Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

mark kennedy said:

His evidence are random comparisons and ridiculous mischaracterizations.

Click to expand...

There's nothing random about it. He presents a cogent case and even gets into detail about his methodology.

The lack of evidence in his arguments are telling.

Click to expand...

You might want to review the sources mentioned in his book. One thing that the book is NOT, is lacking in evidence and sources. Providing all of those sources is beyond the scope of any video.

He failed to mention that he got his argument concerning the cursing of the fig tree from Bertrand Russell.

Click to expand...

If he "failed to mention it", how do you know this without making a huge assumption or claiming powers of mind-reading?

And, seriously, what would it matter to the strength of his argument? It sounds like you are just trying very hard to poison the well.

He is doing little more then mocking the Scriptures, apparently that plays well with atheists.

Click to expand...

He is a Ph.D. historian doing peer-reviewed historical research. Whether he intends to "mock" or not is entirely irrelevant. Again, that is just poisoning the well.

In any case, I've done all I care to in this thread to give Carrier a fair shake. If any of you are still unconvinced by his arguments, that's fine with me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

There's nothing random about it. He presents a cogent case and even gets into detail about his methodology.

Click to expand...

He doesn't know how to make basic insight into pagan or Christian religious systems. Virtually all the religions of the ancient world go back to celestial deities or pagan elementals (earth, air, fire and water). The Hebrew and Christian systems didn't, it's as simple as that. The fact is we don't get to rewrite the ancient texts because we would rather it said something different. I might prefer a figurative interpretation of Genesis but there is no figurative language and the language of the creation account states in no uncertain terms that God created the universe, life in general and man in particular. I personally don't care for the doctrine of original sin but that is what the Scriptures teach. The Incarnation is a difficult doctrine to wrap your mind around but invariably Christian apologists have long emphasized this foundational doctrine well ahead of internal, external and bibliographical testing of the evidence.

Carrier can't do a simple exposition and that is the essence of his error. How much he studied is secondary to whether or not he can be trusted to make genuine insight because if he is weak on the principles I do understand I see no reason to chase him in circles around the particulars.

You might want to review the sources mentioned in his book. One thing that is book is NOT, is lacking in evidence and sources. Providing all of those sources is beyond the scope of any video.

Click to expand...

I was talking about in this thread there is very little, if any. I have a pretty good idea where Carrier is coming from and he is organizing everything around naturalistic assumptions. It might be different if he could relate something, anything, from the mystery religions to biblical Christianity but he simply states they are the same thing, proving nothing.

If he "failed to mention it", how do you know this without making a huge assumption or claiming powers of mind-reading?

And, seriously, what would it matter to the strength of his argument? It sounds like you are just trying very hard to poison the well.

Click to expand...

It's an old argument easily dismissed. The tree wasn't bearing fruit, the proper thing to do was to cut it down and burn the roots, he cursed it to the same effect. Even though it wasn't fig season there should have been buds, the tree had to be taken down in case it pollinated other figs to the same effect. Russel didn't know this and neither did Carrier, the point is pedantic at best.

He is a Ph.D. historian doing peer-reviewed historical research. Whether he intends to "mock" or not is entirely irrelevant. Again, that is just poisoning the well.

Click to expand...

Poison what well? He is teaching a marginal, minority view. It's nothing new, liberal theology has done this before and it's little more then an equivocation. He wants to suggest a probability statistic for a miracle when the chances of a miracle for an atheistic materialist is exactly zero. Before I take the pains to try to follow his analysis and comparison to other historic works I'm going to consider his premise and his thesis as they are defined early in his discussion. What is more when he does an exposition I expect certain features of the original construction and intent of the author to come out and they never do.

In any case, I've done all I care to in this thread to give Carrier a fair shake. If any of you are still unconvinced by his arguments, that's fine with me.

Click to expand...

Honestly it's interesting getting into the mystery religions, reading about the Mithra cults is fun and interesting. I've always liked Grecian mythology so following some of the details along that line are not a problem. When Paul arrived at Athens he makes mention of the many gods they worship and tells them, you idol dedicated to the 'unknown god' (lit. agnosis, ie agnostic), this is the God I proclaim to you. They thought it very strange that Paul preached the resurrection of the dead. We know for a fact Paul founded churches to the south in Corinth and to the north in Macedonia, there were none in Athens. Their great scholars who learned things like the wisdom of the ancient Egyptians became the basis for Euclid's Elements, still the second nonfiction best selling book in history, second only to the King James Bible. With all that knowledge of nature, philosophy and governance they knew nothing of the Creator.

