A podcast interview of Raphael Lataster and myself has just gone up in advance of the Bass-Carrier debate happening this weekend, also sponsored by Mythicist Milwaukee, the same organization as runs the podcast in question.
The episode is “The Jesus Myth Theory w/ Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster” (also available on iTunes). The official description:
Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster join us for a discussion that covers the arguments for and against the mythicist position. We touch on many topics that relate to why we believe Jesus is purely a myth and was not an historical figure. If you are interested in the information that surrounds the Jesus myth theory, make sure to listen to this interview!
We discuss Lataster’s book Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate among Atheists, which analytically compares the cases for historicity made in the only two books so far defending it (by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey), with my case to the contrary in On the Historicity of Jesus (which appears to be the only one of the three that was actually peer reviewed and published by a university-based biblical studies academic press, which is ironic considering how much Ehrman and Casey winge about mythicism not being peer reviewed). I discussed the reception of Lataster’s book before. And a similar question comes up in the interview as came up there: why there is so much resistance to the theory that Christianity really began with belief in a heavenly demigod who was mystically revealed, and not an earthly Rabbi worshipped after his death.
Hi Dr. Carrier. I was wondering if you’re planning on reviewing what appears to be the latest book defending Jesus’ historicity, “Man, Myth, Messiah: Answering History’s Greatest Question,” by Rice Broocks. Broocks is the same guy who wrote “God’s Not Dead,” the book that was loosely the basis for that awful propaganda film of the same name. That film’s getting a sequel, and this new book is supposed to sorta be the companion guide for it.
I ordered it myself but haven’t gotten it yet, but I looked through the preview on Amazon and found something pretty odd. I did a word search to see if he was going to address your book (since being the best defense to date he probably should), and it looks like he addresses your book a whopping one time in the entire thing. He quotes you as saying “The authors of the Gospels clearly had no interest in any actual historical data.” Which he then rebuts by saying it’s “scandalous” to say such a thing, and then says “No competent historian believes… that the New Testament is completely devoid of any actual historical content.” (p. 131) The odd thing about this (other than the fact I assume he’s quoting you out of context) is the fact that when you go to the reference he provides for your quote, it just says “Richard Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014)” and there’s no page number given. This looks like either an editing mistake, or possibly that he’s not directly reading your material.
Anyway, I’m sure you’ve got a schedule to keep to if you don’t have time for this, but I figured since this looks like the latest defense of historicity, and since it technically addresses your book, maybe worth a review? If his last book is anything to go by (and trust me, it’s awful) I can’t imagine this book being any better. As far as I can tell this looks like it may just be an Ehrman/Casey clone, but who knows.
It sounds unworth the expense and bother.
However, I’ll make a deal with you! If you can do some of the legwork for me, I’ll blog about the one thing he says about me.
You can communicate with me by email from now on regarding this, but here’s the proposal:
When you get the book…
(1) Make sure that’s the only thing he says about me (I’m sure he says lots of other things that I address, but without specifically identifying me, but I mean occasions where he actually identifies me).
(2) Send me a complete quote (and any context you think I need to treat his statement fairly), including the complete footnote or endnote (or more if applicable).
(3) Give me a brief outline of his whole book’s arguments as pertains to the issue he references me on (e.g. what evidences or examples he gives to prove the Gospels are histories and not myths).
If I need more after that I’ll let you know. But you’ll be my liaison for the book. I’ll put a caveat on my resulting blog that I’m only addressing the one part and not the whole book. But I’ll write an article on that one part (or more, if he names me elsewhere).
(Already it sounds like he conflates “the Gospels” with “the entire New Testament,” but I want to make sure of that before I make fun of him for it. Also, whether he addresses any of my arguments for the Gospels being not histories, or if he just ignores everything I say in defense of the proposition and cherry picks what he thinks is evidence of them being histories, or name dropping fundamentalists or quote mining other scholars, etc.)
Yeah, I’m not sensing much engagement with Dr Carrier’s actual position here. Carrier is talking about being uninterested in historical data, in other words, being unconcerned with a methodology that back checks what you’re writing against not just facts, but data, which I’ll define as “information collected systematically according to pre-determined procedures, with identifiable guiding principles anyone can examine used to determine the inclusion or exclusion of edge cases as well as during the creation of the procedures themselves.”
