In Response to Dr. Richard Carrier

Among the prominent “internet infidels” is Dr. Richard Carrier who recently obtained his PhD in Ancient History from the prestigious Columbia University. I was privileged to meet Dr. Carrier a year ago (mid-March 2009) just before his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus at my undergraduate alma mater. I had read a lot of Dr. Carrier’s work especially on the internet and he’s certainly a prolific writer, at least on the internet. His site describes Dr. Carrier as “a world-renowned author and speaker”. Now, from my personal interaction with Dr. Carrier, he’s a very winsome and genial guy. I really enjoyed both times of interaction—first at a brief presentation on some of his work with some focus on the question of the historical Jesus and then more informally at Lunch. Again, I’ll say it: he’s personally a nice guy, though his writing and speaking may not indicate that. I start in this way because I want to emphasize that my critique hereafter is not a personal attack to Dr. Carrier and indeed what I write here, I’d say to his face as well as I have tagged him to this note as well. So I don’t want to give the impression that this is a cowardly enterprise.

I recently listened to a lecture by Dr. Carrier on what seemed to be an argument for the non-existence of Jesus. I have to say that when I discussed with Dr. Carrier in March 2009, he seemed to take an agnostic position i.e. suggesting the minimal requirement for asserting that Jesus was a historical figure and the minimal historical case against Jesus historicity rather than taking a definite side on the issue. That seemed like a pleasant stand to me given the fact that I had the impression that he was favoring a non-historical Jesus. However, in this lecture given at Missouri State, he presents what seems to be a clearly non-historical position i.e. Jesus didn’t exist. I listened to the lecture—several times at that—and was shocked at some of the nonsense (pardon my candor) presented therein. I must add the caveat that it is my understanding that this lecture was given in 2008 and so maybe since then Dr. Carrier has changed his mind and thus my critique, while it would still apply to the lecture, may not apply to him directly. There is a lot to respond to. However, my objective is not a thorough critique but a substantially convicting one to question Dr. Carrier’s objectivity in studying the historical Jesus issue. Now, to my critique…

[I highly recommend watching the lecture (40 minutes lecture and about 15 minutes Q and A), at least the first part, before reading my full response. The first part is located here (and you can get the link to the other 5 parts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOGebAEOU2g&feature=PlayList&p=173771A2BA92F59D&index=0 ]

It is curious that a credentialed historian would begin a lecture on “Did Jesus Exist” by admitting that the lecture will be presented “tongue in cheek”. One has to wonder why a straight forward historical assessment would not suffice for a historian; why won’t Dr. Carrier be answering that question in his lecture? This is the typical attitude that is present in the prophets of The New Atheism—using emotional rhetoric on critical intellectual issues. Nevertheless, Dr. Carrier begins by “quoting an ancient document” on the death of Jesus. Dr. Carrier quotes the following:

“On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover

All that is sufficient for Dr. Carrier is that in comparison to the New Testament data, this account of Jesus’ life doesn’t quite agree. This is a fascinating conclusion because both documents agree that Jesus was [1] “hanged” and [2] more relevant for the rest of Carrier’s lecture that Jesus was a historical person. So here is the irony: Dr. Carrier uses a document to prove inconsistent accounts of Jesus’ life, yet the document admits that Jesus lived. You have to wonder about such shoddy “scholarly” work. Like the arguments of The New Atheism, Dr. Carrier cuts the branch on which he sits.

If this wasn’t bad enough, you have to wonder about Dr. Carrier’s comprehension abilities. He says that the account says Jesus was “stoned not crucified”. What? Twice (at the beginning of the quote and at the end) in that document, it clearly says that Jesus was “hanged”—a term equivalent to “crucifixion” according to Paul in the New Testament e.g. Galatians 3: 13. What could have made Dr. Carrier miss these two obvious declarations and instead affirm the false claim that the Talmud says that Jesus was stoned? I was reminded of the comment by Dr. Craig during their debate that “before Richard reads between the lines, he should learn to read the lines”. This is doubly troubling because this is from a written lecture. You can imagine a slip of thought in an extemporaneous statement, but Dr. Carrier read this from a prior write-up. What kind of sloppy study was put into the preparation? By the way, all this is less than a minute into the lecture.

Now, you’d think this kind of sloppiness is a onetime occurrence. But it is more characteristic than you would imagine in that lecture. Additionally, he points out that Jesus was killed by the Jews according to the Talmud while according to the New Testament, he is killed by the Romans. What??? Has he read the Book of Acts? (Interestingly, I’m going through the Book of Acts in a study with some Christian brothers and sisters so that statement shocked me sure enough). Obviously, he has because he spends the bulk of the lecture on the Book of Acts. But did he miss the encounter between Peter and the Jewish leaders where we read:

“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.”—Acts 4: 8-10

Notice that according to the New Testament, Peter blames who for Jesus’ death? Not the Romans, but the “rulers and elders of the people”. Are Dr. Carrier and I reading the same New Testament documents? This is still within the first minute of the “lecture”—if we can dignify it thus. Ironically, later on in the lecture Carrier quotes this passage of Acts and acknowledges that Peter does acknowledge that the Jewish leaders killed Jesus. This historical mismatch is still reminiscent of the contradiction that is abundant in the literature of the New Atheists. And Carrier is willfully ignorant of the contradictory stance he puts forth.

