Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[redleghunter]

This is a great example of a possible eyewitness inclusion in Luke. Thanks
I had forgotten about this and may have to revise my position. Unfortunately this passage doesn't give us anything about a historical Jesus.

Is not Mary thanking God for being the Christ bearer?

 

[Athée]

I know that it can be popular to suggest Paul has in mind a purely "spiritual" Jesus, the problem is that this doesn't fit the actual content of the relevant texts, significantly 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and Galatians 4:4.

Carrier does adresse both these passages in his book. On the former he points out that how Paul got the creed is not specified and that every other time Paul claims to know something spiritual it is from a personal revelation from Jesus or from the scriptures (OT). Without begging the question there doesn't seem to be a reason to privilege the explanation that he got this creed from the other apostles during his visit, over the revelation or scripture that he cites in every other instance.

On the latter Carrier points out that the Greek word translated "made" in this passage is not the word Paul ways uses when referring to an actual birth by a woman. It is only used to describe the creation of Adam who as we know was not born in the usual way! Moreover, the context of Galatians shows us that Paul is talking about metaphorical women not flesh and blood ones. This makes more sense of why Paul does not use the Greek he always uses for real birth... He is not referring to one.

 

[Athée]

Yes given his intellect and education I am embarrassed for him.

He clearly approached this book not in a Simon Greenleaf or Sir William Ramsay method of investigation but by presuppositions Jesus is a myth.

I know I keep saying this but just read the book. There is no way for me to keep up with all of you, and you are all very obviously well read and insightful types, which makes it even more work! I would truly be interested in hearing what your criticisms are of his actual arguments as opposed to my poorly formulated parroting of them

 

[Athée]

Is not Mary thanking God for being the Christ bearer?

Yah I was thinking the same thing as I read it back - too many discussions going on at once for my tiered brain I will try to get back to you on that.

 

[redleghunter]

I know I keep saying this but just read the book. There is no way for me to keep up with all of you, and you are all very obviously well read and insightful types, which makes it even more work! I would truly be interested in hearing what your criticisms are of his actual arguments as opposed to my poorly formulated parroting of them

For such a great mind as Richard Carrier, his intellectual dishonesty in approaching this subject leads me to conclude to save my money or a visit to the library. However since you were so kind to set up this thread I will send a hearty thanks to you.

 

[Athée]

For such a great mind as Richard Carrier, his intellectual dishonesty in approaching this subject leads me to conclude to save my money or a visit to the library. However since you were so kind to set up this thread I will send a hearty thanks to you.

Sure leave me to flounder through it on my own
I'm not sure how you determined that carrier was being intellectually dishonest without reading his arguments but I also appreciate all the challenges you have thrown my way. These are exactly the kinds of things that I want to keep in mind as I go though his book again. It's easy to simply be a yes man when reading a book that supports in some way an idea you already agree with and having all these dissenting opinions is good for hiloghtimg my own bias.
Honestly though, it might be worth a trip to the library. At the very least you can get worked up in richeous anger at his dishonesty and perhaps you might even find it interesting reading since it would appear that the subject of historicity is one that interests you

 

[Athée]

OK I'm done for the night... Also putting on a conference on Monday so replies will for sure be slower moving forward.

Thanks to everyone for a great beginning to the conversation.

And one more time... If the subject of historicity is compelling to anyone participating here, read Carrier's book and decide for yourself if he makes sense or not, but either way let us all know what you think!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Oh shoot the expand button on quotes... Now it makes a lot more sense.
So I guess I would ask how we know Judas' betrayal is a fact, and if it is a fact how does this related to the criterion of embarrassment?

As to knowing Judas existed, we don't. Not anymore than Jesus anyway as they are referred to in the same texts.
If Jesus was a myth, it is unlikely that one of his core 12 followers would have been portrayed to betray Him. This is an embarrassing detail, that lends credence to the accounts.
This argues for both Judas' and Jesus' historicity as it does not fit a broadly Semitic nor specifically Jewish mythic pattern. Neither for that matter does it fit Greco-Roman mythic patterns either.

