# Richard Carrier: a credible historian regarding rejecting Hitler's anti-Christian views being... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 30, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874 "2010-12-30T22:08:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/41 "2010-12-31T21:56:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, no, but no other “scholars” cast doubt upon the translation. AFAIK, no real scholars have bothered to comment upon Carriers views as they don’t take him seriously as a scholar of Hitler or German translation. It was ostensibly [published in _German Studies Review_](http://www.jstor.org/pss/1432747), but how closely an historian (or anyone else) actually fact-checked it before this was published is unknown to me. Wikipedia says the _Review_ is peer-reviewed, but I didn’t see that verified [at the web page](http://www.thegsa.org/gsr/index.asp). It’s possible the fact-checking was shallow or non-existent. Unfortunately we don’t have any confirmation either way. > [@DrDeth](#): > > And you see, that’s the point- where are Carriers other writings about German translations? There are none, Carrier- critiques this one translation becuase he needs to support his bias. Where are Carriers other writings about German History, or WWII or Hitler? None. Carrier is not considered an expert on Germany, Hitler, WWII, \*or \*German translations. Fair enough; that and his promoting crackpot historical theories against Christianity is enough to question his historical conclusions with respect to rejecting Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_. Still, it would be nice if we had some corroboration/refutation on the matter by credible historians who have closely examined Carrier’s claims. ---
**Author:** ![Lightsaber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Lightsaber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightsaber)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/42 "2010-12-31T22:26:00Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > It was ostensibly [published in _German Studies Review_](http://www.jstor.org/pss/1432747), but how closely an historian (or anyone else) actually fact-checked it before this was published is unknown to me. Wikipedia says the _Review_ is peer-reviewed, but I didn’t see that verified [at the web page](http://www.thegsa.org/gsr/index.asp). It’s possible the fact-checking was shallow or non-existent. Unfortunately we don’t have any confirmation either way. From the very page you linked: "Each issue contains at least six articles and sixty book reviews. German Studies Review is a journal of first publication, and all submissions are peer-reviewed. " ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/43 "2010-12-31T22:49:13Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > I don’t find that convincing, but would be interesting in hearing more of Van Voorst’s comments if you have read from him. To put in some negative comments, could make it a more clever forgery. Many have seen the high praise that Josephus gave Jesus as reasons for doubting those particular parts since he wasn’t a Christian. I think some Christian forgers have learned from it. Remsberg answers Van Voorst objection with this one before his time. See number 9. Does Van Voorst or any other historian address Remsberg’s reasons for doubting the quote from Tacitus? Remsberg work appeared over 100 years ago and he stated then, as many seem do today that many don’t seem to question this passage from Tacitus. I’d like to know more as to why this is the case. It might be that some scholarship today has refuted his main objections. Here is his 14: > > 1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers. > > 2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed. > > 3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them. > > 4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed. > > 5. The ecclesiastical historan Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus. > > 6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century. > > 7. At this time but one copy of the _Annals_ existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus. > > 8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. > > 9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove it’s Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable. > > ] We’re getting into Hijack territory now, so open a new thread or let us get back to Carrier. However, there’s no doubt Tacitus wasn;t writing of first hand info. He hadn’t even been born yet. Altho it is likely some record was kept of the execution of Jesus, it was unlikely to even survive to his time, some 80 years later. Many such parchment records were scraped and re-used. Perhaps Tacitus did have some Roman records that were written afterwards, as the Crux. & the rise of Christianity did cause some ruckus. (wiki) "\*There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[71] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: “Tacitus’s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius’s reign.” [72] Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus."\* All those objections are easily overcome by two things- it’s not a complimentary mention of Jesus by any means- and that there was little need for early Christians to keep contempory proof of the Historical Jesus as there was never any doubt of that until much later\*. I have never seen any Roman writing that claimed there never was a Jesus, thus, they seemed to accept that was such a person at one time. Certainly they wrote bad shit about him, but they never seemed to actually doubt his exisitance. Thus, early Christians would have no reason at all to “cleverly” forge a spurious but uncomplimentary mention of Jesus. The Josephus quote is a good example- they (apparently) just added a few details to glorify Jesus. Yes, now we doubt that, but it’s only in the last few centuries that any doubt upon a historical Jesus existed. As for Pilates rank “\*Pilate’s rank while he was in Judea appeared in an inscription which called him a prefect,[18] while this Tacitean passage calls him a procurator (Latin). Josephus refers to him with the generic Greek term ηγεμων, or governor. Van Voorst thinks that the use such different terms is what one would expect from witnesses writing in different languages, at different times in history. [19]” \*(wiki) I have read other Roman writers where the different titles were used with some degree of indifference- once the Empire started many of the positions were simply appointed by the Emperor, and thus the subtle differences needed by Republican Rome (Imperium or no Imperium? How many lictors? , etc) were not critical any longer. - wiki "_The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by some biblical scholars; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies though Volney felt that confused memories of an obscure historical figure might have integrated into this already existing solar mythology.[56][57]_ [Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus) ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/44 "2011-01-01T00:19:09Z")
> [@Lightsaber](#): > > From the very page you linked: > > "Each issue contains at least six articles and sixty book reviews. German Studies Review is a journal of first publication, and all submissions are peer-reviewed. " :smack: I must be more tired than I thought; I’m surprised I didn’t notice it. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/45 "2011-01-01T00:26:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > We’re getting into Hijack territory now, so open a new thread or let us get back to Carrier. Perhaps it is, so I’ll start a new thread, and it will make the moderators’ job easier. I’m fixin’ to go out to celebrate tonight, but will be particularly interesting in someone addressing all or most of Remsberg’s concerns. The gospels aren’t always complimentary of Jesus either. And it seems just as plausible that the reason you never read from any Romans doubting Jesus, is that there were equally no writings of him whatsoever during his supposed existence or even shortly thereafter. I’ll pick up on that with the new thread I should get to in the next couple of days. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/46 "2011-01-03T14:47:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The second viewpoint (that any real historical inspiration for the Jesus myth is so far removed and/or so minimal as to be irrecoverable from the myth) is entirely separate from the view that Jesus did not exist. No credible scholar holds that view. For example, you cite GA Wells, who has said (wiki) "_Wells clarified again in 2009 that in his books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, he repudiated the idea that Jesus is virtually and perhaps entirely fictional. He writes that he belongs in the category of those who argue that Jesus did exist, but that reports about him are so unreliable that we can know little or nothing about him."_ In fact, that is just the opposite of holding that Jesus did nto exist- Well states clearly (and eloquently) that there _was_ a historical Jesus, but that there’s so little actual historical record that we know little or nothing about him. That’s fine, that’s good scholarship. There _is_ very little known about the Historical Jesus. Much can be inferred, of course, but little is \*known. \* Other hold similar views- no legit scholars actually contend there was NO Historical Jesus at all, usch a view is proof positive of woo-wooism. IIRC, at one time GA Wells did deny a historical Jesus, and that he later changed his mind. I’m not 100% on this though. In any event, I think the viewpoint above (that Jesus did exist, but we can know little or nothing about him) is that of the Jesus seminar. I hold a similar belief, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t actually make a difference if Jesus existed or not - if such a belief were true. Can someone clarify? If can know either next to nothing or nothing about the _historical_ Jesus, then how could we know whether there was one? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/47 "2011-01-03T16:10:21Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > In any event, I think the viewpoint above (that Jesus did exist, but we can know little or nothing about him) is that of the Jesus seminar. I hold a similar belief, but it seems to me that it wouldn’t actually make a difference if Jesus existed or not - if such a belief were true. > > Can someone clarify? If can know either next to nothing or nothing about the _historical_ Jesus, then how could we know whether there was one? Well, you don’t need to know a lot about someone simply to confirm they existed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/48 "2011-01-03T16:12:47Z")
