First off, G. A. Wells is a professor of German, not of the history of the new Testament, and Richard Price is a writer. I think you mean Robert Price, who is a biblical historian.
Anyway the problem with the views of Carrier and their ilk is simply that their scholarship is behind the times. They all in some way rely on the idea that the gospels were contrsucted based on pre-existing Greek and other pagan religions and stories. Thus no hisrotical Jesus is needed. This reading of the gospels in a Hellenistic context was once more popular in historical Jesus studies. However recently there has been a shift in scholarship, and it has become accepted that Christianity was fundamentally a first century Jewish movement, and this Jewish context is critical for historically evaluating the accounts of Jesus. Reading these Hellenistic and other pagan myths into the gospels simply makes no sense.
In Carrier’s particular case it is instructive to actually read the symbolic ways in which his theory requires him to read the gospels. Many of his allusions seem entirely ad hoc, and not what anyone naturally reading the text would think. If the gospels were intended to be understood in this way then they would be simply ineffective as a means of communication and I doubt that anyone would ever write them. Certainly I think that it is more likely that Jesus actually existed in some form (even as just a person) than Carrier’s gospels (ie: Gospels with the intended meaning that Carrier puts into them) would ever be written.
That’s not Carrier’s position, actually. He doesn’t take the “it’s all based on pagan beliefs” route. I don’t think you’re very familiar with mythicism. The contention is that the Gospels are constructed mostly from the Old Testament, not from Hellenistic sources. Hellenistic influences, yes, but a Hebrew Bible base for the narratives. None of them (at least not the ones I named) argue against it starting as a Jewish movement.
No credible scholar doubt there was a historical Jesus, and in any case, here on the SDMB, we have the word of the Master saying that Jesus did exist, thus for the purposes of this board, it’s a given outside of
“Comments on Cecils Columns”.
Thus any such comment makes his credibility suspect. It certainly appears he is attempting to prove Hitler was a Christian only to support his obvious personal dislike of Christianity.
There are several credible scholars who at least think the historicity of Jesus is questionable, or in some cases (such as Burton Mack) negligible (i.e. that any real historical inspiration for the Jesus myth is so far removed and/or so minimal as to be irrecoverable from the myth).
I’ve never seen Carrier bash Christianity. Charges of anti-Christian hostility should be supported by something more than him simply arguing against the Christian mythos as representing literal history.
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.
If you read Richard Carrier wiki page, or bio or even publications, it is clear that he has devoted his entire life to a attack on Christianity. He is plainly and clearly biased. No one, after reading Hitlers actual views/attacks on Christianity could conclude Hitler was a Christian. Carrier’s contention that Hitler was a Christian is clearly just a continuation of Carriers lifelong attack upon Christianity.
As an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, he has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn’t There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus.[4] …Carrier has written a number of polemics on the origins of Christianity and the historical figure of Jesus…Carrier has written and self-published a book arguing against the thesis that Christianity would never have succeeded unless there had been sufficient evidence confirming the supernatural resurrection of Jesus.[17] Carrier has also questioned the historicity of Jesus in some capacity…Carrier has played an important role in the national atheist community in the United States.
"Christianity entails that God, like any other person, would say and do at least some things we would all see. Since we haven’t seen such things, the Christian theory is falsified by the evidence. Christianity also entails that God would have made the universe differently than we observe it to be. So it is falsified again by the evidence. A failed prediction means a failed theory, especially when these failures apply to the very design of the universe itself. At the same time, there is insufficient evidence for any of the essential propositions of Christianity. So the Christian hypothesis contradicts a lot of evidence, makes numerous failed predictions, is not the best explanation of the universe we find ourselves in, and fails to find sufficient evidence in its own support. Therefore, I believe Christianity is false."
Carriers claim that Jesus did not exist clearly rises solely out of Carriers bias against Christianity. Carriers claim as regard Hitlers Christianity also rise solely out of that self-same bias. His scholarship is thus worthless, tainted entirely by his personal views and bias. In both cases, he is nearly alone or at best in a tiny minority, and in both cases, his motives are obvious.
He claims that Hitler’s Table Talk is a poor translation is perfect evidence. He is not known for his German scholarship, his works translating German into English. (I am not claiming he can’t read German, but many who are fluent are not trusted or expert translators or scholars in the language). Nor is he known for his Hitler scholarship (and in fact, Hitler scholars disagree with Carriers opinions here). Why then does he (alone of any other experts) claim that the translation of Hitler’s Table Talk is bad? Because Hitler’s Table Talk clearly shows Hitler was not a Christian, and in fact Speer, Goering, Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner all agree on Hitlers anti-Christian beliefs. And, hell, they sat at those table and listened to Hitler make those “talks”. In fact, even Carrier agrees that Hitler’s Table Talk has Hitler attacking Catholism virulently and often. But somehow Carrier has twisted the meaning and context of certain phrases such that Carrier can continue to claim that Hitler was a Christian, ergo Christianity is evil. :rolleyes:
It’s much like those idiots who claim Hitler was a vegetarian, thus vegetarianism is evil. :rolleyes:
There is still nothing in any of that which supports a contention that he is “anti-Christian” ( (believing that a religion is not true is not the same thing as being hostile to it, unless youw ant to contend that all Jews are anti-Christian too, or that all Christians are anti-Jewish) or that his methodology is dishonest or flawed.
When I read Richard Carrier’s lengthy piece which was a critique of Earl Doherty, IIRC, it was this piece that started to shift his thinking more towards doubting there was a historical Jesus.
