Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Tree of Life]

Other issues...

He claims that Euhemerization was common in the Greek world, which it may have been (though I'm not sure). But then he takes a phenomenon from the Greek world and imposes it on Jewish Christian writers - simply citing that it was "common" in the ancient world. Where is the evidence that this took place at all among the Jews? That's a pretty big leap considering that the authors of the NT do not in any sense seem to be Hellenists and the Jews were largely separatists. One of the big obstacles for Christian conversion in the first and second centuries was that the Jews were SO separatistic that Greeks and Romans were skeptical of any teachings that came from Judaism.

 

[Tree of Life]

More issues...

He's essentially claiming that the Gospel authors are knowingly lying. It's not just that they're unknowingly recording legend, or copying an original legend (like the literary dependence theories would suggest), but that they know that Jesus was not an historical figure but they're going to go ahead and claim he was anyway. They are then going through the trouble to make precise historical connections to make their lies seem plausible and appear as actual history. And this wasn't just one author - this was several Gospel authors independently weaving their webs of lies in order to "control doctrine".

On top of this, this would mean that whoever penned Matthew's Gospel, for instance, was a liar and fraud yet somehow had the ethical wherewithal to come up with the stunning ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. This just doesn't seem to fit.

Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical. This is an incredibly complicated theory. It's much simpler to accept that there was such an historical person as Jesus even if we don't accept that he was divine in any way.

 

[Tree of Life]

More issues...

He flatly assumes that all the OT Patriarchs were non-historical figures and thinks this assumption gives him traction for his Christ myth view. But I don't accept this assumption at all. BUT EVEN IF the patriarchs were non-historical then this would mean that these patriachical texts originated during the Babylonian exile - 1500 years after these figures were alleged to walk the earth. This is markedly different from the Gospel accounts which originated within the same century that Jesus was claimed to walk the earth. There is no parallel here.

 

[Tree of Life]

"The seven unanimously confirmed Pauline epistles only speak of a celestial being and revealed gospel..."

Oh, brother. It might be possible to ingeniously re-read these epistles with this assumption and interpret them according to this assumption but I would hesitate to even say that. What would Carrier do with texts like:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (What does Paul mean when he says that Christ was buried?)
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (Who does Paul think betrayed Jesus? What did this betrayal mean? What kind of bread is Paul referring to?)
Galatians 1:11-2:10 (Who were the "apostles before Paul"? Why did he feel the need to lay out the Gospel before them?)

Again, an overly complicated theory. It's much simpler to accept that Jesus was an historical figure, even if we do not accept his divinity.

 

[Tree of Life]

"Gospels are wildly, deliberately fictional."

A flat claim. I'm not sure what he's referring to or why he thinks this because he does not qualify this statement. Perhaps he's referring to the miracles of Jesus? The miracles of Jesus would certainly make the Gospels extraordinary, amazing, and even hard to believe. But this is very different from deliberately fictional. It is very obvious that the Gospel authors want the readers to believe that what they are recording is actual history. They are deliberately historical, even if they're wrong.

 

[Tree of Life]

"All other evidence from the first 80 years of Christianity conveniently not preserved."

Carrier goes as far as to say that it was "thrown out", supposing that it did indeed exist. Things that make you go "hmmm". Carrier assumes here that documents that contradict the NT stuff don't exist because they were deliberately thrown out or destroyed. And his evidence for this claim? Well, they don't exist. Therefore they must have existed but the evil church destroyed them in order to preserve a specific set of doctrine. Carrier's bias shines like the sun here.

 

[Tree of Life]

"There's a flurry of forged documents that come from the second century."

Who cares? All the NT documents come from the first century.

 

[Tree of Life]

/sigh

I mean, Carrier did a good job getting his PhD and ingeniously retelling the story of the early church in a way that fits his view. Like many liberal scholars he can conveniently reject as forgeries any documents that contradict his view. He whittles the list of available documents down to the ones that he can use to support his view. And then he re-engineers the story in a brilliant way. He's certainly smart and he's approached this academically but his starting points are so full of anti-church and anti-Christian bias and his conclusions are so complicated that I doubt this view will ever amount to anything more than an historical curiosity that just challenged scholars to build an even stronger case for the historical Jesus.

 

[Tree of Life]

I mean it's just glaringly obvious that Carrier is not a Biblical scholar. The way that he jumps back and forth from pagan myth to Biblical text is baffling. He somehow thinks that whatever is going on in the pagan world could likely be going on in the Jewish and Christian world but this, again, betrays a profound misunderstanding of Judaism and Christianity. Carrier handles Scripture like an academic (in another field) who has read the Bible but has not studied Scripture in an academic way. Carrier's knowledge of Scripture, Judaism, and Christianity is superficial enough to make him sound like he knows what he's talking about, but this is just one more reason why this view will never be accepted among biblical scholars.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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..."

