculty!

Damn I’m funny! Bahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

By: Lawrence Mykytiuk

Lawrence Mykytiuk — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 05:07:42 +0000

Dr. Carrier, I have posted two criticisms of your blog post above on the BAR web site at
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ ,
Reply 26 to Billy (no. 25), to which Billy replied in no. 27.
L. Mykytiuk

By: Luke

Luke — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 03:50:59 +0000

Fyi, it looks like Holding responded, at least indirectly, to some of your arguments in his e-book, The Best Evidence for Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Jesus-J-Holding-ebook/dp/B00OJG28XI/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1425786157&sr=8-3&keywords=J.+P.+Holding

By: Marcel de Groot / Amsterdam / The Netherlands

Marcel de Groot / Amsterdam / The Netherlands — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 23:08:16 +0000

Dear Dr. Carrier,

I’m not a very scientific trained person, but very interested in life’s big questions. My actual situation permits me to watch a lot of documentaries (mostly via You-Tube) to try to “solve” some things for me. That is to say, the more you see, the more questions one gets. So be it!

I realize that you get a lot of mail and the change of an answer from you is small. I fully understand that. The only thing I can hope for, is that the above link is also interesting to you.

Your debates are very inspiring. I particularly like your approach, with humor, patience etc.

Hoping I’ll get a response!

Sincerely,
Marcel de Groot (55 years with a roman-catholic background => besides a burden also a blessing to better understand art e.g.)
Amsterdam

By: pueblo pueblo

pueblo pueblo — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:28:25 +0000

I have scholarly question. I’m a big fan of Lucian’s satirical writings and his lampooning of the cheats and charlatans active in the Roman empire during the 2nd century. In a number of commentaries about his writings, I’ve read that the Celsus, who was Lucian’s friend, was probably not the same character who wrote his own scathing critique of Christianity that Origen decades later attempted to answer. One argument usually made is that the Celsus who angered Origen was not an Epicurean as Lucian’s friend clearly was. Since I’m no classicist or scholar with access to competent commentary I just accepted those claims. What is/are your source(s) and argument(s) for citing Celsus the enemy of the Jesus cult and Lucian’s friend mentioned in his satire of Peregrinus as the same dude? It’s surprising (and nice) news to me that current scholarship settled this question differently from the commentaries that I’ve read in anthologies of Lucian writings. Christians also don’t tend to pay much attention to the low opinion Lucian held for their philosophy and leaders like Peregrinus.

By: J.R

J.R — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:26:29 +0000

Excellent piece! Thank you for writing this up! Christian apologists are not known for their breadth and understanding of the historical record.

Always enjoy reading your blog!

By: Richard Orwell

Richard Orwell — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:45:59 +0000

Not sure if you’re aware of this paper by Dr Paul Hopper

https://www.academia.edu/9494231/A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus

“It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus.”

“The Testimonium itself is, when compared to the surrounding episodes, unusually short. Its very brevity is a suspicious feature, one that has led some defenders of its authenticity to suggest that while parts of the text are genuinely Josephan, the text has been tampered with by later Christians wanting to erase scandalous content.… In fact, however, the syntax of the Testimonium does not display the kinds of discontinuities we might expect to find if substantial changes such as major deletions or insertions had been made.”

“There is, then, reason to suspect that the Jesus episode is a later insertion, dating from more than two hundred years after Josephus’s death, and probably absent from most manuscripts of the Jewish Antiquities until even later.”