It’s an ongoing question in itself as to what the minimum requirements should be for a real figure to qualify as “Historical Jesus.” What would be the essential points in common with the Gospels? What if there was a preacher who said many of the things attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, but he was not crucified? What if he was crucified but didn’t preach most of what is attributed to him? What if someone fit the broad outlines, but his name wasn’t Jesus? What if the figure in the Gospels is an amalgamation of two or more figures? At what point is the historical figure far enough removed from the character in the Gospels that we can no longer say they are the same? I always like to use the analogy of the the 4th century Bishop Nikolaos of Myra (aka, St. Nicholaus) and Santa Claus. Does the historical St. Nicholaus qualify as a real Santa Claus? The difference between the mythical “Christ” and any real historical inspiration would be just as vast. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/49 "2011-01-03T17:06:22Z")
> [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](#): > > Does it matter if he was a Christian or not, in his heart of hearts? I mean, would it make the religion any better or worse? Would it make Hitler any better or worse? It matters because it would be a very important historical fact. Not all such involve moral judgments. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/50 "2011-01-03T18:07:47Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > I therefore questioned his historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind, particularly if he is the only historian anyone can source who rejects Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in \* Hitler’s Table Talk.\* After taking the time to read through some of the threads and to review some of the links that others provided you; did you not find [Jim Walker’s](http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm) arguments good enough either? If you agreed with it along with the [wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk) I’m not sure why you think another thread was necessary. I can certainly see if the Straight Dope column was aware of the table talk editions they still wouldn’t have used it. It seems all of the anti-Christian quotes from Hitler that you want Carrier and Straight Dope to acknowledge comes from the controversial edition of_Hitler’s Table Talk_, and not from Picker’s. And even as Walker explains, if he is correct about this, assuming you wanted to use the controversial version of table talk which includes the anti-Christian quotes, there is still no talk of Hitler speaking “against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense.” He outlines the six main reasons of why trying to use this as evidence for Hitler’s apostasy would be many fold, and I think would show the poorest scholarship of all. Carrier’s piece that goes into more detail of the quotes he questions was in [freethought today](http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php) and was written over eight years ago. That’s ample time for any scholarship to have looked at it and come forward with any findings of their own if they felt like Carrier needed correcting, I would think. Dr.Deth, I’ll have time for something later this week on Tacitus. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/51 "2011-01-03T20:19:49Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > After taking the time to read through some of the threads and to review some of the links that others provided you; did you not find [Jim Walker’s](http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm) arguments good enough either? If you agreed with it along with the [wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk) I’m not sure why you think another thread was necessary. I can certainly see if the Straight Dope column was aware of the table talk editions they still wouldn’t have used it. It seems all of the anti-Christian quotes from Hitler that you want Carrier and Straight Dope to acknowledge comes from the controversial edition of_Hitler’s Table Talk_, and not from Picker’s. > > And even as Walker explains, if he is correct about this, assuming you wanted to use the controversial version of table talk which includes the anti-Christian quotes, there is still no talk of Hitler speaking “against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense.” He outlines the six main reasons of why trying to use this as evidence for Hitler’s apostasy would be many fold, and I think would show the poorest scholarship of all. . Actually, I also find Walkers arguments to be specious and unconvicning. Again, he is not a German Scholar or a Hitler Scholar or a WWI scholar, he is a agin writing from a atheist perspective, who again can be accused of wanting to “prove” Hitler was a Christian, in order solely to denounce Christianity. For example, he sez "\*If