Have a nice day
Mark

Athée said:

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Even Bart Erhman and Dominic Crossen atheist Biblical Scholars on the far left of the debate who both reject a historical Jesus appear conservative compared to Carrier. Why?

Carrier misuses scripture at every turn in his books.

Michael Licona’s characterization of Carrier’s exegesis: “It is a torture chamber in which texts are stretched until they are made to say what Richard wants them to say.” Just as the hapless victim laid on a medieval torture rack is stretched until he says what his inquisitors want him to say, so the biblical texts are stretched until they yield Carrier’s view. His stretched interpretations of Pauline texts are so outrageous that they merit my appellation “crank exegesis.”

Look on youtube for Carrier's debates with Licona and William Lane Craig and you will get a feel for out of his depth Carrier is on this topic.

Finally,

"no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion."

Point is the experts in exegesis have been having this conversation quarterly for the last 70 years. Carrier is Not and expert in Jewish history or Old or New Testament exegesis , far from it. He is a pundit in straw Christian arguments providing anachronistic readings of the Salem witch trials and the "Adolf Hitler was a Christian" renderings of history that were thinly veiled attempts to poison the wells rather than engage historical perspectives.

Now had he written on the Roman philosophers or even polytheism of the first two centuries then we could have be treated to some scholarship.

But he stands alone with his fanciful renderings of things like a literal resurrection when reading Paul and 1 Cor 15.

Pure rhetoric. Dawkins might as well have written it.

Uber Genius said:

Point is the experts in exegesis have been having this conversation quarterly for the last 70 years. Carrier is Not and expert in Jewish history or Old or New Testament exegesis , far from it. He is a pundit in straw Christian arguments providing anachronistic readings of the Salem witch trials and the "Adolf Hitler was a Christian" renderings of history that were thinly veiled attempts to poison the wells rather than engage historical perspectives.

Now had he written on the Roman philosophers or even polytheism of the first two centuries then we could have be treated to some scholarship.

But he stands alone with his fanciful renderings of things like a literal resurrection when reading Paul and 1 Cor 15.

Click to expand...

The Carrier thesis just seems bizarre, how you could get a celestial Jesus from Paul is a mystery to me. He seems meticulously analytical but devoid of basic insight. He gets out of college and gets his student loans paid off by catering to atheists and humanists. He seems perfectly willing to torpedo Christian beliefs and does not hesitate to equivocate the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection with pagan mystery religions. No exposition, let alone exegesis, of Paul will get you anything other then a bodily resurrection. Still he persists, under close scrutiny the Carrier thesis falls apart. I actually enjoyed dismantling it even though it was a little like fish in a bucket.

mark kennedy said:

The Carrier thesis just seems bizarre, how you could get a celestial Jesus from Paul is a mystery to me.

Click to expand...

He doesn't get the celestial Jesus from Paul. The smoking gun for a celestial Jesus is found elsewhere. He only argues that a celestial Jesus is easily consistent with what is known to have come from Paul.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

He doesn't get the celestial Jesus from Paul. The smoking gun for a celestial Jesus is found elsewhere. He only argues that a celestial Jesus is easily consistent with what is known to have come from Paul.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

He starts his lectures with Paul taught the death burial and resurrection happened in the heavens. He basis this on the writings of Paul and the man does the worst excuse for an exposition I think I've ever seen. He starts rambling on about how the church tried to make all this seem historical in the second century the way the myths of Romulas had fabricated historical narratives. What he seems oblivious to is that the churches have had these scrolls in their possession their entire history. The reason they were preserved was so they could be read in the churches. 20 scrolls magically appear a hundred years after the proported events and this is universally accepted by Christians from Syria to Rome, literally, as gospel. There is absolutely no basis period.

HitchSlap said:

Carrier simply takes a look at the evidence, and then applies scholarly methods to it. Not much cultish at all.

Click to expand...

Hello Sir,
I believe this is a rather romanticist's view of Carrier's work for a more objective analysis you may want to read and consider some scholarly reviews of his book. I believe he is quite on the fringe.

