If you haven’t already, do consider taking my online course next month on the science & philosophy of free will—or recommend it to anyone you think might be interested! It starts in just two days. You can get in within its first six.
Meanwhile, a brief update and foreshadow:
- I’ve been spending the last week starting a new relationship, so I’ve been AFK a lot. She’s a noted polyamory activist and all-around kickass, known by her handle Joreth Innkeeper. And I confess I’m very smitten. I am now meeting someone else in the next few days who might smite me as well. She practically already has. And all the while staying with a girlfriend who already smote me. So I’ll be AFK a bit more.
- Further consuming my time is all the work I’ve been engaging in planning several upcoming tours (Southern California in April and Florida in May), two major debates, and one big move. Yes, by this summer I shall no longer be living in California. Stay tuned for that news. Because I’m going to do something fun with it.
- Of course I consumed a lot of time prepping and engaging in the Carrier-Bass debate a week ago. The video is now up. IMO, that went badly for him. He’s a very competent presenter. He did well on all the skills of debate. Except for what gives you a technical win. So given his confident and charismatic presentation, you might not have noticed that he didn’t really rebut most of my arguments; and those he even properly took on, he ended up relying on argument by assertion. Assertions any fact-checker will be able tell aren’t all that credible. I’ll blog more on that in coming weeks. But that’s even more time to task!
- Now I have the Kennesaw debate with Craig Evans coming up, on the historicity of Jesus. Don’t forget that! If you can make it, you may want to. It will be an important one. And of course, prepping for that, is also consuming my time.
- In SoCal I’ll be speaking on why they invented Jesus and what’s up with feminism. There may be even more. Stay tuned.
- In Florida I have two events of considerable interest going. I’ve announced one. Stay tuned for the other! [To be announced here.]
- I’ll also be at Frolicon in Atlanta, Georgia. Just FYI. Not as a presenter. Just among the invisible happy masses attending, with my new paramour. But if you happen to see me, do say hi! And don’t worry, I won’t out you. Not without your enthusiastic consent.
- I’m near to completing my first of two books on ancient science. Yep. If all goes to plan, Science Education in the Early Roman Empire will be released before the end of this year. I’ll announce that, and what it’s about, as soon as it can be pre-ordered. But needless to say, this is also consuming a lot of my time! Since I finished my fan-funded Jesus project (which resulted in three books, Proving History, On the Historicity of Jesus, and Hitler Homer Bible Christ), I’ve been able to blow the dust off of my dissertation and start turning it into some books. It just needs updating (since much has been published in the last six years I’ve been spending on the funded project). So I’m on that now.
- I also have contracts for at least two other books to come (and am working on a fourth). More on that later. But I’m eager to get to them.
- And on top of all that I have more things I want to blog than I’ll have time for! Including two new important articles on Jesus mythicism, one in a major Canadian magazine (Macleans), another in a major academic journal (Think).
So I’m a very busy man. Now taking a brief break. With his CostCo Jameson.
The debate on the Resurrection looks interesting. I just started watching it. So, as we said on another post, Paul’s gospel is that “(a) Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, and that (b) He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES,… (1 Cor 15:3-4).” We were trying to understand what these “SCRIPTURES” were. Regarding (a), we found Jesus was representative of Israel, and so it would make sense that Jesus was thought in relation to the “Suffering Servant (Israel) in Isaiah 53. Most commentators see a relation to Psalm 22 as well. Regarding (b) I would speculate that the SCRIPTURES Jesus’ resurrection may be thought in relation to could be (i) Psalm 16, and (ii) The sign of Jonah. Regarding (i), Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses (Acts 2:24, 29-32).” Regarding (ii), Matthew 12:40 says “for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.…” I think these are the “SCRIPTURES” Paul is referring to when he says “(a)Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, and that (b) He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES,… (1 Cor 15:3-4).” The first Christians invented the crucifixion and resurrection out of scripture.
There may be throngs of followers panting to know more about your love life, but somehow I doubt it. Please consider keeping your private life private.
I get to talk about my life on my own blog.
If you don’t want to hear about my life, stop reading my blog.
“The Miraculous Jesus” thing could have started off as a scam. I’m sure “conspiracies” happen all the time. It is a part of normal human interaction to sometimes want the real reasons as to why something happened to be withheld. This is probably sometimes true of religion too. Seneca famously said “Religion is true to the masses, false to the wise, and useful to the rulers.” For example, Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek), was cleverly instituted as a Graeco-Egyptian god. The Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm.
In the Bass debate, I think you assumed that the audience already knew the Gospels were written after the letters of Paul, and that the synoptic Gospels were written in response to each other.
You shouldn’t assume that people already know this stuff. You should go over these basics every time.