Hitler actually desired to eliminate personal Christianity, then why do we not find it in his other private dialogs and conversations? Why do we not find it in any of his public speeches or interviews? In the Secret Conversations with Hitler, two recently discovered confidential interviews were given by Richard Breiting in 1931. "\* Note that date- **1931** , Table Talk was from 1941 to 1945. Hitler seems to have changed quite a bit in thought and personality from 1931 to 1945, and of course, in 1931 Hitler had to be much more guarded about what he said. In 1941-1945 Hitler was a absolute dictator and could pretty well say what he wanted, in 1931 he didn’t even hold Office yet. The comparison is completely bogus. And of course, in Public speeches, with Germany being soemthing like 90% Christian, Hitler is not going to condemn Christianity. Again, a completely bogus line of thought. Worthless, bogus and biased “scholarship”. Craptasic. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/52 "2011-01-03T21:53:36Z")
[quote=“DrDeth, post:51, topic:565874”] > [@DrDeth](#): > > Actually, I also find Walkers arguments to be specious and unconvicning. Again, he is not a German Scholar or a Hitler Scholar or a WWI scholar, he is a agin writing from a atheist perspective, who again can be accused of wanting to “prove” Hitler was a Christian, in order solely to denounce Christianity. You’re broad stroking it. You don’t need to be a German, Hitler or WWI scholar to know what arguments are being said from the scholars that do know the languages. You don’t seem to have any trouble making judgments here for example without being a scholar yourself, I assume. Why don’t you address the specific points, you can start with his six. If Carrier’s piece has been out for at least eight years, where is the scholarship denouncing it? Seems better to just address the arguments. If someone is an atheist or Christian it shouldn’t matter, as long as their arguments are sound. > [@](#): > > Note that date- 1931, Table Talk was from 1941 to 1945. Hitler seems to have changed quite a bit in thought and personality from 1931 to 1945, and of course, in 1931 Hitler had to be much more guarded about what he said. In 1941-1945 Hitler was a absolute dictator and could pretty well say what he wanted, in 1931 he didn’t even hold Office yet. The comparison is completely bogus. > > And of course, in Public speeches, with Germany being soemthing like 90% Christian, Hitler is not going to condemn Christianity. Again, a completely bogus line of thought. > > Worthless, bogus and biased “scholarship”. Craptasic. Yes or no, other than the controversial edition of Table Talk, is there any other writings during any of this time that could corroborate such a view showing the anti-Christian views to the degree that it does? You’ve said that Hilter seems to have changed quite a bit in personality from 1931-1945. Good, let’s see something in some evidence for it that would corroborate it. And if you think the controversial editions of TT are credible, you must think that relying on hearsay and editing by an anti-Catholic is also good scholarship and is preferred. Not to mention multiple translations a better way to go instead of someone familiar with the languages going to the direct source of the original language. If you’ve got some scholars or others that you think are using good arguments questioning Carrier on this, please bring them here for discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/53 "2011-01-08T16:19:40Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > After taking the time to read through some of the threads and to review some of the links that others provided you; did you not find [Jim Walker’s](http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm) arguments good enough either? If you agreed with it along with the [wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk) I’m not sure why you think another thread was necessary. I didn’t agree with Jim Walker’s article, and that article was discussed in the [previous thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579662) (starting at post #13). Here’s how it stands: we have an eminent historian saying that _Hitler’s Table Talk_ is authentic, and we have no reputable historians saying otherwise. Carrier is an historian but a suspect one for a variety of reasons, among them the fact he promotes crackpot historical theories when grinding his anti-Christian axe. The fact that so far the _only_ known historian to deny the legitimacy of Hitler’s anti-Christian statements evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ is an historian who promotes crackpot historical claims against Christianity and who has an anti-Christian axe to grind does, I think, give me some reason to be skeptical. > [@razncain](#): > > And even as Walker explains, if he is correct about this, assuming you wanted to use the controversial version of table talk which includes the anti-Christian quotes, there is still no talk of Hitler speaking “against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. Also dealt with in the previous thread. From a post in that thread: > [@Was Hitler a Christian?