Sure those are my words, not the OED’s, but that’s the gist of the distinction between “data” and “shit I happen to know”.
Of course there are bound to be true things in the NT. But were these just things that the authors believed that they knew, some of which happened to be true? Or were the authors concerned with checking what they wrote about history with a consistent set of historical data?
Carrier is, IIUC, arguing that they are doing the former.
Alrighty. I’ll get back to you if it seems worth the effort. You’re probably right that’s it’s not worth the time. It really doesn’t look like it’s going to be anything more than just standard Christian apologetics.
The New Testament records that Jesus was accused of being a glutton, a drunk, and consorting with undesirables: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Matthew 11:19). It would seem curious that the author of the Gospel of Matthew would preserve these attacks on Jesus if there weren’t some truth to them. It seems to add to the probability of Jesus being a glutton and a drunk that other New Testament sources confirm Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners.
A few more thoughts:
Matthew 11:19 says ″The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”
The fact that Jesus’ critics said they saw Jesus going around getting drunk, being a glutton, and consorting with cheats and sinners, while it doesn’t prove Jesus was doing these things, it does imply Jesus’ opponents thought that Jesus was not a heavenly mythical deity, but rather a person walking around on earth and doing stuff.
No, it’s the same thing all myths do when they take celestial deities and make them into men walking around on earth and doing stuff. They all do stuff like this. It has a symbolic function. The message (the parable) is the point. Not the literal meaning.
These were attacks leveled at missionaries. So they give them stories to tell about how even the Son of God was likewise slandered.
Note the stories make sure to make clear that the people who say those things are the fools and don’t understand why the mission is taken to people who aren’t already superficially pure.
Hello Dr Carrier
Same token as the first commenter: hav you glanced at Dale C. Allison’s writings at all ?
– Eg ‘The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus’ or his calling the Paul’s letters as the ‘fifth Gospel’ in an articl – alluding or alleging to christ in history. [ p’rhaps wurth having a debate with him…].
Ta
A
I discuss Allison in both Proving History and On the Historicity. But his primary scholarship. That book is a secondary popular market work (aimed at theology for believers, not history for historians). I can’t recall it mentioning mythicism or making a case for historicity; it just presumes historicity and asks what we are to do with the fact that no certain history can be extracted from the Gospels. And his result is vague, and ultimately theological (ironically), rather than what historians would recognize as historical. There isn’t anything to answer in that book. I’m doing history, not theology.
Dear Dr Carrier:
I am a follower of your work from Spain. I am totally convinced by your ideas on Jesus being a demigod with no historical base. However, there is an issue I have not seen addressed: If he is a pure fictional character, why did Gospel writers place his story in Nazareth and Galilee? Wouldn’t it had being more convenient -in order to convince of his Davidic bloodline-, to have him born in Bethelem and preaching mainly in Judea? What is the point of making him a “galilean”, (a second class jew), if it adds nothing to the character -apart from making all his followers galileans, in contradiction with the fact of Cephas, John and James being historically located in Jerusalem-?
It even becomes sort of an issue in later gospels:
John 7:52Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
52 They answered and said to him, `Art thou also out of Galilee? search and see, that a prophet out of Galilee hath not risen;’
I would very much appreciate a brief comment on this matter. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Miguel
Because Scripture said the gospel would come from Galilee and the chosen one would be a Nazorian. The former is common knowledge (Isaiah 9). The latter is explicitly stated by Matthew (2:22-23). It happens not to mean from Nazareth. Matthew couldn’t find a town that matched the word exactly, so he chose the one that sounded close enough. I discuss this in both Proving History and On the Historicity (Nazareth and/or Nazorian are in the index of each).
The Gospels go out of their way to make their opponents look like fools who don’t know the Scriptures. It is not likely what real Jews actually argued.
On the other hand, another possibly fruitful position could be to argue with Dr. Barrie Wilson (author of “How Jesus Became Christian,” http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Became-Christian-Barrie-Wilson/dp/0312361890/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458485890&sr=1-1&keywords=how+jesus+became+Christian ) that the mythical Christ of Paul was one interpretation of Jesus in the ancient world, which was at odds with the portrayal of the human Christ in the later gospels:
“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the anti-christ.” (2 John 7)
2 John is an important work. See what it says about love. Love isn’t just a warm feeling. It’s tied into keeping Torah, walking in God’s commandments. Sounds like it’s aimed against Paul’s position.
One last point. I liked in the podcast where you point out that Paul used a Greek word other than “crucifixion” to refer to Jesus’ death.
The New Testament uses the word “tree” five times to refer to Christ’s execution (Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, Galatians 3:13 and 1 Peter 2:24). One of the five appearances of “tree” occurs in Galatians. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” wrote Paul, “for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galatians 3:13). Paul was quoting a phrase found in Deuteronomy 21:23. Since Christ’s death here in Paul fulfilled scripture (Deuteronomy 21:23), it served a theological purpose for Paul, and so there is no reason to think it actually happened, because Paul had reason to invent it. As Paul wrote, “Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (1 Cor 15:3).”
Paul was referring to the Torah’s prescribed form of execution by stoning for blasphemy and idolatry. After being stoned to death, the person’s body was hung on a tree to show that the individual was under God’s curse. To the Jews, hanging on a tree had become a metaphor for an apostate, a blasphemer or a person under God’s curse. That’s how the Jews viewed Jesus (John 5:18; 10:33; Matthew 26:63-65).
Their attitude would explain why Peter and Paul sometimes used the Greek word for “tree” (xylon) to describe Jesus’ execution. Three times in the book of Acts the word tree is used to refer to Jesus’ crucifixion. In these cases, it appears in a Jewish context as well.
Correct, except xylon frequently meant plank, not tree. It more generally referred to worked wood. And accordingly the Mishnah describes using a plank prop not a tree for the purpose. The word also commonly referred to the upright post of a crucifix (the “crux”, the crossbeam being the “patibulum”, but by synechdoche crux often meant both, and so did xylon), or even an impaling pole.
See my discussion of the scholarship on crucifixion terminology and its connection to Jewish forms of execution in OHJ (index).
Hey, Dr. Carrier.
I was reading your article in Empty Tomb about spiritual resurrection. One thing came to my mind: What do you think are the questions that one-body-resurrection hypothesis can’t answer but the two-body-resurrection hypothesis can? For what I read, one question is that why Paul doesn’t simply say “this mortal body becomes immortal” (p. 138). Latter hypothesis answers that question well, but the former doesn’t. But is there some other things that would be hard to explain with one-body-resurrection hypothesis?
It explains why our resurrection bodies already exist and are waiting for us in heaven (2 Cor. 5).
Just as it is an unjustifiable leap of logic to argue in this way: (a) We have reason to doubt that a pericope, or part of a pericope, is historical; therefore, we have reason to think it is mythical. So to is it an unjustifiable leap of logic to argue: (b) We have reason to doubt a particular pericope, or part of a pericope, is mythical, therefore we have reason to believe it is historical. In both cases (a and b), our reasoning commits a paralogism when jumping from the negative claim to the positive one.
All else being equal, yes. That’s the argument I conclude with in Chapter 10 of On the Historicity of Jesus. When the prior probability starts at 0.5, it’s 50/50 either way; we have no knowledge either way.
Until we have evidence a particular pericope is more or less likely to be historical or mythical. That’s why they invented “the criteria,” in an attempt to find “evidence” in a pericope that it comes from history and not mythic intentions. Every expert who has published a dedicated study of the merits of that method has concluded it doesn’t work. I cite and quote and expand on those findings, for every criterion attempted, in Proving History.
So far, no valid means of finding history in any pericope has worked. They all fail on either facts or logic. Or both.
That would leave us with the 0.5. Not knowing. Except for two things. First, the overall structure of the Gospels is mythical, not historical. Even at the most generous, they are so much more similar to myths than histories, that the prior probability of any pericope in them being historical is below 0.5. We should presume they are mythical until we have evidence otherwise. Second, many of them have such strong markers of mythmaking that we can be certain they are far more probably mythical than historical.
I give examples of and discuss both points in On the Historicity of Jesus.
(Also, formally, the question isn’t the probability of each pericope being history-based, but of any pericope being history based, which probability gets updated as we pass through every pericope. When the evidence is 50/50, that probability doesn’t change. When it’s a probability favoring myth, that overall probability goes down. Only when there is evidence for historicity does it go up. And if there is only weak such evidence, that doesn’t get us to historicity either, as the overall probability of myth remains high.)