As to my second point, a Greek context would not have shown Jesus executed by the Authorities nor a Jewish one condemned by the Sanhedrin. Both are again embarrassing details if you are trying to establish a religious movement in a Greco-Roman world.
As Christianity affirms these points universally, in spite of the problems they cause to the early Church's acceptance, this shows at the least that if they made things up, they weren't very good at it. Based thereon, the probability for historicity is therefore higher than the probability of fiction.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

There can be no question that Jesus was a real person; there are simply too many historical attestations. We have more reason to believe Jesus was a real person than Socrates, or knowledge of whom relies primarily on Plato and my namesake. Indeed, unlike in the case of Jesus Christ, where we have four independent biographies, and St. Paul and the other Apostles, in the case of Socrates we primarily have what are probably fictionalized depictions of him based primarily on Plato, contoured to suit Plato's theological, philosophical and cosmological views. And my beloved Xenophon presents Socrates in an equally hagiographic light, but does not leave us with enough information to reconstruct the "historic Socrates" beyond being able to simply say that he popularized the idea of the dialectic method and managed to (perhaps intentionally) offend the Pagan sensibilities of ancient Athens to the point of being executed.

The only historical figures we really have much biographical data on dating from their own lifetime are conquering kings and emperors, because they printed coins with their image and erected monuments to themselves. Yet most failed to make a mark of history, and even for those that did, it didn't really mean much in the end, as King Solomon realized, to his obvious dismay, and then pointed out in Ecclesiastes. No one gives more than a passing thought to King Nebuchadnezzar, or Pharoah Khufu the Pyramid Builder.

The film Cleopatra with Rex Harrison, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton was mostly just epic fun, but contained one line that really stuck with me: "Yesterday, Pompey was a God."

In the case of historical people who actually matter, we have far less biographical evidence from their lives. Lao Tze, Confucius, the Buddha, Homer, Helen of Troy, the earliest of the Greek philosophers like Epimenides and Pythagoras, Zoroaster, and for that matter, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, have all been accused of being mythological. And quite possibly some of them were.

But in the case of our Lord, we have so much surviving documentation on him, some of it written within twenty years of his death, supported by so much manuscript evidence (more manuscript evidence than that in support of any other historical person, oncluding Julius Caesar, whose existence is more easily verifiable through archaeological evidence, but whose writings are much less well attested than the Gospels or Pauline epistles), that we have more reason to believe in his historicity than in that of any other ancient religious or philosophical leader preceding him, with the exception of certain individuals who were in the personal entourage of kings or emperors or other noblemen and who thus benefit from archeological attestation in the form of inscriptions and so on, for example, the high priests of the ancient Egyptian religion.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I know I keep saying this but just read the book. There is no way for me to keep up with all of you, and you are all very obviously well read and insightful types, which makes it even more work! I would truly be interested in hearing what your criticisms are of his actual arguments as opposed to my poorly formulated parroting of them

Please note, this is not intended as an ad hominem argument in any way, but is instead some advice, and I appreciate you posted this thread. You raised a valid issue which most of are actually familiar with, and I am thankful for it. Many of us have "read the book" and found it to not be persuasive. I think it you would make your case better if you were to try to debate with us directly, and look things up yourself, rather than just telling us to "read the book," which is not really a useful contribution. Quote it for us if you think it is relevant, because some of us did read it and rejected it (maybe we misunderstood it, and you could clarify it for us?) and still others aren't interested in buying it, and this is your chance to share it with us.

I'd also like you challenge you however to not just be an evangelist for one particular book if you want to make this particular atheist argument your cause celebre, but to synthesize arguments from several, because that way we can have a lot more of an interesting time discussing this.

Lastly, I wish you the best of luck in your conference!

Please focus on getting ready and don't waste too much time with us here; I nearly missed my flight today because I was reading a debate on CF.com and didn't hear the boarding call. And this was on Southwest Airlines, so I got stuck with a middle seat!

Don't let the Internet distract you to that point. It's never worth it if the price is flying in the middle seat squeezed between two plus sized individuals.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

OK I'm done for the night... Also putting on a conference on Monday so replies will for sure be slower moving forward.

Thanks to everyone for a great beginning to the conversation.

And one more time... If the subject of historicity is compelling to anyone participating here, read Carrier's book and decide for yourself if he makes sense or not, but either way let us all know what you think!

My friend, I looked for the book at my local bookstores to no avail. I abhor reading from a screen, so for the moment I am stuck without it (My wife hates me for having to lug untold crates of books around whenever we move).
Commander Xenophon is right though, it is better to fight your own fight than stand behind a champion. You can call upon him to parry a blow now and then (please quote if possible), but the most spirited defence is self-defence. We can then have a discussion that perhaps broadens everyone's understanding.