• Critical Reviews On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier

Athée said:

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I was put off buying his book after watching a couple of his lectures, as he missed out so much information to make his points that there wasn’t really anything left but his argument, supported by selected data, with very narrowly selected ‘context’ - in inverted commas as the links he made were pretty tenuous. Does he delve into the development of Jewish literature in his book? That might persuade me to buy it, something along the lines of David Rosenberg’s Abraham, which looks at Genesis 11-25 with an accent on how Abraham’s education in Sumeria may have influenced his thinking (and uses this influence to argue that Abraham was a real historical figure), or Erich Auerbach’s treatment of ancient texts from Jewish vs Hellenic origins. Maybe it’s unfair to compare Carrier with Auerbach, as the kind of thorough training Auberbach received doesn’t really exist anymore but Mimesis for example does demonstrate how narrow Carrier’s ideas are.

Athée said:

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I just noticed that this thread is 2 yrs old! Is it still active? I mean are you (the OP) still looking at it?

John 1720 said:

Hello Sir,
I believe this is a rather romanticist's view of Carrier's work for a more objective analysis you may want to read and consider some scholarly reviews of his book. I believe he is quite on the fringe.

• Critical Reviews On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier

Click to expand...

Of course he’s on the fringe, but that does t make him wrong. I’ve seen most of Carrier’s critics, and it’s usually always ad homs.

Have you actually listened or read OTHOJ?

HitchSlap said:

Of course he’s on the fringe, but that does t make him wrong. I’ve seen most of Carrier’s critics, and it’s usually always ad homs.

Have you actually listened or read OTHOJ?

Click to expand...

He's not wrong because he's on the fringe, he's on the fringe because he is wrong. Wrong on so many things actually. He is to the historical community what flat-earthers are to the geological community. At best he is a curiosity.

anonymous person said:

He's not wrong because he's on the fringe, he's on the fringe because he is wrong. Wrong on so many things actually. He is to the historical community what flat-earthers are to the geological community. At best he is a curiosity.

Click to expand...

Congrats on demonstrating his point about ad-Homs.

Goonie said:

Congrats on demonstrating his point about ad-Homs.

Click to expand...

Saying Carrier is a curiosity among historians is not an ad hominem.

Carrier had the idea that early Christianity was a lot like the cult of Mithra, that somehow there were secret initiation rites related to celestial deities. We know that about the cult of Mithra, it's a well established fact, it was a popular mystery religion. There is absolutely nothing indicating early Christianity was anything of the sort. We have no less then five historical narratives inextricably linked to the first century church, meticulously well preserved and nothing indicating a mystery religion type of initiation.

The Carrier thesis is fanciful speculation, I think he was just catering to humanist groups that supported his thesis as long as it dismissed Christianity as just another mystery religion. No substantive basis required.

mark kennedy said:

Carrier had the idea that early Christianity was a lot like the cult of Mithra, that somehow there were secret initiation rites related to celestial deities.

Click to expand...

You are right that he argues that Jesus was originally a celestial deity, but he presents a cogent case for that that can't be boiled down to simply "Jesus is like Mithra". He actually says that not much is known about Mithra, and what little is known suggests that Mithra isn't a dying and rising god. You might want to deal with Richard Carrier's actual argument and avoid straw-manning him.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

Secret initiation rights aren't a significant part of his case. I'm not sure why you would mention specifically that detail.

You are right that he believes that Jesus was originally a celestial deity, but he presents a cogent case for that. You might want to deal with the actual argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

The mystery religion of Mithra just happened to be one of the most popular, certainly not the only one. I've heard him speak on the subject and he is clear that he thinks the resurrection was a celestial, not a terrestrial one. He further states that this was revealed to initiates in secret ceremonies with no actual evidence early Christians participated in any such rites. Mithra's secret initiations were secret so not much is known but it is known that there were seven levels, one for each of the known planets at the time.

I'm well aware of the argument, it's baseless.

HitchSlap said:

Of course he’s on the fringe, but that does t make him wrong. I’ve seen most of Carrier’s critics, and it’s usually always ad homs.

Have you actually listened or read OTHOJ?

Click to expand...

