# Was Hitler a Christian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [September 26, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096 "2010-09-26T14:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 9
**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 28, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/161 "2010-12-28T22:34:11Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > ::: Moderator coughs gently ::: Look, guys, this is an interesting discussion and all, but it’s not really related to whether Hitler was a Christian, which is the ostensible topic of this thread. > > Can I suggest that one of your start a new thread on some of these side-topics (like the intent of the gospel writers or the Shroud of T? The Shroud of Turin is off-topic (though a scholar who was cited to support some other fact believed in it, and his belief in its authenticity presumably affected his credibility in some indirect fashion), but the intent of the Gospel writers had relevance to the credibility of Richard Carrier (so far the only historian mentioned who rejects the validity of the _Hitler’s Table Talk_) an atheist who has argued against Christianity and has promoted crackpot historical theories against Christianity: (1) Jesus never existed; (2) the writers of the Gospels were not writing what they believed to be true but rather symbolic fiction. Both are fringe positions with severe evidential problems, and I use this as grounds to question Carrier’s historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind, such as his questionable dismissal of the historical evidence found in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ for Hitler not being a Christian. That said, Diogenes the Cynic has avoided addressing the easily verifiable evidence I gave against (2), so perhaps that might fall on the wayside anyway. I don’t know whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic, and I’m not really interested in arguing for its authenticity. If Diogenes the Cynic doesn’t bring it up again in this thread I won’t argue for it further in this thread. ---
**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:** [December 28, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/162 "2010-12-28T23:50:49Z")
The point was that you don’t really have grounds to impugn Richard Carrier’s credibility simply because he’s not a believer, when you yourself are citing outright evangelical Biblical literalists and woo believers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/163 "2010-12-29T00:28:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The point was that you don’t really have grounds to impugn Richard Carrier’s credibility simply because he’s not a believer… But he isn’t; he’s impugning Carrier’s credibility on the grounds that he is established to be an advocate of fringe theories of history (including what smells to me, personally, awfully like a bog-standard conspiracy theory). ---
**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:** [December 29, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/164 "2010-12-29T00:42:49Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > But he isn’t; he’s impugning Carrier’s credibility on the grounds that he is established to be an advocate of fringe theories of history (including what smells to me, personally, awfully like a bog-standard conspiracy theory). He’s calling Carrier “anti-Christian” (not supported) and you do not present an accurate characterization of Carrier. He is a rare, credentialed advocate of the mythicist school of Christianity, but he is not a crackpot or a conspiracy theorist, and his theories are grounded in genuine scholarship. It’s also not valid to dismiss a hypothesis simply because it is out of the mainstream. It should be addressed on its own terms. If it’s really that kooky, it should be easy to refute. I’m agnostic on the historicity of Jesus, personally. I’ve pursued the question zealously for years, and read a range of views covering the spectrum. What I can say for sure is that while historicity is still, by far, the mainstream consensus, I also know that the actual evidentiary basis for this consensus is actually quite scant (the hardest evidence boils down to Josephus, Tacitus and Paul’s reference to James as “the brother of the Lord.” The rest is inferential arguments like “the criterion of embarrassment”). There is a lot of resistance by historical Jesus scholars to the mythicist hypothesis for various reasons, including inertia, because the field is largely populated by believers and because a lot of them have already invested a considerable amount of effort and publication in their own historicist hypotheses, but the mythcist position is not as crazy as it sounds at first blush. I have not come around to it, personally, but I have been impressed by how slight the historicist case really is. ---
**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 30, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/165 "2010-12-30T17:00:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > > > But he isn’t; he’s impugning Carrier’s credibility on the grounds that he is established to be an advocate of fringe theories of history (including what smells to me, personally, awfully like a bog-standard conspiracy theory). > > He’s calling Carrier “anti-Christian” (not supported) and you do not present an accurate characterization of Carrier. You ignored the support I gave. I claim that Richard Carrier is “anti-Christian” in the sense that (1) he believes Christianity is false; (2) he has devoted considerable effort in arguing against it. His anti-Christian views and practices by themselves wouldn’t be so bad if he didn’t _also_ promote crackpot historical beliefs when he grinds his anti-Christian axe; examples include (1) Jesus never existed; (2) the writers of the Gospels were not writing what they believed to be true but rather symbolic fiction. I therefore question 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_. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He is a rare, credentialed advocate of the mythicist school of Christianity, but he is not a crackpot or a conspiracy theorist, and his theories are grounded in genuine scholarship. Then please tell us what scholarly publications he has made to support the “Jesus never existed” theory. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is a lot of resistance by historical Jesus scholars to the mythicist hypothesis for various reasons, including inertia, because the field is largely populated by believers and because a lot of them have already invested a considerable amount of effort and publication in their own historicist hypotheses, but the mythcist position is not as crazy as it sounds at first blush. Yes it is. I don’t think you realize just how much on the extreme fringe this position is. Carrier is virtually alone among historians who think it very likely that Jesus never existed (I doubt you could find another _bona fide_ historian who thinks so, though there are a few extremely liberal theologians who accept the Jesus myth theory). The claim that “the field is largely populated by believers” is somewhat misleading. The majority of historians with respect to early Christianity are _not_ believers. This is why they typically date the Gospels at 70 CE or later; Jesus prophesied that the Temple would fall, and it’s an uncomfortable coincidence for those who are not believers to accept that Jesus would have predicted the event before it happened. Despite this, even the majority of liberal, non-believer historians recognize Jesus’ existence. Why? Historian Michael Grant noted, “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” At the times of the early Church, not even the bitterest enemies of Christianity had the gall to claim that its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, never existed. So if Richard Carrier is the only historian anyone can source who rejects Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ (and so far he is), I’m not quite convinced that there is sufficient grounds to accept his judgment given Carrier’s promotion of crackpot historical theories against Christianity. ---
**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:** [December 30, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/166 "2010-12-30T17:55:04Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > You ignored the support I gave. I claim that Richard Carrier is “anti-Christian” in the sense that (1) he believes Christianity is false; (2) he has devoted considerable effort in arguing against it. Neither of these things is anti-Christian. His agenda is to discover accuarate history. If that refutes Christian mythology (which it does), then too bad. > [@](#): > > His anti-Christian views and practices by themselves wouldn’t be so bad if he didn’t _also_ promote crackpot historical beliefs when he grinds his anti-Christian axe; examples include (1) Jesus never existed; (2) the writers of the Gospels were not writing what they believed to be true but rather symbolic fiction. I therefore question his historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind You have not demonstrated that such an axe exists. > [@](#): > > Then please tell us what scholarly publications he has made to support the “Jesus never existed” theory. He doesn’t actually have such a theory, he only says that’s it’s more probable than not. He says that historicity is still possible, only less likely. He has published this view in _The Journal of Higher Criticism_ to name one peer-reviewed publication (though he has also published in non-peer-reviewed books and articles). > [@](#): > > Yes it is. I don’t think you realize just how much on the extreme fringe this position is. I assure you I am quite familiar with the subject and with the controversy. > [@](#): > > Carrier is virtually alone among historians who think it very likely that Jesus never existed He’s very unusual. This is true, but not alone. There are a couple of others. > [@](#): > > The claim that “the field is largely populated by believers” is somewhat misleading. The majority of historians with respect to early Christianity are _not_ believers. The majority of Biblical scholars are believers. I know this for a fact. > [@](#): > > This is why they typically date the Gospels at 70 CE or later They date Mark at 70 because that is the accurate date. > [@](#): > > Jesus prophesied that the Temple would fall Cite? > [@](#): > > and it’s an uncomfortable coincidence for those who are not believers to accept that Jesus would have predicted the event before it happened. Jeus’ “prophecy” is related by Mark. The Temple fell in 70, therefore Mark must have written after 70. It’s ridiculous to assume a supernatural explanation for something that is quite easily explained without one. That’s how science is done. > [@](#): > > Despite this, even the majority of liberal, non-believer historians recognize Jesus’ existence. Why? Inertia. Lack of good enough evidence to completely over turn it. It’s not especially well grounded, though. > [@](#): > > Historian Michael Grant noted, “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” I see this claptrap all the time from