Perhaps. But the issue of date didn’t come up as relevant to the reliability of the epistles, and I did address the date issue for the Gospels. If an audience member thinks the epistles are even later than the gospels, that hurts Bass’s case, rather than helps it. So really, the onus was on him to argue they were earlier. By noting the Gospels were post-war, I already covered what I needed.
This is the difference between a clocked oral debate, and a book or article.
Looking forward to this. Will it or the next one have anything to say about the causes of the Dark Ages?
No. That will be in the sequel, due next year.
But I do already discuss that in my chapter on The Dark Ages in Christianity Is Not Great.
What Science Education will address is the claim that medieval Christian education was better than pagan, by showing the pagan side, which was available to more people, and moreover the average education then was not significantly different from even the most elite education available anywhere in the Middle Ages (including universities).
Bass made some interesting points about the “We” passages in Acts. Here is Bart Ehrman’s rebuttal of this kind of argument:
That is what the affirmative side wants to argue, that the four “we-passages” in Acts indicate places where the author himself was a companion of Paul and that if he was Paul’s traveling partner, he would have been himself an eyewitness to Paul’s life and teachings, and if that’s the case then we can trust that what he says in his account is accurate.
There are two things to say about all that. The first is that the “we-passages” may not, in fact, indicate that the author was Paul’s traveling companion. The second is that even if he were, that would not in and of itself show that he was accurate in what he had to say about Paul. One would need to test the hypothesis to see if it’s true. And to everyone’s great regret, when you actually compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about himself, you find numerous and deep inconsistencies.
But first the “we-passages.” What the affirmative side failed to point out is that these four passages are very odd in one particular respect: they begin and end with uncanny abruptness. The author is talking about Paul and his companions, and then out of the blue he starts speaking in the first person, not about what they were doing but about what “we” were. But never does he say, “then I joined with them and we….” Or “and then I left and they….” Instead, the first person pronoun (“we”) starts without warning and ends without warning – so much so that a casual reader doesn’t even notice that the author is no longer talking bout what “we” were doing.
Why is that? If the author was claiming that at these points of the narrative he joined the apostolic band, why doesn’t he say so? Scholars have suggested numerous solutions to this problem over the years. Two of the most plausible suggestions are the following:
1.Possibly the author was incorporating a travelogue into his account, a kind of itinerary kept by someone who joined Paul for a few of his journeys. We know the author of Luke-Acts was fond of using sources: in his Gospel, for example, he simply copied much of what he found in Mark and in Q. It’s possible he did something similar in Acts: he had a source kept by someone who was with Paul a few times, and simply copied it into his account. That’s why the “we-passages” begin and end so abruptly.
2.More recently is has been argued, even more plausibly, that the author is simply using a well-known and common ancient writing device, in which an author begins talking in the first person in order to make his readers think that he was personally involved with the accounts he is narrating. This happens a lot in the New Testament itself, with the first person plural “we” – for example John 21:24; 2 Peter 1:16-19; 1 John 1:1-4; and it happens a lot outside the New Testament, for example in the Gospel of Peter, the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, or the Apocryphon of John. If this is the right way to understand the passages, the author is using the first person narrative to make his readers think he was a companion of Paul. This would explain the abrupt beginning and ending of the “we-passages.”
But why should we think that he was not a companion of Paul? Or even if he was a companion of Paul, why should we think that his accounts are not accurate? There is the same answer to both questions. The author’s account can be shown not to be accurate, and almost certainly not to be written by someone intimately familiar with Paul.
As we have already argued, in place after place after place where Acts describes something Paul said or did and Paul talks about the exact same thing, there are differences, discrepancies, and errors. This author does not appear to know where Paul went, when, and with whom; he does not accurately or fairly portray Paul’s teaching and preaching; he does not seem to know the very essence of Paul’s theology. If this book was written by a companion of Paul, he was a companion who was not paying close attention. Or, more likely, he wasn’t a companion of Paul. In either case, what he says about Paul cannot be reconciled with what Paul says about himself. As a result, the book of Acts cannot be accepted as historically accurate.
Those are essentially the same arguments I made in the debate.
But can you please provide us with the source and page number for this quote from Ehrman? (Or if you are paraphrasing, what you are paraphrasing?)
I don’t like quoting him without crediting.
It is from Ehrman’s blog here: http://ehrmanblog.org/is-acts-reliable-the-negative-rebuttal/
Lataster is a strange fellow. Maybe you should straighten him up on Jesus in the Talmud? Because otherwise he won’t stop repeating the false claim that it’s not “certain” that our Jesus is meant there. Apparently he is unaware of the basic fact that the uncensored versions call him Yeshu ha Notsri, which leaves no room for interpretation.
Page number? I don’t know which remark of Lataster’s you are referring to.