Joseph McCabe certainly thought it was a serious question. He is considered by some one of the greatest scholars of the previous century. He knew the ancient languages well. He was also responsible for the translation of Haeckel’s “Riddle of the Universe” into English and other works. And while he still thought the probability was higher than not, it was refreshing to see him speak with such candor, and along the way, exposing much of the fiction that currently make up today’s gospels. McCabe wasn’t afraid of anybody.
Concerning Cecil weighing in on this, is there another column besides this one?
He spent more time on the Shroud of Turin than he did with a historical Jesus. He only devotes a couple of paragraphs to it. He brings up the usual quotes from Josephus and Tacitus. I’m puzzled why he doesn’t at least tell the reader here why the majority of historians doubt at least parts of Josephus quotes from this particular Jesus. And there are plenty of reasons to doubt the Tacitus quote as well. Remsberg gave 14 reasons. Why he devoted just a couple of brief paragraphs to this is a bit disappointing to me, but I realize there is only so much space one can get into a column.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always found Carrier to be open-minded and reasonable. If he ever publishes his book on the historicity of Jesus, I think we’ll see that he’s taking a completely different approach than Doherty’s. I’ve also heard Carrier flat out say that non-experts are correct in accepting the historicity of Jesus since it is the mainstream view, that Carrier’s task as an expert in the field is to convince the majority of other experts.
In The Christian Delusion, Dr. Hector Avalos talks briefly about Hitler’s Table Talk. He refers to Carrier’s analysis, but also identifies problems from his point of view as an “academic historian.”
FYI, I believe Carrier’s Table Talk work is also cited in the book The Holy Reich by historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, though I don’t know the author’s opinion of it.
Certainly it’s a “serious question”, but it’s a question whose answer is not in any real doubt. McCabe, altho certainly a leading rationalist, is not known as one of those who cast doubts on there being a Historical Jesus.
Yes, there are three mentions of Jesus, etc in Josephus.
One of these is doubtless, no serious scholar doubts it’s authenticity. Another is more of a mention of John the Baptist, and is not doubted. It’s the third which is doubtful " Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Most scholars think that this started out as a real mention of the Historical Jesus, but some pious editor/scribe added some of the words/lines. As a whole, it doesn’t sound like Josephus. But if you took “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man…For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him…And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”* Then perhaps you have more of the actual original words- that’s a likely reconstuction by an expert.
But just because one paragraph has apparently been edited does not mean you have to throw out Josephus. Here’s another part of a section "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and* brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James*, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. " (italics mine).
Per wiki "The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[9] One reason for accepting its authenticity is that unlike the Testimonium, the passage was mentioned in several places by Origen. " and "There is broad scholarly consensus that the two passages referring respectively to John the Baptist, and to James the brother of Jesus are genuine."
It’s great because it’s such a off-hand mention of Jesus.
as far as Tacitus goes:
*Tacitus writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and “Christus”, the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”. In describing Nero’s persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[68]
There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[69] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated “such disparaging remarks about Christianity”.[70]
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. *"
Interesting; I mentioned how (in this thread) there wasn’t any corroboration or anti-corroboration on this matter. Are there any publications of scholars attacking Carrier’s views here? If so, what are they?
Well, I would’ve used “theory” instead of doctrine, but you objected to my use of the word “theory” and so I used “doctrine.” Now you’re defining doctrine to mean “no possibility of being false”? Fine, I’ll use “belief.” Richard Carrier says it is “very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person.[emphasis his!]” That sounds like a pretty good endorsement to me.
I assume you meant “Robert Price.” G.A. Wells does not claim that Jesus never existed. Thomas L. Thompson and Robert Price are both liberal theologians, not historians. Burton Mack apparently does not deny Jesus’ existence. From here:
Such a quote clearly implies the author accepting the existence of Jesus here.
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.
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.
As far as that goes- where are Carriers other writings exposing Hinduism or Buddhism, Islam or Shintoism? Read his polemic- "Why I Am Not a Christian "- its not “Why I Am Not a Believer”.
There are two. The reference to John the Baptist makes no mention of Jesus.
The James passage is generally accepted as authentic, but the authenticity is not undisputed. The longer passage is nearly universally believed to have been at least partially forged.
Tacitus is not usually suspected as a forgery, but neither is there reason to believe that he got his information independently of Christians in Rome. It could well be that he was simply repeating what Christians in the street were saying rather than citing official records, especially since the summary execution of a trouble maker in a backwater province is highly unlikely to have been recorded at all, much less shipped to Rome and archived. Rome didn’t collect those kinds of records. It was too expensive and the emperors didn’t care. The suggestion that Tacitus got his info from some magic library listing every nobody crucified in every podunk province is further complicated by the fact that Tacitus got Pilate’s title wrong Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. The title of Procurator is anachronistic relative to when Pilate was in Judea the title switched from “prefect” to “procurator” in 44 CE). If Tacitus was actually using official records, they would have had Pilate’s official title. The fact that Tacitus called him by the title that was current in his own (Tacitus’) time suggests that he was getting his information from Christians, not from independent records.
It’s also not a given that Josephus (accepting any authenticity all to his two passages) could not have gotten his own information from Christians.
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:
It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
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.
Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
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.
It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
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.
As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
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.
It is admitted by Christian writers that he works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicious Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, ‘not even those of condemned criminals.’
At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
Rembergs further notes that if you take out this sentence, it no longer interrupts the narrative and the other two sentences read more correctly: The founder of that name was Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate.