An amazing double bill event with David Silverman and myself is going down in central Florida this coming May (2016). Hosted by the Central Florida Freethought Community. Silverman is headlining with a survey of his case for firebrand-style atheist activism in his excellent new book Fighting God. I’ll be speaking on “Ancient Science & Christian Fascism.”
The more elaborate title of my talk could be “The Wonders of Ancient Science, and Why Christianity Blocked Scientific Progress for a Thousand Years (and Could Do It Again).” I’ll be drawing on my chapters on this subject in The Christian Delusion (on ancient science) and Christianity Is Not Great (on the Dark Ages and on democracy). The fullest description of my Florida talk:
Conservative Christians are fond of rewriting history to make Christianity the hero, from claiming America was founded as a Christian nation, to claiming the KKK was founded by godless liberals. They also claim Christianity gave us science, that our pagan ancestors were too clueless to accomplish it; the Scientific Revolution becoming like their idea of the American Revolution: something that could never happen without Christianity. This whitewashing of the truth, which was quite the contrary, is nefarious, because it sets the stage for letting conservative Christians control and limit democratic and scientific progress. They don’t want you to remember that it was going against dominant Christian values that made democracy and modern science possible.
In this illustrated talk, Dr. Richard Carrier (with a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University) lays out what the ancient pagans actually accomplished in the sciences, and why they failed to reach their own scientific revolution, which ultimately had to do with Christian opposition to it. The arguments Christian leaders then used to stifle scientific progress for a thousand years, are being used by many Christian leaders today. If we are not vigilant, the same political and economic circumstances could arise that would empower a Renaissance of Christian fascism that would stifle democracy and scientific progress for another thousand years.
Sunday, May 15th, from 1 to 4pm, at the University Club of Winter Park (841 N Park Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789). Details here. There is a $10 suggested donation at the door to help fund the event. We’ll be selling and signing our books of course!
There may be a VIP fundraising dinner as well. And I may speak on other topics at other times in the same region. Stay tuned.
This is not the best place to leave this comment, but comments appear to be closed on all older posts.
Richard:
Just wondering if you knew about:
Did Jesus really exist? http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/
Macleans is Canada’s national magazine, equivalent to Time and/or Newsweek, btw.
The article starts out talking about Bart Ehrman, but eventually gets around to discussing your book, and seems to refer to your work and ideas in a much more favourable manner than Ehrman’s latest.
Yes, I’m aware. I may blog on it eventually. But thanks for letting me know. I might not have known of it, so I appreciate it.
Pity you’re not doing the feminism talk in this case.
It seems very unlikely that Matthew and Luke would BOTH include ‘genealogies’ OUT OF THE BLUE (since the genealogies are not a part of ‘Q’ and there is no genealogy in Mark or Paul), unless Luke was borrowing from and editing Matthew.
It just occurred to me that maybe the first Christians thought Jesus is related to the “Suffering Servant” (Israel) of Isaiah 53 because in some ways Jesus “represented” Israel. For example:
Here are some similarities between Jesus and Israel I found online:
:
(1). Israel had a Joseph (Genesis 30:24)
And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son.
COMPARE
Jesus had a Joseph (Mathew 1:16)
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
(2). Israel’s Joseph had dreams (Genesis 37:5)
And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more.
COMPARE
Jesus’ Joseph had dreams (Mathew 2:13)
Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream…
(3). Israel went into Egypt (Genesis 46:5-6)
And the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives…and came into Egypt.
COMPARE
Jesus went into Egypt (Mathew 2:14)
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
(4.) Israel came out of Egypt (Exodus 12:51)
The LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.
COMPARE
Jesus came out of Egypt (Mathew 2:15)
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
(5). Israel was baptized (Red Sea) (1 Corinthians 10:2)
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
COMPARE
Jesus was Baptized (Mathew 3:16)
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.
(6.) Israel is called God’s son (Hosea 11:1)
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
COMPARE
Jesus is called God’s Son (Mathew 3:17)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(7). Israel is called God’s firstborn (Exodus 4:22)
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.