Even earlier in the Book of Acts, Peter is speaking to Jews in Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost and says to their face: “This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross”—Acts 2: 23. But Dr. Carrier conveniently misses these statements in the New Testament.

Then Dr. Carrier says that this passage from the Talmud is the “best” source for Jesus outside the New Testament. Hmmmmm….This is curious coming from a credentialed Historian, since he makes no mention of Tacitus or Suetonius who make mention of Jesus and the origin of Christianity as a Jewish sect from some historical figure and more importantly predate the Talmud. Tacitus even tells us Jesus suffered the “extreme penalty” (crucifixion) under Pontus Pilate. But Dr. Carrier conveniently is silent on this. Still on this quote, Dr. Carrier tells us this is from a document that is “centuries later” from the supposed time of Jesus. So what about the New Testament documents? Even by his own admission, though not in this lecture, the New Testament documents are much earlier, written just decades from the time of Jesus. What he fails to tell you and me is why the Talmud should carry any more historical weight than the New Testament. Would anyone trust me writing centuries after the events surrounding George Washington’s life more than those who wrote a few decades after him?

If you thought that this is a mockery of scholarship, as the saying goes “you aint seen nothing yet”. I recall reading Dr. Richard Dawkin’s bestseller “The God Delusion” and being baffled that he dispenses with Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence in barely three pages, I thought that was a laugh until I listened to Dr. Carrier dispel of the Epistles of the New Testament’s record of the historical Jesus in a few sentences. Did Dr. Carrier miss the memo that according to arguably the earliest Epistle of Paul, Galatians 4: 4 tells us Jesus was born “under the law” from a Jewish woman? Oh, maybe he could have read in Romans 1: 3 that Jesus “as to his human nature was a descendant of David”. Certainly, if he ignored the memo from Paul, he may have considered that from the Epistle to the Hebrews 5: 7 the author of Hebrews says “During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission”. Did he miss all these numerous historical details of Jesus’ life from the Epistles? But it is much easier to dispel of such issues in a few sentences. Magic as left Harry Potter and visited Springfield, Missouri. We are still within the first three minutes of the lecture.

As he proceeds, he makes a curious point against the supposed lack of a historical detail from the Epistles on Jesus—no details of Jesus’ physique. This is supposed to count against the historical Jesus. That’s funny since even the Gospels which are supposed to portray the historical Jesus—namely his parables, his travels, his family, his friends e.t.c.—don’t seem concerned about Jesus’ physique either. I suppose this escapes Carrier’s thought but maybe the historian should conclude simply that the first Christians were not concerned about Jesus’ physical look rather than claim that the absence of any such physical details imply that there was no one for even the “invented” Jesus doesn’t have any physical detail.

Having moved to the Gospels, this historian fails to engage with them but equates them or satirically parallels them with those of pagan mythology ignoring the fact that there is a lot of historically significant detail in the Gospel stories—historical personages and details are present. Pontus Pilate was really the Roman official at the time; both Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests of the time (archeologists have now found Caiaphas tomb); John the Baptist was a notable prophet of the time; Pharesees were real at the time; Sadducees were there then and their beliefs were generally accurately represented. So we have all these historical people in the midst of the Jesus story and to our general estimates, they concur with historical details elsewhere but let’s just throw Jesus out. Occam’s razor said not to postulate more entities than is needed; Richard’s razor selectively eliminates entities from history.

You would also at least think that a historian of the caliber of Dr. Carrier will not make the mistake of popular culture that there were only “three wise men” at the birth of Jesus for the text doesn’t say so but indeed he does. This makes you wonder whether it is from popular culture or from scholarship that Dr. Carrier gets his information. Carrier then moves on to talk about the darkness that happened at Jesus’ death for three hours which no one else in history reports. Really? Because one Christian writer responds to a non-Christian historian, Thallus, who argues that the darkness at Jesus’ death was due to an eclipse rather than supernatural like the Christians claimed. So at least we know of one historian who seems to be aware of the darkness at Jesus’ death. Now, I am gracious, so I am willing to admit that Carrier is aware of all these but he doesn’t mention them in his talk. This is very important, because Carrier’s whole central argument against the historicity of Jesus is precisely that: since we don’t get the information about the details of Jesus’ life from the Epistles or other historical sources, then Jesus didn’t exist. The argument cuts both ways because I can say that since Carrier doesn’t tell us he knows about Thallus or Galatians or Romans or Hebrews e.t.c. then he must not know them. Carrier’s underlying error then is that he fails to realize that the absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence.