Bass made the comment that there were about 10 messianic type movements that fizzled out when their leaders died. Christianity was unique in that it really got moving after Jesus died because of the resurrection. But this is just as much a point for conspiracy as it could be for divine intervention. Maybe the Jesus movement saw movement after movement fizzle out upon the death of their leader, so they decided to invent a story about a resurrected Jesus who was the “first fruits” of the general resurrection, so that everyone better get on board and join the team!
People are liable to do or believe anything if you persuade them that you have evidence (the resurrected Jesus as the first fruits) that it is the end of the world. lol
His latest book, chap. 3:
“The Talmud
There are a number of references to various characters called Jesus in the Jewish Talmud (specifically from the Gemara), which may or may not reference Jesus of Nazareth. Given that the Gemara is among the latest of all these sources (around the fifth and sixth centuries), and is a religious text that possibly makes use of other religious texts (such as the canonical Gospels and the Old Testament scriptures), it seemingly offers little to no useful information with regards to the historical Jesus. One factor that may support the Talmud’s use is the unflattering portrayal of Jesus, rather than no Jesus at all; though that would depend on knowing that these are indeed references to Jesus of Nazareth. This cannot be known with certainty as Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua/Yeshu is a very common Jewish/Aramaic name, found often in the Talmud and among the works of Josephus, as evidenced by mentions to Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus bar Phabet, and Jesus bar Gamaliel. ”
http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/lataster-jesus-sources.pdf
“The Talmud
There are a number of references to various characters called Jesus in the Jewish Talmud
(specifically from the Gemara), which may or may not reference Jesus of Nazareth. Given that the Gemara is among the latest of all these sources (around the 5th and 6th centuries), and is a religious text that possibly makes use of other religious texts (such as the canonical Gospels and the Old Testament scriptures), it offers little to no useful information with regards to the historical Jesus.99 One factor that may support the Talmud’s use is an unflattering portrayal of Jesus, rather than no Jesus at all; though that would depend on knowing that these are indeed references to Jesus of Nazareth. This cannot be known with certainty as Jesus is a very common Jewish name, found often in the Talmud and among the works of Josephus, with one example being Jesus bar Gamaliel (Antiquities 20.9.4).”
Same claim is made in his earlier book in basically the same form.
This betrays woeful ignorance on Lataster’s part given that the Talmud’s Jesus’ is not named simply “Jesus” but rather by his full appellation.
Not in every case. The Naz. term is not in all of the references scholars think are about that Jesus, even in the unedited manuscripts.
Van Voorst covers this, yet Van Voorst is the one unaware of the edits. And that’s the standard reference in the field! So your point is actually true of even the world’s leading experts.
By contrast, Lataster is saying something different: that the authors of the Talmud may have confused stories about other men, as being stories about Jesus the Nazorian. Even if Nazorian is in the text.
That’s a much more sensible position than Van Voorst’s. And is immune to your criticism.
Minimalist interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Tanakh or the Protestant Old Testament) often consider much of the Tanakh/Jewish Bible to be a pious fiction, such as the conquests of Joshua. Borras, Judit, Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, BRILL, 1999, p 117: “.. the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship is that the conquest tradition of Joshua is a pious fiction composed by the deuteronomistic school”
The historiography of the Pentateuch is considered a noble lie. Stanley, Christopher, The Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Approach, Fortress Press, 2009, p 123: “Minimalists begin with the fact that the Hebrew Bible did not reach its present form until well after the Babylonian exile … most the that the story was formulated by a group of elites who wanted to justify their claims to dominate … In other words, the narrative [of the Hebrew Bible] is a pious fiction that bears little relation to the actual history of Palestine during the period it purports to narrate.”
The Book of Daniel has also been described as a pious fiction, with the purpose of providing encouragement to Jews. Carson, D. A. For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word, Good News Publishers, 2006, p 19: “Many critics doubt that the account of Daniel 4 is anything more than pious fiction to encourage the Jews.”
As we see in my comment above, the Old Testament writers were sometimes inventing stories for ulterior motives. Is it that much of a stretch to think the New Testament writers were doing the same thing? The noble lie or pious fiction holds an interesting place in antiquity. The ancients believed that the future was too important to be left up to chance!
the “intensely persecuted” point is not really evidence
if a group is marked for death and members in it recant they will still be persecuted because they are marked for death.
in acts the romans arrest paul because of disputes over jewish law.