COMPARE
Jesus is called God’s firstborn (Romans 8:29)
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(8.) Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years (Hebrews 3:17)
But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
COMPARE
Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days (Mathew 4:1-2)
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights…
(9.) Deuteronomy given in the wilderness (Exodus 24:12)
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
COMPARE
Jesus uses Deuteronomy to resist temptation (Mathew 4:4-10)
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God…It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God…for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(10.) The Law was taught on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:12)
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
COMPARE
Sermon on the Mount teaches the Law (Mathew 5-7)
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them,
(11.) God made a blood covenant with the 12 tribes (Exodus 24:8)
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
COMPARE
Jesus made a blood covenant with His 12 apostles (Mathew 26:28)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(12.) Israel is called God’s vine (Psalm 80:8)
Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.
COMPARE
Jesus is called God’s vine (John 15:1)
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
(13.) Israel was called the seed of Abraham (Isaiah 41:8)
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.
COMPARE
Jesus is called the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16)
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
(14.) Israel started a person and became a people
Example: Israel (Jacob) grew into the 12 tribes of Israel
COMPARE
Jesus started as a person and became a people
Example: The church is referred to as the body of Christ
Dr. Carrier, don’t know if you’ve seen it but there is a comment at Ehrman’s blog responding to your article. Normally I wouldn’t bother anyone about a comment, but it was endorsed by Ehrman himself.
“TimONeill October 25, 2013
“Richard Carrier’s one piece of published, peer-reviewed work in this area of study is actually quite convincing,”
Or creaking and contrived. It’s riddled with problems. To begin with, for the Jesus at XX.9.1 to be the same person as the later mentioned high priest “Jesus, son of Damneus”, we have to believe that Ananus executed this son of Damneus’ brother and then very soon afterwards uses rich gifts so he “cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest”. So we’re supposed to believe that within months of seeing Ananus kill his brother, the son of Damneus was cosying up to his brother’s murderer thanks to some gifts? This makes no sense.
Then there’s the fact that dismissing the phrase “who was called Messiah” as a marginal gloss that found its way into the body of the text doesn’t go far enough to explain the textus receptus. Josephus is very consistent in the way he introduces new actors to his narrative and in the way he differentiates one from another. Nowhere does he introduce a person simply by their name (“Jesus”, minus the Messiah part) and then refer to them by an identifying appellation later (“Jesus, son of Damneus”). Yet that’s what Carrier’s contrived ad hoc work around requires.
Finally there’s his blithe dismissal of the three verbatim quotes of the key “Jesus who was called Messiah” phrase by Origen on the grounds that Origen was somehow confusing Josephus with Heggisipus. Carrier claims this by saying what Origen claims Josephus “says” about the death of James can’t actually be found in Josephus. But Origen was an exegete, not a historian, and often claims his sources “say” things that aren’t there: he reads his exegesis into his material. Reading the passages in Josephus following Ant. XX.9.1 in this light shows how Origen definitely could have read the trope of “the fall of Jerusalem as punishment for the execution of James” into the text, as detailed by Waturu Mizagaki, “Origen and Josephus” in *Josephus, Judaism and Christianity* (L.H. Feldman, G. Hata eds, Wayne State University Press, 1987) pp. 325-337). Oddly for a peer reviewed article, neither this key piece of research on Origen’s use of Josephus nor Feldman and Hata’s highly relevant collection of articles is anywhere to be found in Carrier’s footnotes.
Carrier is a polemicist and this article shows it. And his final paragraphs where he pompously declares that all future discussion on the topic must now bow before his mighty findings are are hilarious as they are fatuous.”
http://ehrmanblog.org/brothers-jesus-mythicists-members/
Indeed, O’Neil is an ignorant ass. Per my following comment here.
From what I understand, the high priest Ananias [sic] who bribed Jesus and Albinus is different from Ananus [sic], who by then had been deposed and no longer was a high priest. If this understanding is correct, O’Neill is a pompous fool.
Also his “Origen was an exegete” argument doesn’t make much sense to me since in this instance Origen does not agree with “Josephus”, he thinks the cause was Jesus’ death, not James’. Since he is not in agreement with “Josephus” on this point, why in the world would he read this interpretation into the text, given that it wasn’t his?