apologists, but it’s completely backwards. The Gospels actually get an unusual _deference_, not afforded to other ancient literature, and certainly not to religious mythology. > [@](#): > > At the times of the early Church, not even the bitterest enemies of Christianity had the gall to claim that its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, never existed. Why would they have cared? > [@](#): > > So if Richard Carrier is the only historian anyone can source who rejects Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ (and so far he is), I’m not quite convinced that there is sufficient grounds to accept his judgment given Carrier’s promotion of crackpot historical theories against Christianity. You have not actually demonstrated any “crackpot” views by Carrier. You’ve only smeared him as 'anti-Christian" because he applies critical methodology to history rather than _a priori_ religious belief. Show me a flaw in his actual methodology. ---
**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 30, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/167 "2010-12-30T20:48:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Neither of these things is anti-Christian. Carrier believes Christianity is false had and has devoted considerable effort into arguing against Christianity. Seriously, what definition of the term “anti-Christian” are you using? In case it wasn’t clear before, I’m using the term “anti-Christian” in the sense that he’s opposed to Christianity, and the evidence here is pretty clear on that. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Then please tell us what scholarly publications he has made to support the “Jesus never existed” theory. > > He doesn’t actually have such a theory, he only says that’s it’s more probable than not. He says that historicity is still possible, only less likely. He has published this view in _The Journal of Higher Criticism_ to name one peer-reviewed publication (though he has also published in non-peer-reviewed books and articles). We can call the theory a “belief” or “doctrine” if you prefer. _The Journal of Higher Criticism_ sounds more like a magazine than a scholarly journal peer-reviewed by genuine historians. That said, can you give the specifics on the issue in which he argued for the Jesus myth view? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Carrier is virtually alone among historians who think it very likely that Jesus never existed > > I assure you I am quite familiar with the subject and with the controversy. > He’s very unusual. This is true, but not alone. There are a couple of others. Please name me two _bona fide_ historians who think it very likely that Jesus never existed (I know of liberal theologians, but not genuine historians). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The claim that “the field is largely populated by believers” is somewhat misleading. The majority of historians with respect to early Christianity are _not_ believers. > > The majority of Biblical scholars are believers. I know this for a fact. First, I was referring to historians rather than Biblical scholars. Second, what is your evidence that the majority of Biblical scholars are believers? Particularly given the late dating for Mark and other gospels? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > This is why they typically date the Gospels at 70 CE or later > > They date Mark at 70 because that is the accurate date…Jeus’[sic] “prophecy” is related by Mark. The Temple fell in 70, therefore Mark must have written after 70. Kind of my point is that a believer would never accept that logic! If they were believers they would already accept that Jesus had the ability to prophesy, not to mention rise from the dead. As it stands, the majority are not believers and hence they use the line of reasoning you used to give a later date. In contrast, if a believer accepted the fact that Jesus prophesied in advance they would pick an earlier date [for reasons Gary R. Habermas points out](http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm). A non-believer could easily dismiss the evidence Habermas points out because the evidence for an earlier date, though significant, isn’t enough for most to reduce the uncomfortable coincidence of Jesus having successfully predicted the fall of the Temple. Believers cognizant of the evidence would select a date earlier than 70 CE, whereas non-believers cognizant of the evidence would (obviously) pick a date of 70 CE or later. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At the times of the early Church, not even the bitterest enemies of Christianity had the gall to claim that its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, never existed. > > Why would they have cared? Because they were enemies of Christianity and wanted to discredit it; certainly other attempts to discredit it were made. So why not “Jesus is a myth” if it were true that Jesus never existed? The “argument from silence” Christ-mythers like to use cuts both ways. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Historian Michael Grant noted, “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” > > I see this claptrap all the time from apologists, but it’s completely backwards. The Gospels actually get an unusual _deference_, not afforded to other ancient literature, and certainly not to religious mythology. Historian Michael Grant is not an apologist nor (AFAIK) even a believer (the product description of [the book](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Historians-Gospels-Michael-Grant/dp/0684818671) refers to the author seeking to “separate those portions of the gospels that refer to the true career and teachings of Jesus, from the subsequent additions or inventions by the evangelists”), so I strongly suspect you to be mistaken here. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You have not actually demonstrated any “crackpot” views by Carrier. Sure I have; he believes (1) Jesus never existed; (2) the writers of the Gospels were not writing what they believed to be true but rather symbolic fiction. These are extreme fringe positions. _Relevance recap:_ If Richard Carrier is the only historian anyone can source who rejects Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ (and so far he is), I’m not quite convinced that there is sufficient grounds to accept his judgment given Carrier’s promotion of crackpot historical theories against Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/168 "2010-12-30T21:17:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Because they were enemies of Christianity and wanted to discredit it; certainly other attempts to discredit it were made. So why not “Jesus is a myth” if it were true that Jesus never existed? The “argument from silence” Christ-mythers like to use cuts both ways. Just to nit-pick with your here: in the early days of Christianity, the enemies of Christianity didn’t care one bit whether Jesus was real or not. Frankly, they didn’t even know who Jesus was. They (primarily the Romans) saw Christianity as a POLITICAL threat, a movement that said there was a Power more important than the Emperor, that was potentially inciting the rabble to rebellion. Now: speaking again as Moderator, this discussion is covering a LOT of ground. Once the Shroud of Turin and the date of the Gospel of Mark come into play, I’d really, really like to ask that the question of the veracity of Richard Carrier be in a different thread, and let this thread stick to Hitler’s Christian/non-Christian views. We can provide a link to the other thread for those interested. ---
**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 30, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/169 "2010-12-30T21:46:08Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Because they were enemies of Christianity and wanted to discredit it; certainly other attempts to discredit it were made. So why not “Jesus is a myth” if it were true that Jesus never existed? The “argument from silence” Christ-mythers like to use cuts both ways. > > Just to nit-pick with your here: in the early days of Christianity, the enemies of Christianity didn’t care one bit whether Jesus was real or not. Frankly, they didn’t even know who Jesus was. They (primarily the Romans) saw Christianity as a POLITICAL threat, a movement that said there was a Power more important than the Emperor, that was potentially inciting the rabble to rebellion. Nonetheless, the Romans did not argue that Jesus did not exist, they did something else: they killed him. Still, even after Jesus’ death Christianity had its enemies, and none of them went to the length of denying the founder’s existence. > [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Now: speaking again as Moderator, this discussion is covering a LOT of ground. Once the Shroud of Turin and the date of the Gospel of Mark come into play, I’d really, really like to ask that the question of the veracity of Richard Carrier be in a different thread, and let this thread stick to Hitler’s Christian/non-Christian views. We can provide a link to the other thread for those interested. Unfortunately the key disputable point as of late is the credibility of Richard Carrier as an historian, and it is relevant because he is the _only_ historian so far to reject Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_. It is thus hard to see how discussions on his credibility can be avoided, including (apparently) whether Carrier’s anti-Christian views (e.g. that Jesus never existed) really are crackpot historical theories. Starting another thread dedicated solely to whether Richard Carrier is a credible historian with respect to rejecting Hitler’s anti-Christian views being evidenced in _Hitler’s Table Talk_ seems a tad strange. That said, which forum would it be in? ---
**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 30, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/170 "2010-12-30T22:09:38Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Now: speaking again as Moderator, this discussion is covering a LOT of ground. Once the Shroud of Turin and the date of the Gospel of Mark come into play, I’d really, really like to ask that the question of the veracity of Richard Carrier be in a different thread, and let this thread stick to Hitler’s Christian/non-Christian views. We can provide a link to the other thread for those interested. I took a gander at the forums and chose one. The debate over Carrier’s credibility with respect to the evidence in question that Hitler was not a Christian [can be found here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13301812#post13301812). ---
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/171 "2010-12-31T01:21:43Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > I took a gander at the forums and chose one. The debate over Carrier’s credibility with respect to the evidence in question that Hitler was not a Christian [can be found here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13301812#post13301812). In case the thread link didn’t get updated, [it’s been moved here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=591112). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096.md?page=8)