By popular demand! I am teaching again my online course, Introduction to Biblical Scholarship on the New Testament. This is for anyone who wants to be better equipped to debate the Bible or understand the Bible. You will learn in it a lot of useful and surprising facts and skills (more on that below).
So if this is something that interests you, click above to register. And if you know anyone who you think would love to take a brief, affordable course like this, let them know about it!
The only required course text (which students should purchase as soon as possible) is my anthology Hitler Homer Bible Christ (available there in print or kindle). We will use its contents as springboards for learning and discussing all manner of issues related to textual, historical, and literary analysis in New Testament studies. All other course materials (articles and/or video lectures) will be provided for free, including research papers by various scholars we’ll discuss, and excerpts from critical scholarly editions of the Bible in the original Greek (no prior knowledge of Greek will be required), public online tools, and other readings and resources.
Starting October 1 (2015).
So what exactly will be covered?
Official Course Description:
Richard Carrier (Ph.D.), who has years of training from Columbia University in paleography, papyrology, and ancient Greek, will teach students the basics of how to investigate, criticize, and study the New Testament from the perspective of how its text is constructed from manuscripts, as well as how to work from the original Greek without learning anything more than the Greek alphabet and the international terminology of grammar, and how to investigate and make the best use of academic and peer reviewed biblical scholarship.
Students will learn how to: locate words in the Greek text of the Bible, and find their definitions using online resources, and to use that skill to critically examine English translations; check if the manuscripts disagree on what the text says at that point, and what to make of that if they do; talk and reason about disagreements in the manuscripts, as well as the differing valences of words between modern translations and ancient originals; discern what kinds of errors and deliberate alterations are common in the biblical manuscripts; and how to use scholarship on the New Testament critically and informedly.
This course will also be a basic introduction to the contents of the New Testament and its composition, textual history, and assembly. After a month you will have a much better understanding and skill-set for studying, discussing, and arguing over, the content and history of the Christian Bible, as well as learn fascinating and interesting things about ancient history and how we know what we know about it from the perspective of how all ancient writing has been preserved yet distorted in transmission.
As usual, these courses are one month long, and you learn at your own pace and on your own time, and participate as much or as little as you want (many just lurk and read the assigned readings and resulting discussion threads).
Definitely something that I was looking forward to. Thank you for deciding to teach the course again.
Regards,
Luis
I love the hypocrisy of allowing a guy who cheated on his wife and announced himself as “polyamorous” as a cover for wanting to fuck other women while married to proclaim himself Lord Protector of women on the internet, (To the point of being more offended than because a personal attack refers to “women” than the mere fact that it was an attack against another person). Jimmy Swaggart anyone?
Not to mention how Richard “Norman Bates” Carrier brandishes his “doctorate” despite it being in ancient history, not in science, political science, sociology, religion, or any of the subjects he rants about. Meaning he has as much academic credibility on these subjects as a Reddit poster does. (And yes, “Jesus never existed” does meet the standards of a “conspiracy theory” and contradicts historical consensus whether one is religious or not).
Anyone who thinks Ad Hominem is rational, is irrational. So, you lost this argument on your first sentence.
Although, that you use “polyamorous” and “cover” in the same sentence is weird. If I’m doing it openly, what is being covered? You just proved I chose instead to live honestly and openly. That does not look like a criticism of my character. You are actually admitting my good character prevailed in the end.
Your reference to my caring about how women are treated is too fucked in its grammar to grasp what your argument is.
And Jimmy Swaggart is a fallacy of False Analogy. Swaggart’s scandal was his hypocrisy in denouncing prostitution while hiring prostitutes. But I have always been pro sex work. Though I haven’t needed to hire prostitutes (they’re too expensive anyway), I see no shame in doing so, provided you treat them decently, and ensure they are not under coercion. But even apart from that, also unlike Swaggart, I live openly and honestly with my consensual sexuality, and don’t condemn anyone who does likewise.
I don’t even get the Norman Bates analog. Bates was not really his mother. I do really have a Ph.D. in ancient history. Bates was a fictional murderer. I’m a real non-murderer.
And my Ph.D. is in intellectual history, including science, politics, society, philosophy, and religion, with specific course work, defense work, or dissertation work in all of the above, and in many cases I’ve published on them under peer review. I also have extensive graduate training in classical languages, historical methodologies, the cultural context of the New Testament, and Biblical textual analysis. Precisely the things I will be teaching next month.