You are correct. It’s the wrong Ananus. O’Neill is not a good historian. It didn’t even occur to him to check on that before making it the basis of his argument. And Origen very clearly says he disagrees with the author who said the destruction was owing to James the Just (whom he mistakenly took to be Josephus, when in fact it was Hegesippus who implies the destruction was due to the death of James the Just). Origen said it was due to the death of Jesus…yet is completely unaware of the fact that Josephus also mentioned the death of Jesus (so if one were going to “exegete” their way from Josephus not saying it was because of a death, the death of Jesus in Josephus would have done just as well as the death of James, since Josephus doesn’t credit either as being the cause of the destruction, so Origen could as soon infer the one as the other was intended).
One should also remember there is no way Josephus would use the appellation “Christ” without explaining what that word meant or why it was relevant to mention.
Also amusing, is the last bit, where O’Neil complains about the “impact” statement in my article’s last paragraph. He evidently doesn’t realize that the journal itself mandates that we add an impact statement (and this is not uncommon in the field). That paragraph was actually added at the request of my peer reviewers!
I’ve always felt Jesus protesting his place in God’s plan in the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane seemed historical: “Take this cup away from Me” (Mark 14:36).” If Mark was just inventing Jesus as a divine character, you would think Mark would portray Jesus as a paradigmatic follower of God, shrugging off the temporary threat of suffering of the cross with the knowledge there would be a speedy resurrection. But Jesus is in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane – hardly a divine, mythical being.
Mark changed the story, so we know it’s false. The original account (in Hebrews Heb. 5.8-9) has Jesus praying to be resurrected (which fits the cosmic death scenario). Mark changed it to have Jesus praying to not have to die. So why did Mark change the original story? It wasn’t because of history. He had some goal in mind.
Also, it has to be false unless you conclude Jesus intended to die to atone for the world’s sins, and thus taught his disciples this, which is highly unlikely; and also that he somehow told them this story later, as in Mark’s account no one else was present to even know that he made this prayer, and Mark leaves zero time in which Jesus could have talked about it to anyone from whom Mark could have learned it; and one would even then have to explain why a historical Jesus would have told anyone that story, unless it served some purpose, and if it would serve a real Jesus to tell that story, it would serve the same purpose for someone making it up about him.
In the end, everything Mark writes is allegory. The story of the Gethsemane prayer (repeated three times, with three times catching the Disciples sleeping instead of watching) allegorizes Jesus’s humility and submission to God, required by the creed (Philippians 2), since it establishes the fate was undesirable yet was chosen anyway because it was obedient to God’s will; the story also gives missionaries a story to use in their own lives when faced with hard decisions: to emulate the Lord, they too must put aside their own fears and desires and serve God, and not fall asleep on the job like the Disciples did.
In the time between the death of Jesus and the Gospel of Mark, I wonder how many people had a hallucination about Jesus or a dream about Jesus, and these portraits got mixed in with the collective historical memory of Jesus that Mark drew from?
With Easter having been this past weekend I’m seeing lots of posts on social media with the following content: “Church Tradition tells us the Apostle XYZ died from (Insert gruesome death here)” Going down the list of each supposed apostle and listing where it happened and the method of martyrdom.
Is there anywhere to find what we know historically regarding the apostles and what became of them? Or is church tradition all there is? And is it reliable… at all?
I apologize for being off topic. I just don’t know of many places to get the question answered. Much thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction to find reading on this (if there is any worth spending time on).
It’s all bollocks. Even Justin Bass admits as much (though not as colorfully). He “believes” the legends, but he admits that no historical criteria establish them as reliable.
I might eventually blog on the James, Peter, and Paul cases, the only ones Bass thinks there is any reliable evidence for. All the others are centuries late and full of patent nonsense.
I just read the Macleans write up and it represents OHJ pretty well (which I’ve read twice through and listened on Audible once). Thanks rojmiller.