PS. Please no wikipedia quotes, its history is often very flawed and its references dubious.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

We do have His burial shroud :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...elics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/

Carbon 14 dated proved that to be a fake. It's dated between 1260 and 1390.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Carbon 14 dated proved that to be a fake. It's dated between 1260 and 1390.

Actually, the Carbon 14 date uses the incorrect Libby half-life of 5568 instead of 5730 and the sample is contaminated from a fire at the cathedral anyway, so should be taken with a grain of salt. There is also an argument that the sample taken was from patchwork which has been done repeatedly to the shroud.
Taken into account therefore, its Radiocarbon dating can actually refer to the first century, but also the 14th. It has a very wide range in this case.

That being said, the provenance of the Shroud before the 14th century is very dubious, so it can't really be used as an argument to historicity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you don't have the time or inclination to read his book, Richard Carrier gives a presentation of the basics of his argument in the following video. Perhaps more Christians will be able to jump in after watching the video.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Okay.

Based on this video.

1. He uses poor dating of early Christian writing as he claims no writings in first 80 years. Based on historical facts within the writings themselves and literary styles and redactions, the gospels were all written at least 70-110 AD, perhaps earlier if you allow for prophecy (dates after 70 are usually applied solely because Jesus mentions the destruction of the Temple).
Also, he conveniently ignores Paul or says he refers to an Angelic figure, which the texts in question do not justify in my opinion.

2. He mentions other 'saviour gods'. This is laughable as none of them are in fact saviour gods, only retellings of the Agricultural dying god myth of Frazer. Even Osiris in a neoplatonic-like later incarnations is not really a saviour figure, more a king giving largesse. His mythology is very flawed, but perhaps he explains himself better in the book. Some like Romulus don't even approach Soteriology at all.
The fact that some of their followers placed them in history is irrelevant. They were placed in vague distant history. Jesus was in a fixed point, recent as to time of writing of the gospels, with documents and memory still available to confirm if necessary. We see the gospels using Pilate's correct title for instance, which later historical writers had wrong till Archaeology confirmed it (Prefect, not Procurator).

3. He stresses Philo Judaeus, who is first not a Christian writer and second representative of only a small fraction of Jewish thought. Even here, he is misrepresented to show that he somehow posited a need for a heavenly suffering messiah, which is not the case. Philo held to a demiurge, the Logos, creating the world etc., what Carrier says here does not follow from Second Temple Judaic thought in any form I am familiar with. Not amongst the Hassidim, Hellenistic Jewry, Essenes, the Qumran writings, Enoch etc.
He conflates well developed Angelology with saviour gods without a shred of evidence the two are related. This looks like after the fact attempts to see paralels between widely divergent concepts.
These writings did stress the midrashic reading of the old testament, but they did not come to anything even approaching his conclusion in any single work. Maybe, if you interwove different books from widely different groups, often enemies of each other, you might reach some such conclusion. Say, if someone spent 6 years pouring over works late at night. It is utter speculation with no standing on textual or historical grounds.

4. He claims a celestial passion for Jesus originally. No evidence for such a claim. He is trying to backtrack from actual Crucifixion to a celestial passion, but why would Jesus then have been crucified? This is not a Jewish execution method. He would likely have had his neck slit like a sacrificial animal if that is the case. Crucifixion as a Euhemeral approach makes no sense on basis of first century culture. It only makes sense from a perspective as a historical event which was then elevated to a Salvationary one. The opposite does not apply.

5. He glosses over the extra-Christian sources for Jesus without properly explaining away their references, such as the widely discredited insertion of points into Josephus etc.

Perhaps with the more space a book allows he would be more nuanced and make better points, but this lecture sounds as if he was reading from a website in the wilder reaches of the internet.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thanks, this thread has finally started.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

It is possible that I misspoke. What I was trying to say is that at no point did the authors of the gospels claim to be eyewitnesses. A separate claim is that they also do not tell us where they are getting thier stories. They do claim to get them from eyewitnesses but they never tell us who these people are or why they should be considered credible sources.
Hopefully that make sense.
In the list of verses cited here, this remains true as far as I can tell.

John clearly claims to have been written by an eyewitness. Check those verses again.

 

[redleghunter]

Carbon 14 dated proved that to be a fake. It's dated between 1260 and 1390.

"The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.

He also said his tests also supported earlier results claiming to have found traces of dust and pollen on that shroud that could only have come from the Holy Land.

The latest findings are contained in a new Italian-language book — Il Mistero Della Sindone or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Saverio Gaeta, a journalist.