So far I have only discussed the first 7 minutes of the lecture and my discussion has only been cursory. Carrier does something interesting hereafter, though. He actually begins to quote some of the New Testament data. He mentions the Gospel of Mark (although he doesn’t present us with the Chapter and verses e.t.c.). Of course then it is couched in nonsense as well so that doesn’t get us anywhere. He then proceeds to quote Matthew’s version verbatim, though still without citation. He then takes issue with the difference between Matthew and Mark’s account of the person who delivers the message to the women. Mark calls him “a young man” and Matthew calls him “an angel” and, in this, Carrier sees a problem.

I guess I shouldn’t blame him for seeing a problem as a 21st century American; in fact, it may not be too bad to see a problem with it as a historian but does Carrier have any Biblical studies education from the Jewish culture? Because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (I certainly am not one) to notice that for example in the incident of Abraham’s visitation by “three men” in Genesis 18 and 19, these three persons are called men in Genesis 18: 2 and 16 in one breath and in the next breath, after identifying one of the men as “the LORD”, the other two are referred to as “two angels” in Genesis 19: 1. This is of course nonsense to Carrier but certainly not to the Jewish mindset. They frequently described heavenly or spiritual figures like angels as “men”. But I guess we can chalk up Carriers error to Biblical ignorance.

But I wonder what Carrier would think if the accounts between Mark and Matthew were exactly paralleled. Frankly, I don’t know. But I do know that elsewhere he argues that with the striking parallels between Luke and the Jewish historian Josephus, either Luke borrowed from Josephus or vice versa. So I wonder what congruent accounts would show, anyway? Matthew stole the info from Mark. Ah, so it seems that whatever explanation is insufficient.

But you seriously have to wonder where Dr. Carrier gets his information from. He says the Book of Acts “claims [the disciples] had just spent 40 straight days in a locked room with and undead Jesus”. Please help me out here, but this is what Acts says: “After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.”—Acts 1: 3. Where does he got the information that they were in a “locked room” for 40 days with Jesus? Carrier earlier asserts that the Christians added to historical texts. Well, he’s not far off from being a Christian, then.

Even the accounts in the Gospels about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances mention outside appearances e.g. to the disciples on the road to Emmaus—Luke 24: 13-35; He also lead them out to Bethany which is outdoors not in a “locked room”—Luke 24: 50. These are not hidden things, people; they are simply documents evident to all and it is strikingly amazing that no one calls him out on any of these issues even in the Q and A session. The massive ignorance of people on biblical issues is saddening.

At one point Carrier argues that Jesus’ supposed human family disappears after the first chapter of Acts which seems strange to him unless of course Jesus really never existed and so really didn’t have a family. What he also fails to point out is that the numerous disciples mentioned in the Gospels also largely go missing in the Book of Acts except a few like Peter, John and even James who are central to the Gospel accounts. Why doesn’t he argue that John and James are also not historical since they, according to him, vanish as well. It’s also curious that he makes a big deal about Joseph of Arimathea’s vanishing act, though he doesn’t seem puzzled by his act of appearance suddenly and all through the Gospel accounts. What seems obvious to others is that Joseph of Arimathea is relevant to the Jesus story only because he played an important role in Jesus’ burial not necessarily because he did not exist. Then he also mentions Jesus’ supposed earthly father, namely, Joseph and his early disappearance from even the Gospels. What evades his explanation is that if Joseph is an “invention”, why that invention is needed at all given almost no role in the story. If there was no real Joseph, the “father” of Jesus, and if he plays almost no role in the Jesus story, why invent him? These historical questions seem to evade the historian.

There is so much nonsense in the rest of the lecture that to respond to them would be tiring. Nevertheless, let me hit on a few things. Carrier claims that the first Christian martyr Stephen basically ends his defense before the Jewish leaders as follows “you all broke your own law and that killed my imaginary friend”, he says. In this, Carrier is arguing that even when Stephen is arguing that the Jewish leaders killed Jesus, he’s making the argument mystically i.e. you killed Jesus by breaking your law not really by murdering him. I kid you not, this is Carrier’s account of the story. Here’s how Acts actually records the event:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it”—Acts 7: 51-53.

Hmmm…The unanswered questions abound. The murder of Jesus, “the Righteous One”, according to Stephen is linked to those of the “prophets”. Where those merely killed mystically by breaking the law or literally? How do you betray and murder someone mystically? Of course, as we have noticed, the trend of historical interpretation is “anything goes”.

I must conclude here by adding that the Q and A was actually more interesting because even Dr. Carrier gives a more academic presentation. He even agrees that the New Testament was not formalized by Constantine in the 4th century but much earlier. He even places the dating of the New Testament documents as completed by 150-160 AD. That shatters all of popular culture's ideas of Constantine developing the New Testament books. The Q and A session portrays Carrier in his more likable and scholarly posture and should be watched by everyone interested in Carrier.