Richard,
I’m currently reading a novel called Captivity, by Gyorgi Spiro. It’s translated from Hungarian. It’s about a young Jewish man who travels from Rome to Jerusalem in the time of Pilate as part of a delegation to deliver the tithe from the Jewish community in Rome to the temple in Jerusalem. Many adventures follow. It’s an excellent read and I’m also finding it very informative about 1st c. Palestine, given what I’ve read in your works and others. I’m wondering if you’re aware of the book or if you’d consider writing about it.
Richard Martin
I wouldn’t have time to read it or review it, unfortunately. But if any historian does, do feel free to link to such a review in any blog post I write about any topic in history again.
dr carrier
are you going to review your debate with justin bass?
can i ask question ?
I expect to. And yes.
But I am very busy at the moment. I’m planning several major tours and a big geographical move. Which I will announce soon.
justin bass asked if any major religion had persecutors who had become believers
we have a chain of narrators in the muslim hadeeth accounts which say that they passed on stories
about persecutor abu sufyan who became muslim in muhammads time
haters also became muslim in muhammads time after they listen to recitation of the koran
so muhammad has hostile groups such as jews, christians and pagans and was able to bring believers from these groups.
so using bass’ arguments, bass should embrace islam?
For anyone who is interested, one of Canada’s top magazines, “Maclean’s,” just published an article about whether Jesus existed or not. Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/
Thanks. Yes, I’m aware. I may write on it soon. But I appreciate the link. I might not have known of it.
One of the most contentious passages in the debate between mythicists and historicists is Galatians 1:19, “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the brother of the Lord.” Carrier’s argument, if I remember correctly, is that “brother” here means “non-apostolic baptized Christian,” not “sibling” as is generally understood. Carrier’s thesis seems problematic on this point. Why is this idiosyncratic use of “brother” not found anywhere else in the Christian tradition? Moreover, if this usage was as widespread as Carrier thinks, why did it STOP? We don’t refer to Christians today in that way, nor is there a record that we ever did.
In other words, why is this idiosyncratic use of “brother of the Lord” not found anywhere else in the Christian tradition except with James? Moreover, if this usage was as widespread as you think, why did it STOP? We don’t refer to Christians today in that way, nor is there a record that we ever did.
It is used in the plural without reference to James in 1 Cor. 9. The abbreviated form is used repeatedly by Paul of many Christians in Paul’s letters. As to why it gets used in its full form only on those two occasions (only one of which named James), see my discussion in OHJ, Ch. 11.10.
I answer both questions in OHJ, Ch. 11.10.
Paul says Jesus is “the firstborn of many brethren,” and explains that baptism makes each of us a son of God, and that is why Jesus is our brother. Thus it isn’t an inference I make; it is explicitly stated by Paul. (See OHJ Ch. 4, Element 12.)
In actual fact, that “idiosyncratic” use is throughout Paul’s letters; he just abbreviates most of the time, as was done commonly in the mystery cults, who likewise used fictive kinship vocabulary. It was common, not unusual.
Did you ever do a review of James Hannam’s book ‘God’s Philosphers? I could have sworn I had read you were doing one, but I can’t find it anywhere. Also, I remember you saying to be cautious about historical scholarship written before 1950. Are there any books and articles on the decline and fall of Rome that you would recommend to someone like myself, who isn’t well versed on this subject?
I definitely had planned to. But it fell off my radar. I may yet still. It will become relevant again when I publish my next two books (on ancient science), one of which will be out by end of this year.
On History before 1950, see my old blog post, which I reproduced in HHBC.
On the Decline and Fall of Rome, there is no single book I know of that is adequate. It’s hard, because there was no single event or time when that happened. The third century is far more important than people think, for example (all the triggers that killed the empire were pulled then; they just didn’t kill their target for several more centuries, as it slowly bled out from the wounds; the Christians simply didn’t bandage the wounds when they came into power, but made them worse). And the course of events played out differently in the West than in the East. And so on.
I cite some bibliography in NIF, p. 447, n. 32, and TCD, p. 419, n. 57 (and to an extent also n. 56, as it relates to what Christians replaced it with that kept it dead).
Also relevant are those whole chapters (in TCD and NIF) and my chapters in CNG on Democracy and the Dark Ages (the latter with important bibliography).
Richard, first a FYI for you and others that your debate with Bass is online.