Meanwhile, a consensus has no value when it is founded on false facts and refuted methodologies. And my mythicist thesis involves nor requires any conspiracy theory. And in fact it passed formal academic peer review and was published by a major university press.
Do you have any peer reviewed work on the subject?
Or any subject?
If you believe one must have a Ph.D. in a subject to evaluate it, you evidently are by your own standards not qualified to evaluate my work or commentary in any of the subjects you mention.
So, essentially, you just shot your own foot off.
This is so face-palmingly embarrassing I’m left to wonder…
Let me guess. You are not even old enough yet to vote?
I expect to be crazy busy at work during much of October, so I may not be able to keep up. Will the course materials and discussions remain after the end of the month so I could study at my own pace? If so, how long will they remain?
I already own HHBC, so that’s not a problem.
Yes. The forums close to new postings, but remain readable, along with all course materials, for one month (so you’d have two monthsr to lurk or review everything that goes on).
And indeed, you could just manually save everything before that time ends, too, and thus have it ever after. That only becomes vexing with the forum content, although it’s doable.
I am not a scholar and just a simple atheist. Will it be hard for the normal Joe to understand this course?
Maybe. It’s more a question of how deep you want to go into mastering certain things. You can probably learn everything. But you’d have to be motivated, and some of it might not be what interests you, while others are. And you don’t have to learn everything. You can master as much or as little as you want. Or even just lurk to see what basic intro knowledge consists of, even if you don’t need that knowledge yourself, the meta-knowledge is useful. Since then you’ll know when Christians are trying to snow you and don’t really know even the basics.
This may be an entry level question, but I have been wondering lately about Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection “ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:
“3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).”
What does “according to Scripures” mean? Is Paul saying he experienced a vague savior experience of the crucified Christ and subsequently learned the details by reading scripture? Is Paul saying Christ’s death fulfilled scriptures?
We are all familiar with allusions to the Hebrew scriptures in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ death, but maybe Paul has the same thing in mind even though he doesn’t elaborate. Is this what “according to scripture” means in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5? If Paul interpreted Jesus death in accordance with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Wisdom of Solomon, this would certainly be “according to scriptures.” But why would Paul say Christ was buried and that he was raised in three days “according to scripture?” Maybe Paul had in mind the story of Jonah. For Matthew it is a symbolic prophecy represented by the three days and three nights that Jonah spent in the stomach of a great fish (Jonah 1:17). Jesus said the only “sign” people would be given would be “the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then proceeded to explain what He was talking about: “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:38-40). Other scripture possibilities could be from Daniel (the Son of Man figure representing the martyrs and the dying Messiah there) and from the account of Abraham’s “sacrifice” of Isaac (Levenson). Hosea 6:2 speaks of being raised up on the third day, of course.
What was Paul talking about? If Paul is alluding to the Old Testament in his conceptualization of the death and resurrection of Christ, can historical content be derived from it?
I’m wondering if Doherty/you may have a point about a celestial death of Christ as a vague savior myth. If Paul says Christ was killed, buried and raised “according to scripture,” maybe Paul was looking to the Hebrew scriptures to flesh out the vague savior myth of a crucified celestial Christ that he had been hallucinating about (as you would say).
Any thoughts?
Scholars have explored many theories in the literature of what scriptures are meant. A big problem is that Paul is using scriptures some of which don’t even exist anymore, or read differently than our versions do, or survive it aren’t I our bibles today. I discuss this in OHJ. Elements 6-9 for example in Chapter 4.
As to what “according to the scriptures” means, it can mean both, although the grammatical form most commonly means source, as in “as learned from,” but it can also sometimes be used time an “in accordance with” as in fulfilled. So that’s inconclusive by itself.
See my analysis in Chapter 11 of OHJ.
The RSV cites Psalm 16:10 as Paul’s “Scriptures” for 1 Cor 15:4:
“For thou doest not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” It references Acts 2:31:”[David] foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.”
Usually what we say is that if a section of text serves a theological purpose (such as Old Testament scripture fulfillment), then there is no reason to think it goes back to The Historical Jesus. If Paul is illuminating Jesus death, burial, and resurrection by saying he understands them “according to scripture,” then there is no reason to think that any of it goes back to the historical Jesus.
That reference in the RSV is speculation. There are many more proposals in the literature, and I point out even more problems that remarks like these ignore (as I noted in my comment above, e.g. the fact that there were different scriptures then, which don’t exist now).