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/16): > > This website of course has its own biases, and I found its arguments suspect and unconvincing. Consider for example the objection, “Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.” Would Hitler ever denounce “his own brand of Christianity” if he was not a Christian? Furthermore, what about Hitler’s claim that the Christian _doctrine_ will be convicted of absurdity? The author never mentions that tidbit. H.R. Trevor-Roper is a distinguished historian, and I trust his judgment on the authenticity of the records (see e.g. page xiv of the book) more than an atheist on the Internet who wants to believe Hitler was a Christian. > > Certainly there are some atheists on the Internet who question book’s authenticity. There are also atheists on the Internet who argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed (mainstream scholarship be damned). > [@razncain](#): > > Carrier’s piece that goes into more detail of the quotes he questions was in [freethought today](http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php) and was written over eight years ago. That’s ample time for any scholarship to have looked at it and come forward with any findings of their own if they felt like Carrier needed correcting, I would think. Not every bad historical theory gets mentioned by professional historians. The problem is that we don’t have solid corroboration either way. It would be nice if, for example, Trevor-Roper had in a future edition written, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations” but we don’t have any such thing. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/54 "2011-01-08T23:48:28Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > Not every bad historical theory gets mentioned by professional historians. The problem is that we don’t have solid corroboration either way. It would be nice if, for example, Trevor-Roper had in a future edition written, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations” but we don’t have any such thing. Yet it’s exactly remarks like this that have lent these multiple threads a surreal quality, detached from any sense of what the Hitler literature has been like over the last few decades. I realise that you’re not suggesting that Trevor-Roper _should_ have commented on Carrier’s points. Yet, in making the rhetorical point, you’re missing the basic historical detail that, in practice, he couldn’t have. Is it really of note that someone who died in [January 2003](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trevor-Roper), after long illness, never publically commented on a critical article published in [November 2002](http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php)? Forget Trevor-Roper and Carrier. They’re secondary. Are the different editions of the _Table Talk_ reliable? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/55 "2011-01-09T00:21:38Z")
I think it’s clearer to me who really has an axe to grind. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/56 "2011-01-10T00:11:10Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > Yet it’s exactly remarks like this that have lent these multiple threads a surreal quality, detached from any sense of what the Hitler literature has been like over the last few decades. > > I realise that you’re not suggesting that Trevor-Roper _should_ have commented on Carrier’s points. Yet, in making the rhetorical point, you’re missing the basic historical detail that, in practice, he couldn’t have. Is it really of note that someone who died in [January 2003](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trevor-Roper), after long illness, never publically commented on a critical article published in [November 2002](http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php)? Whether Trevor-Roper could have commented on it while ill is unknown to me, but let’s suppose he couldn’t have. It’s nonetheless possible for the next addition of the book to have _some_ distinguished historian say something like, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations.” (Particularly since [another edition ha been made of the book](http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944-Trevor-Roper/dp/B0036J8856/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294617735&sr=1-1).) > [@bonzer](#): > > Forget Trevor-Roper and Carrier. They’re secondary. Are the different editions of the _Table Talk_ reliable? That’s the question isn’t it? So far the only known historian to question Hitler’s anti-Christian remarks in the book is a man with an anti-Christian axe to grind and promotes crackpot historical theories against Christianity. So as I suggested earlier, it would be nice if we had some corroboration/refutation of this matter by a reputable, credible historian. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/57 "2011-01-10T00:46:31Z")