Where does he say that? I don't recall that statement in the video. I'd like some context.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Other issues...

He claims that Euhemerization was common in the Greek world, which it may have been (though I'm not sure). But then he takes a phenomenon from the Greek world and imposes it on Jewish Christian writers - simply citing that it was "common" in the ancient world. Where is the evidence that this took place at all among the Jews? That's a pretty big leap considering that the authors of the NT do not in any sense seem to be Hellenists and the Jews were largely separatists. One of the big obstacles for Christian conversion in the first and second centuries was that the Jews were SO separatistic that Greeks and Romans were skeptical of any teachings that came from Judaism.

Any way, Euhemerisation wasn't common at all. It was a proposed method for the origin of the gods in some philosophies and Kings declared themselves gods, but no common people made others into gods at this stage or made gods into humans either.

 

[Tree of Life]

Where does he say that? I don't recall that statement in the video. I'd like some context.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's within the first 8 minutes. It also comes up again later. It seems to be an important assumption for him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

That seems rather flimsy. What is evident is that what Paul knows about Jesus is consistent with the already established beliefs of the community.

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.

The word is γίνομαι, as in γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον. The word indicates originating from, or coming to be. The Son of God came from a woman, came under the law. Paul's use of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory comes later to address the larger point being addressed. That the Son of God came from a woman, was born of a woman, remains.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's within the first 8 minutes. It also comes up again later. It seems to be an important assumption for him.

It starts at roughly 7:28. Thanks.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[redleghunter]

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

Noted. It was a response to a Carrier point on artifacts, relics etc.

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks, this thread has finally started.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's been going on for a good clip. Previous to your video the rest of us were dealing with snippets revealed by the OP. Which I believe she did an admirable job presenting.

What was previously discussed is still valid after the video presentation:

1. Carrier is applying an unbalanced (double standard) measurement of what can be considered 'historical' evidence. He brushes aside the manuscript evidence for the NT and then upholds other works of antiquity as a standard for 'what right looks like' yet does not apply the same manuscript evidence standards to his exhibits. Added to this is his dismissal of the NT record itself. Good lawyers do try to impeach witnesses out of hand to bolster their position. However, such an approach also reveals his approach was presuppositional.

2. Carrier is no doubt a genius and knows Greco-Roman antiquity well---he's an expert, but clearly approaches this tome from a presupposition Jesus was not historical and was a myth. I call that the self licking ice cream cone approach. As presuppositions tend to lead the advocate to sources only advocating the position. I would consider this to be an attempt for him to establish his position as an absolute which he has no basis for doing so.

3. His thesis is a minority opinion on the historical Jesus. Theologians can stomach scholars who approach the NT and early church record as skeptics, but when they deny the evidence out of hand, that is wandering from scholarship into speculation.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

My assessment as well.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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

Thank you for posting that video although I do have to lament the 43:49 of my life that I will never get back; however it does confirm an earlier post I made about the "mythical Jesus" believers being the mormonism of atheism....we have now met their Joseph Smith.

 

[redleghunter]

"Gospels are wildly, deliberately fictional."

A flat claim. I'm not sure what he's referring to or why he thinks this because he does not qualify this statement. Perhaps he's referring to the miracles of Jesus? The miracles of Jesus would certainly make the Gospels extraordinary, amazing, and even hard to believe. But this is very different from deliberately fictional. It is very obvious that the Gospel authors want the readers to believe that what they are recording is actual history. They are deliberately historical, even if they're wrong.

These are the presuppositions I mentioned earlier and agree with your assessment above.

His argument becomes a self licking ice cream cone as he makes bold proclamations relying on 'it is known or established' when it is not.

 

[redleghunter]

"All other evidence from the first 80 years of Christianity conveniently not preserved."

Carrier goes as far as to say that it was "thrown out", supposing that it did indeed exist. Things that make you go "hmmm". Carrier assumes here that documents that contradict the NT stuff don't exist because they were deliberately thrown out or destroyed. And his evidence for this claim? Well, they don't exist. Therefore they must have existed but the evil church destroyed them in order to preserve a specific set of doctrine. Carrier's bias shines like the sun here.

Likewise, the above can be said about any historical figure, empire or movement yet no one disputes Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. Even though the earliest manuscript of that campaign comes from the 9th or 10th Century AD.