But yes, if Paul is saying that he learned of this data from scripture, as he does appear to be saying, then there was no historical Jesus. But if he meant in fulfillment of, as historicists interpret, then the opposite could be the case. And a fortiori, it’s 50/50, so this simply becomes non-evidence for either view.
We need to look at other evidence to know what the most likely thing Paul meant here was.
I’M A BIT PERPLEXED BY ALL THIS TINFOIL HAT.
Sorry for that.
“The Hebrew scriptures were never available to pagan nations” — UM, YEAH THEY WERE.
Before I respond, tell me, what pagan nation had the Mosaic Law during the history of ancient Israel?
Let me clarify my position: Ancient Israel throughout its history until 70 C.E. lived under the Mosaic Law.
During that time, Israel lived by that law because it was given to them exclusively.
Confirmation:
A covenant existed between Israel and their God, Jehovah:
“. . .So Moses went and summoned the elders of the people and declared to them all these words that Jehovah had commanded him. After that all the people answered unanimously: “All that Jehovah has spoken, we are willing to do.” Moses immediately took the people’s response to Jehovah.” (Exodus 19:7, 8)
“. . .I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. So you must keep all my statutes and all my judicial decisions, and you must follow them. I am Jehovah.’”” (Leviticus 19:36, 37)
He brought no other nation out of Egypt.
He gave them his law – exclusively:
“. . .He declares his word to Jacob, His regulations and judgments TO ISRAEL. He has not done so with any other nation; They know nothing about his judgments.. . .” (Psalm 147:19, 20)
“Nor were they interested in and expected to live by its directives” —
EXCEPT, UM, ALL THE ONES WHO DID.
Did they? Umm
1. WHICH pagan nation was interested in living by the laws of the monotheistic nation of Israel?
2. WHO expected pagan nations to live by the Mosaic law?
“God provides principles related to our dealings with fellow humans, such as the Golden Rule” — EXCEPT, THAT IT DIDN’T COME FROM GOD.
Bible says it did!
Here:
“. . .“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.” (Matthew 7:12)
“Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.” (Romans 13:10)
“For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”” (Galatians 5:14)
““‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah.” (Leviticus 19:18)
“The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:39)
“Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. For the law code, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”” (Romans 13:8, 9)
“If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well.” (James 2:8)
If you know of another source I’d like to hear it.
“Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away” — THIS IS A TAUTOLOGY.
Then let’s just stop at outdated – OK? It still deserves a response.
“Yet, the Bible or Bible-based publications may not provide a definite rule, and even if we are given one, it might not be a blanket guide for all times and under all circumstances.” —
A definite rule might not be a blanket guide for all times and under all circumstances. Why is that a problem?
THERE ARE NO TIMES OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SLAVERY IS GOOD. THEREFORE THE BIBLE IS EVIL.
The bible is not the straightedge for slavery.
It is ALWAYS good for the slave owners, so that statement is not true.
“Let me say in advance, that biblical principles are not duplicated anywhere else in literature” — YES THEY ARE.
Then they, whatever you’re referring to, are not biblical.
Could you give us an example?
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT IS ETHICALLY TRUE, IS FOUND IN LITERATURE OUTSIDE THE BIBLE, EITHER PRECEDING IT OR UNINFLUENCED BY IT.
You might think so, but it is best to be cautious before making statements that could be upended. That statement is not true, Sir, We can test it out by an example from you.
“…their infallibility can be verified…Those who apply biblical principles in their lives cannot fail to live meaningful lives.” — FALLACY OF DENYING THE ANTECEDENT.
Is that some kind of sin?
There is a way to find out without resorting to the escape route of quoting fallacies.
… ALSO, UM, BASED ON WHAT STUDY?
Has there been a “study” for everything?
Um, who wrote the “Book of Fallacies?” Am I allowed to question him?
If a man can detect every fallacy in writing and speech, does that make him exceptionally wise? If he claims that your speech and argument is flawed, what is he proposing in return? Then he can win every argument? Does he then become some kind of god?
“Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.” (Galatians 6:7) This is a truism – based on what study?
“By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit.” —
SINCE ALL PEOPLE PRODUCE BOTH, YOUR PRINCIPLE IS EMPIRICALLY REFUTED. THEREFORE, NOT INFALLIBLE.
Let’s see:
Jesus is saying that one can tell who the good people are by the things they do and vice versa. Something wrong with that? If a good man does something bad, he is no longer a good man.