Hi Sir,
While I do invest myself in investigating books maligning the veracity of the Gospels and the historicity of my Lord Jesus, for apologetic purposes, I am quite selective. I confess that I have only read excerpts from Carrier's book as well as watching some of his debates. However, for this thread I planned to check out the book from our library; although the reviews overwhelmingly indicate his book is a failure in what he sets out and attempts to achieve

Amazon Book Review said:

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) by Richard Carrier
An Impressive, but Complete, Failure -- review by David Marshall on Amazon.com
August 3, 2014; 2.0 out of 5 stars This review is from: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (712 pages, paperback)
In this book, Richard Carrier writes big checks on his own objectivity, knowledge, and sound judgment. He often appeals to his objectivity, while deriding that of scholars who hold opposing views, whom he hints are too hide-bound or fearful to come to the dark side and embrace his views. He makes dozens or hundreds of judgment calls, defending them in the first person ("I judge" "I am rejecting" etc). He refers readers frequently to his previous writings in which he claims to have "demonstrated X conclusively." And more implicitly, he asks readers to trust him when he offers thousands of citations -- we must believe that he is citing this cloud of ancient and modern witnesses accurately, or else take the trouble to look them all up, which few readers are likely to do.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that the 712 page investment plus the mandated companion referencing of his former works will prove out anything new in the quest to undermine Jesus and His Gospel but will do my own self assessment for the record. I was merely stating your review of the book appeared to be more romanticized in comparison to most professional book reviewers I read online.
Regards, Pat

mark kennedy said:

The mystery religion of Mithra just happened to be one of the most popular, certainly not the only one. I've heard him speak on the subject and he is clear that he thinks the resurrection was a celestial, not a terrestrial one. He further states that this was revealed to initiates in secret ceremonies with no actual evidence early Christians participated in any such rites. Mithra's secret initiations were secret so not much is known but it is known that there were seven levels, one for each of the known planets at the time.

I'm well aware of the argument, it's baseless.

Click to expand...

I only looked into one of his comparisons, that with the Geto-Dacian/Thracian deity Zalmoxis, as I knew a bit about Zalmoxis, mostly from Eliade. This was based on one of his lectures rather than the book, but I found his presentation of if pretty suspect, in that he picked some vaguely similar ideas and framed them in familiar biblical language, rather than presenting them in their own terms, which to me seemed like an attempt to mislead. For example, the Zalmoxis story involves the priest/deity Z descending into a kind of Greek style underworld and spending several years there before returning to Earth after 3 and a bit years. Carrier sums this up as being essentially the same as the resurrection narrative.

mark kennedy said:

The mystery religion of Mithra just happened to be one of the most popular, certainly not the only one. I've heard him speak on the subject and he is clear that he thinks the resurrection was a celestial, not a terrestrial one. He further states that this was revealed to initiates in secret ceremonies with no actual evidence early Christians participated in any such rites. Mithra's secret initiations were secret so not much is known but it is known that there were seven levels, one for each of the known planets at the time.

I'm well aware of the argument, it's baseless.

Click to expand...

I only looked into one of his comparisons, that with the Geto-Dacian/Thracian deity/priest Zalmoxis, as I knew a bit about Zalmoxis, mostly from Eliade. This was based on one of his lectures rather than the book, but I found his presentation of it pretty suspect, in that he picked some vaguely similar ideas and framed them in familiar biblical language, rather than presenting them in their own terms, which to me seemed like an attempt to mislead. For example, the Zalmoxis story involves the priest/deity Z descending into a kind of Greek style underworld and spending several years there before returning to Earth after 3 and a bit years. Carrier sums this up as being essentially the same as the resurrection narrative.

mark kennedy said:

The mystery religion of Mithra just happened to be one of the most popular, certainly not the only one. I've heard him speak on the subject and he is clear that he thinks the resurrection was a celestial, not a terrestrial one. He further states that this was revealed to initiates in secret ceremonies with no actual evidence early Christians participated in any such rites. Mithra's secret initiations were secret so not much is known but it is known that there were seven levels, one for each of the known planets at the time.

I'm well aware of the argument, it's baseless.

Click to expand...

I only looked into one of his comparisons, that with the Geto-Dacian/Thracian deity/priest Zalmoxis, as I knew a bit about Zalmoxis, mostly from Eliade. This was based on one of his lectures rather than the book, but I found his presentation of it pretty suspect, in that he picked some vaguely similar ideas and framed them in familiar biblical language, rather than presenting them in their own terms, which to me seemed like an attempt to mislead. For example, the Zalmoxis story involves the priest/deity Z descending into a kind of Greek style underworld and spending several years there before returning to Earth after 3 and a bit years. Carrier sums this up as being essentially the same as the resurrection narrative.