The Roman view of Paul’s position
23:25-30 – He further wrote a letter to Felix of which this is a copy: “Claudius Lysias sends greeting to his excellency the governor Felix. “This man had been seized by the Jews and was on the point of being murdered by them when I arrived with my troops and rescued him, since I had discovered that he was a Roman citizen. Wishing to find out what the accusation was that they were making against him, I had him brought down to their Sanhedrin. There I discovered he was being accused over questions of their laws, and that there was no charge against him which deserved either death or imprisonment. Now, however, that I have received private information of a plot against his life, I have sent him to you without delay. At the same time I have notified his accusers that they must make their charges against him in your presence.”
what is going on here? if paul was being persecuted because he was worshipping a convicted criminal who paul thought was leading his movement , why didn’t the jews inform about this? this is the “king of the jews” man
and paul is charged with nothing serious?
Those are indeed very suspicious problems.
I discuss this specifically in Chapter 9.2 and 9.4 of OHJ.
I was excited in watching your recent debate with Dr. Bass to hear you talking about the possibility that the miracles and resurrection tales of Jesus were simply “invented” to support the goal of creating a better world (a cause the original Christians may have been willing to die for – like Socrates). I have suggested this many times to you over the years, such as in comment 1 in your blog post from September of last year here: http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8444 .
Good luck in your talk about “Why They Invented Jesus” in So Cal later this year!
“Not in every case. The Naz. term is not in all of the references scholars think are about that Jesus, even in the unedited manuscripts.”
OK, granted, sometimes he’s called Jesus ben Pandera or Ploni. In the most relevant passages (incl. the execution narrative) he is explicitly named as Jesus the Nazarene, so my point stands.
“By contrast, Lataster is saying something different: that the authors of the Talmud may have confused stories about other men, as being stories about Jesus the Nazorian. Even if Nazorian is in the text.
That’s a much more sensible position than Van Voorst’s. And is immune to your criticism.”
Um, no, that’s not at all what he states. He thinks it is plausible that the Talmud doesn’t refer to our Jesus at all. He is clearly unaware that Yeshu is designated “ha Notsri” in the relevant passages. Hence he is pointing out that “Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua/Yeshu is a very common Jewish/Aramaic name, found often in the Talmud”. Which is pretty irrelevant if he knew that the Talmud is also explicity about the Jesus being the “Nazarene”. He also writes: “One factor that may support the Talmud’s use is an unflattering portrayal of Jesus, rather than no Jesus at all; though that would depend on knowing that these are indeed references to Jesus of Nazareth.” The Talmud does contain references to Jesus of Nazareth, whether the Talmudic authors confused him with someone else or not. So you’re wrong.
No, it’s the other way around. We have the example of the Jerusalem Talmud which tells one of the stories assigned to Jesus the Nazorian of a different person. Exemplifying the actual problem: even if the authors of the Talmud said a story was about Jesus the Nazorian, it does not mean it was actually a story about Jesus the Nazorian. It may have been a story about another Jesus, whom the authors of the Talmud mistook as Jesus the Nazorian. Only the stories that have internal content unmistakably about Jesus the Nazorian can confidently be known to have originated as stories about that Jesus and not some other.
Meanwhile, it is Van Voorst who says many passages in the Talmud do not say Nazorian, when in fact they do in some manuscripts, a fact Van Voorst evidently wasn’t aware of. And that’s, as I said, a world’s leading authority and a standard reference in the field. So his error is evidently easy to make even for a top expert. By contrast, Lataster conspicuously does not say what Van Voorst did. Lataster read my book meticulously, and my book explicitly identifies this error in Van Voorst. So Lataster is certainly aware of the fact. Hence his wording reflects that.
when john says that the disciples saw jesus’ hands and side is he saying that they saw pierced hands and side or is he saying that “look , no more holes/wounds”
?
later on john has his jesus say to thomas to “bale ees” him
βάλε εἰς
some apologists want to reconcile paul’s transformed jesus with johns jesus and say that jesus did not have any holes in his hands or side, he was simply telling them “to feel” not “to poke”
apologist:
“They, the disciples are telling Thomas we have seen him physically, so believe, because we have seen him. There is no mention in the text that the disciples saw wounds, so he must believe based purely on what they are testifying .”
“When Jesus says, “Put your hand into my side” Jesus isn’t saying stick your hand into my internal organs, he Is saying touch me and feel.”
but doesn’t the text say that they saw “hands and side”
doesn’t the text say that jesus himself requests thomas to “baale ees” him?
if “bale” means “thrust”
why did thomas want to “βάλλω” his lord if all he was doing was to feel /handle jesus?
“…and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
the greek βάλω
and βάλε
seem to be conveying a picture of throwing/thrusting hand into jesus’ side.
what are your thoughts on this?
Verse 25 likewise refutes that theory. Thomas said he wouldn’t believe unless he verified the wounds. Not just touched them, but saw them, and actually put his finger into the nail holes and his hand into the side wound. The authors of John unmistakably meant the body Jesus was wearing retained its wounds.