“. . .“And you, son of man, tell the sons of your people, ‘The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he revolts; nor will the wickedness of the wicked man make him stumble when he turns away from his wickedness; nor will anyone righteous be able to keep living because of his righteousness in the day that he sins. When I say to the righteous one: “You will surely keep living,” and he trusts in his own righteousness and does what is wrong, none of his righteous acts will be remembered, but he will die for the wrong that he has done.” (Ezekiel 33:12, 13)
How about the trees? No tree produces both.
The principle is certifiably infallible!
SINCE NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL JESUS, I’LL JUST YAWN NOW.
I said nothing about the historical Jesus.
Okay, I believe you are not well.
And you don’t know what you are talking about. Nor did you follow any of the links I provided.
I’m not continuing this discussion. Do not post here again.
You realize the bait and switch, right, Wilson? First you were talking about “pagans” then in your response you “clarify” that you are talking about entire pagan nations. Richard responded to the former.
Richard,
Why? You are not a Bible scholar and you are not an world class expert on the New Testament. Would it not be best left to people like Bob Price to teach any courses on the Bible? Maybe it is time that you humbled yourself and got an actual job somewhere at a community college teaching courses in ancient history. I am serious.
I am extensively trained at the graduate level in the skills I’ll be teaching in this course. I have a Ph.D. in a covering field. Studied under leading paleographers and papyrologists. I’m even published in the subject in peer reviewed journals and books. So, nice try, but you can’t even get the truth right.
Meanwhile, I like my current job. Better hours. My boss is really flexible. And more people can access the education I’m offering than community college, both in time and money. Indeed, there is no course anywhere at the community level that will give an average person the skills this course will teach.
So, anyone who wants those skills or to improve at them, will see the value in this service, and become a consumer of it.
Hello free market.
It’s laughable how people of faith and religion claim to practice and believe in a life of humility while they are usually the first ones whom speak out against a differing opinion that doesn’t fit their religious beliefs. Questioning the contents of the Bible is not limited to Atheists, it’s more common for believers to answer the questions of the Bible as it relates to their own agenda. A decent way of describing this phenomenon is by using the term cherry picking.
I read all the links you supplied.
Check this out:
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,58355.0.html
A Christian apologist said to me that in 1 CE the suffix -ianus is used by Romans ONLY to refer the followers of a human (political or military) leader. Therefore, as his logic goes, “Christiani” (when referred to believers of Jesus) is by definition (in virtue of suffix -iani) a historicist term (who used it very probably thought virtually that a historical Jesus existed). Do you confirm this fact?
“Chrestiani” are the followers of the human “impulsore Chresto”, accordingly. But were the “afflicti Christiani” of Suetonius the followers of a human Jesus Christ, too? And if Pliny the Younger used the term “Christiani”, only because he did so then he was historicist? What do you think about this argument applied on Suetonius and Pliny respectively? Very thanks.
That’s hilarious. The suffix -ianus (in Latin and Greek) means any “of” designation, hence Macedonianus, “of Macedonia,” thus Christianus, “of Christ.” It does not matter what the proper noun is (place, person, god). If you are from or follow them, the suffix applies. So gods and angels count.
It’s fun to speculate.
When Paul says that Christ died for “our sins” in accordance with the scripture, he may be speaking as a Jew, on behalf of Israel: Christ died for the sins of God’s people. He refers in the same way to “our fathers” all being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1 Cor. 10:1). If, as seems likely, Paul has in mind the suffering of Isaiah’s servant, who “bears our sins”, who was given over “because of their sins” (Is. 53:4, 6, 11, 12 LXX), etc., then “according to the scriptures” means that this was a death for Israel. Similarly, Jesus’ resurrection “on the third day according to the scriptures” recalls the narrative of Israel’s punishment and restoration in Hosea 6:1-2: “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.”
It is interesting that Paul says Jesus died, was buried, and was raised “ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.” This may mean Paul thought Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection “fulfilled scripture,” or else that Paul “discovered these things in scripture,” but in either case it means Historicists can’t use Paul as evidence for the death, burial, and resurrection of the historical Jesus because if a section of text serves a theological purpose (scripture fulfillment or scripture derivation, etc.), it is excluded from being used as information about the historical Jesus. This is standard biblical hermeneutics. And without Paul, historicists have a major problem, because there is no reason to think any pericope in the gospels is doing anything but serving theological purposes.