I did some digging and according to while noting Carrier’s remarks, [this book](http://books.google.com/books?id=H0git4b3GaQC&pg=PA399&lpg=PA399&dq=HItler%27s+Table+Talk+%22Richard+Carrier%22&source=bl&ots=dUpUEGMgCL&sig=iYr5REkBUEFJNVbB43WwENRZOQ8&hl=en&ei=BU8qTeC1KsGgnAeHtK3DAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=HItler%27s%20Table%20Talk%20%22Richard%20Carrier%22&f=false) on page 399 nonetheless claims that “_Hitler’s Table Talk_ is widely accepted as an authoritative source which make an important contribution to our understanding of Hitler’s philosophy and psychology.” It also claims that the “consensus regarding the validity and value of _Hitler’s Table Talk_” is ongoing, though the book is called _In Defense of Faith_ and like Richard Carrier the author no doubt has his biases (though as far as I know the author is Jewish and not Christian). I should also note however that the author himself says, “I am in no position to judge Mr. Genoud’s translation or Mr. Carrier’s scholarship” and gives the impression that he as at least somewhat doubtful of the book’s authenticity with respect to the anti-Christian remarks Carrier addressed in his article. ---
**Author:** ![Lightsaber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Lightsaber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightsaber)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/58 "2011-01-11T03:35:35Z")
**Wade** , I mentioned a book titled The Holy Reich up thread. That book says that historian Ian Kershaw alludes to the “questionable nature” of Hitler’s Table talk. You probably saw the same thing since it shows up in the same search you linked above. Anyway, Kershaw is unquestionably an expert in this area. You might wish to dig into what exactly he wrote about Table Talk in his book Hitler 1889–1936. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/59 "2011-01-11T20:13:41Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > I didn’t agree with Jim Walker’s article, and that article was discussed in the previous thread (starting at post #13). Yes, I pointed out in post #50 that I got that link and others from those threads. And with that thread you gave us, your post to follow devoted about five sentences of addressing about 15 pages of the Jim Walker’s Table Talk material, so equally, I’m not convinced or impressed with the effort you put forth with your lack of arguments that should have at least addressed the six main points. > [@](#): > > Carrier is an historian but a suspect one for a variety of reasons, among them the fact he promotes crackpot historical theories when grinding his anti-Christian axe. None of your reasons were valid. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I take it you’ve never read one book about all the varying sects in early Christianity including those that didn’t think he was a man at all? If you had, you’d also find that there were plenty of symbolism then too. Carrier’s critical scholarship in this manner doesn’t qualify for anti-Christian just because he doesn’t sing in harmony and in tune with you or traditionalists. There are many scholars that take the historical nature of Jesus very seriously, and I have yet to find one that considered it a crackpot theory if they doubted this particularly Jesus during that time and area existed at all. And they certainly have no doubts about any supernatural Jesus. So even if their pendulum still weighed in favor of a historical Jesus of some kind, I don’t see them referring to others who are more inclined to doubt a historical Jesus as a crackpot. When you look into this, you’ll see there have been many quests to find a historical Jesus which mostly come from from well-learned Christians, and much to their dismay, their efforts have failed. Are their methods lacking? Feel free to join in and participate with us in this discussion and tell us what you’d consider a historical Jesus would consist of [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=591499) You also state: _H.R. Trevor-Roper is a distinguished historian, and I trust his judgment on the authenticity of the records (see e.g. page xiv of the book) more than an atheist on the Internet who wants to believe Hitler was a Christian._ That may very well have been that he was a distinguished historian, but no one is infallible. Carrier explained that it was Stevens and Cameron who either lied or misled Trevor-Roper who claimed they had translated Genoud’s German manuscript. Carrier goes into plenty of explicit details and reasons to explain those quotes. I think you get the gist of what Carrier uncovered, and just want to shoot the messenger. Is your stance on Jesus pretty much traditional? Also note that that particular essay from over eight years ago by Carrier in FT had the excerpts that were also under review for publication by the journal, _German Studies Review_ as well. This is how it works. So until some other well respected peer reviewed scholarship overturns Carrier’s work, I doubt it’s going to go away. > [@](#): > > Whether Trevor-Roper could have commented on it while ill is unknown to me, but let’s suppose he couldn’t have. It’s nonetheless possible for the next addition of the book to have some distinguished historian say something like, “I investigated the matter carefully myself and Carrier was right about previous editions having inaccurate translations; this edition of the book contains the correct translations.” Would it really make a hill of a beans difference to you? With the other links you gave us, I see you’re not willing to let go of the Shroud of Turin either. Have you ever participated in one of these threads devoted to it? If so, I’d appreciate it if you would give me a link. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874/60 "2011-01-12T00:53:54Z")
To expand on my most recent post, the continuing emphasis on whether there’s been any substantial reaction to Carrier’s article seems to me to miss the real point. The “Trevor-Roper edition” of the _Table Talk_ had pretty much always been regarded as somewhat problematic, regardless of that attack. In this instance, Carrier can be seen as staking out an extreme - even unreasonable - position, but he wasn’t dropping a bombshell in 2002. This edition has always been largely an irrelevance for serious historians of the Third Reich. They can read German, so almost invariably cite one of the German editions. Most will have at least looked at a copy of the translation, simply because they’re the most convenient re-reprinting of the famous essay Trevor-Roper re-cycled as an introduction. Otherwise, any citations of it are merely because it’s convenient and it’s the version non-German-reading readers will be familiar with. Nor is the notion that a Trevor-Roper edition of Hitler source material would be deficient that shocking to such a specialist audience. Over a half-century, publishers seeking to profit from the interest in Hitler found Trevor-Roper a willing and eager collaborator. For a suitable fee - naturally - he’d knock out an appropriate introduction to whatever translation of some interesting documents was being peddled. Some of the material involved was sub-standard. This is not a controversial observation. In the case of the _Table Talk_, it had been long obvious to all that there were issues. So one came across references to German editions that didn’t match anything in the English edition … Not necessarily reasons to dismiss them, but differences in the sources that had to be paid attention to and thought about. Largely because he was a non-specialist explicitly writing for a general audience, a lengthy, though hardly exhausive, pre-Carrier discussion of the problems with the _Table Talk_ can be found in Ron Rosenbaum’s 1998 book _Explaining Hitler_. In his take, contrasted with his presentation of Trevor-Roper thinking that the transcripts captured the “real Hitler”: > [@](#): > > [A]t best it’s the real _counterfeit_ Hitler. That even though the words are (for the most part) really Hitler’s nonetheless it’s almost as false a creation as the “Hitler Diaries.” In a sense, the “Table Talk” is Hitler’s own Hitler-diary hoax. Rosenbaum then duly emphasizes both the extent to which Hitler was knowingly playing a part in the sessions and Bormann’s role in editing them. He doesn’t trust them. This isn’t quite Carrier’s thesis, though it is close (and it’s striking that Carrier’s article appears unaware of Rosenbaum’s book). Indeed, one passage Rosenbaum finds insincere is a ringing endorsement of religion in the form of the Ten Commandments. The shoe drops. The chapter involved is mainly based on an extended interview with Trevor-Roper about his views on Hitler’s thinking and motivation. In the course of which he indeed expressed reservations about the English translation that appeared under his apparent _imprimatur_. Basically, he thought Genoud and the translator had pulled a fast one on him by basing it on Genoud’s French edition. Now the comments are fairly mild and the general tenor of the interview is clearly that he, unsurprisingly, continued to argue that the _Table Talk_, even in this form, was indeed the “real Hitler”. But it’s equally obvious that he considers that the English translation was technically sub-standard. As a matter of record, the publishers haven’t cared a toss and Trevor-Roper still, no doubt, happily cashed their royalty cheques until his death. To spell out Carrier’s main example. the [German in the Picker text](http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=nhojTe-vK4qEhQfwk8S3Dg&ct=result&id=HApxAAAAIAAJ&dq=Tischgespr%C3%A4che+im+F%C3%BChrerhauptquartier&q=Moses) is: > [@](#): > > Es wird nur dem das Leben gegeben, der am stärksten darum ficht. Das Gesetz des Lebens heißt: Verteidige Dich! > Die Zeit, in der wir leben, ist die Erscheinung des Zusammenbruchs dieser Sache. Es kann 100 oder 200 Jahre noch dauern. Es tut mir leid, daß ich wie Moses das Gelobte Land nur aus der Ferne sehen kann. Carrier translates this as: > [@](#): > > I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself! > The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance. Which seems reasonable. By contrast, the “Trevor-Roper edition” renders this as: > [@](#): > > I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others’ bodies and tyranny upon others’ souls. > Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. Something has clearly gone badly amiss somewhere along the line here. For the record, I’ve quoted from the English translation on the Dope before and expect to do so again. But professional historians have, pretty much, always treated the _Table Talk_ as a complicated source that, rather than somehow magically revealing Hitler’s true thoughts and beliefs, has to be weighed against other sources. Just like all the others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-carrier-a-credible-historian-regarding-rejecting-hitlers-anti-christian-views-being/565874.md?page=4)