Richard Carrier and Justin Bass: Are There Reliable Sources for the Resurrection of Jesus – YouTube
I didn’t think you were in top form that night, though I still think you won. Bass too often cites evidence that isn’t there, that his dogma tells him should be there. I believe you said something similar in the post debate podcast. From having seen others of his debates, I don’t find him a good representative for Christian arguments, but for that debate topic you probably can’t find a secular scholar to take that the pro-reliability side. I do hope you can schedule debates with more secular scholars like Crook. Maybe Crossley?
I have one question for you. Will you be reviewing Ehrman’s latest, Jesus Before the Gospels? With that and How Jesus Became God, it seems he is of late delving more and more into the problems with historicity, but ever short of denying it. From what I can tell, he (and the field in general) hadn’t previously taken into account the neuroscience of memory. There should be lots more uncertainty for all history than is generally given, in my opinion.
Thanks for the link and remarks.
P.S. I might write something on Ehrman’s latest. At first glance it looks redundant, though.
Hey,
Again, I have couple of questions about your text in Empty tomb. My question is about 2Cor. 4:16-5:8.
Paul Barnett[1] notes that the verse 4:14 shows that Paul talks about resurrection. He notes also[2], that the phrase “we have” is not clear by its meaning, because it can mean multiple things. He says that pauls reference to a body that “is” is not necessary a reference to that that there is a body, but to a certainty that we will have a “new body”. Naturally the glorified body is a “new body” when compared to the old one. Like if you fix a old car to a brand new condition. The car is then kind of a “new”.
Also, Murray J. Harrison notes[3] that “in heaven” (en tois ouranois) very likely means “heavenly” (ouranios). He notes that these two words are almost inseparable. They could be used both in the same way. For example, Matt. 6:9 (Pater hemoon ho en tois ouranois) and 6:14, 26, 32 (ho pateer hymoon ho ouranios). They are almost synonyms. For this reason this separation of “heavenly” body and “earthly” body (that we will get in resurrection/at the coming of Jesus) is a target of underlining in Paul’s letters.
It is also funny to notice that “the house that is not build by human hands” is also a reference to God’s dwelling place, because in other places there is noted that God doesn’t live in the place made by hands (Acts 17:24, cf. 7:48; 1Kings 8:27-30)[4]. This could imply that how Paul saw the new bodies and their uniqueness; he says in other place that we will become like bodies of glorified Jesus (Phil. 3:20-21).
Barnett also notices that “house coming from God” is reference to a new Jerusalem [5]. So it is possible that Paul referred to coming events using a language that would be apt to use in coming times. Therefore, it could be essential to refer the body as if it belongs to a new era.
Paul doesn’t necessary talk that he believes that Christians have a new body in heaven where they would move when they die (or get resurrected). I don’t think that part is so clear that we could make this kind of a statement. How would you comment?
Final point I would like to make is that if we compare Paul to Judaism, he is not too peculiar if we forget how the belief in Christ affected his eschatology. In the case of the dead people his writings are little bit confusing, because the old body is rotting of decomposed, so then whatever kind of change to that kind of a body would fit to consept of a “new body”. Only skeleton remains (or less), but when God creates that body back to life again, it would be still a new body after all.
[1] The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 257.
[2] 257n13.
[3] The Second Epistle To the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. TNIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 373.
[4] Barnett, 257n14
[5] ibid. 258n14
That’s all legerdemain to avoid just accepting what Paul wrote as it is. When someone is desperate to make Paul mean what they want him to have meant, they then deploy these interpretive tricks to do that. That’s Christian apologetics in a nutshell.
Hmm okay. But… I mean, that’s not really an argument against what Barnett or Harrison are saying…
P.S. are you going to make a blog about your recent debate with Bass? I’m just watching it, and its really frustrating. Bass seems to be a nice guy, but little bit too overconfident.
(1) Yes, it is. They are violating Axiom 5 of historical method (Proving History, ch. 2): confusing what’s possible, with what’s probable.
(2) Yes, I hope to. It’s not very high priority, because the debate speaks for itself well enough. But I’d like to posts some thoughts on it if I can find the time.