Fanti, a Catholic, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths -- in his test. He said the results are the outcome of 15 years of research.

The Telegraph also reports that a new app, sanctioned by the Catholic church and called "Shroud 2.0," allows anyone to use a smart phone or tablet to explore the shroud in detail."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html

The 1988 Carbon-14 tests done at Oxford, Zurich and Arizona Labs used pieces of the same sample cut from a corner (lower left of above pictures).
1. A Jan 20, 2005 paper in the professional journal ThermoChimica Acta by Dr. Ray Rogers, retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and lead chemist with the original science team STURP (the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, involving approximately 35 scientists directly examining the Shroud for five days), has shown conclusively that the sample cut from The Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from an area of the cloth that was re-woven during the middle ages. Here are some excerpts:

"Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud."

"As part of the Shroud of Turin research project (STURP), I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles in 1978." "It enabled direct chemical testing on recovered linen fibers and particulates".

"If the shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390 AD, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in 1260 AD would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978... The Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test [i.e. tested positive] for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."

"The fire of 1532 could not have greatly affected the vanillin content of lignin in all parts of the shroud equally. The thermal conductivity of linen is very low... therefore, the unscorched parts of the folded cloth could not have become very hot." "The cloth's center would not have heated at all in the time available. The rapid change in color from black to white at the margins of the scorches illustrates this fact." "Different amounts of vanillin would have been lost in different areas. No samples from any location on the shroud gave the vanillin test [i.e. tested positive]." "The lignin on shroud samples and on samples from the Dead Sea scrolls does not give the test [i.e. tests negative]."

"Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test [i.e. test negative], the cloth must be quite old." "A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years."

"A gum/dye/mordant [(for affixing dye)] coating is easy to observe on... radiocarbon [sample] yarns. No other part of the shroud shows such a coating." "The radiocarbon sample had been dyed. Dyeing was probably done intentionally on pristine replacement material to match the color of the older, sepia-colored cloth." "The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about 1291 AD and was not common until more than 100 years later." "Specifically, the color and distribution of the coating implies that repairs were made at an unknown time with foreign linen dyed to match the older original material." "The consequence of this conclusion is that the radiocarbon sample was not representative of the original cloth."
More:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

 

[Eudaimonist]

The shroud discussion is interesting, but wouldn't it be more appropriate in a different thread? This has nothing to do with the arguments of Richard Carrier.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

If you don't have the time or inclination to read his book, Richard Carrier gives a presentation of the basics of his argument in the following video. Perhaps more Christians will be able to jump in after watching the video.

eudaimonia,

Mark

A few problematic statements from Carrier:

"The Jews before the Christians came along were looking in the Scriptures for hidden messages. They thought that God had put some kind of Bible code in the Scriptures..."

Huh? Where is he getting this from? Nothing like this is happening in the Mishna (the only surviving document that possibly contains Jewish exegesis from 100BC - 200AD. Nothing like this is happening in Jewish apocryphal works. Carrier thinks that this statement gives him some traction to claim that Christians did the same thing and then invented Jesus from the OT Scriptures but there are at least three problems with this:

1. I am unaware of any Jewish exegetical works that would provide evidence that Jews were doing anything like what Carrier is describing before Jesus.
   
   
2. Based on the criterion of dissimilarity, there seems to be a good amount of sayings attributed to Jesus that have no parallel in the OT and no parallel in the early church. So they couldn't have come from the OT alone and they couldn't have come from the teachings of the early church alone. Where did they come from?
   
   
3. The Gospels go out of their way to show how greatly the Jews and the disciples misunderstood Jesus because he defied messianic expectations. There is every reason to believe that the Jews would expect a Messiah in the likeness of the Hasmonians or even in Bar Kokhba but the idea of a suffering messiah who would be rejected and then rise seemed a total surprise. There is no evidence outside the NT that there was any Jewish expectation for something like this. I think this just goes to show that Carrier is fairly ignorant of Scripture. Surely he's an expert historian, but he does not seem to understand OT theology, interterstamental theology, or Christian theology. It's telling that he references Daniel 9 as one of the texts that Jews built their Jesus myth upon. Daniel 9 is about a triumphant Son of Man who comes to receive authority over the nations. The Jews expected this "Son of Man" to come and rule. But Jesus taught that "the Son of Man must suffer" which is an idea not found at all in Daniel 9 and was totally surprising to the Jews.

As I watch more I'll post more thoughts. Thanks for the video.