Thanks. The book idea is still very much an idea at this stage, though the “Great Myths” series of posts on my site is hopefully going to form the backbone of such a work:
If my response to Carrier seems a bit snarky, that’s because that’s what that rather petty and unpleasant little person deserves, but that post gets into some fairly serious and detailed criticism of one of Carrier’s key arguments which, if Carrier is wrong (and he is) scuppers the whole Jesus Myth hypothesis on its own.
History is something most people don’t study past high school (if that level of history can be dignified with the word “study”) so it’s easy to see how they can be bamboozled by biased pseudo scholars like Carrier. Unfortunately there are as many crackpots and cranks-with-an-agenda peddling pseudo history as there are pseudo scientists, but there don’t seem to be as many informed people on guard against them. Which is why I’m manning the ramparts.
Cheers,
Richard Carrier caused me to read the letters of Paul.
I’d strongly advise not to use Carrier as your guide on the letters of Paul. He presents a weird and contrived reading of what Paul says to try to make those letters fit the fantasy that Paul didn’t believe Jesus was a recent historical human being and only believed in a kind of heavenly, celestial mythic Jesus. This requires some bizarre and linguistically contorted interpretations of the Pauline material that, unless you’re very solid on the language and context of the letters, may sound plausible but is actually total nonsense.
I have heard Richard Carrier make the claim that Jesus is plagiarised from the Thracian god Zalmoxis. What are your thoughts on this idea? It seems unlikely to me that vehemently Anti-Pagan Jews would wish to take any pagan ideas, yet alone those from a relatively obscure deity not even worshipped at the time of Christ.
that was exactly my conclusion after I read the letters of Paul
Glad to hear it. For anyone who might be unsure on whether Paul, writing just 20 years after the fact, believed Jesus was a historical person, this is quite clear from the seven letters all scholars agree were actually written by him. Paul says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a “human nature” and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that he was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James and a friend called “Cephas” (Peter), both of whom Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19).
All that adds up to someone who not only knew Jesus was a human and a recent historical person to boot, but had met his best friend and his brother. That makes the whole “Jesus Myth” thesis crackpot nonsense on its own. Yet it remains a mainstay of New Atheist dogma despite the fact these same New Atheists trumpet their great “rationalism” and preach respect for experts and scholarly consensus (on other, mainly scientific, matters). The irony is rich and deep …
Yep, got it in one. Carrier presents himself as a great and original thinker, but I have consistently found that most of his ideas are both nutty and originally found in earlier crackpot writers. This weekend I will be adding a post to my blog that shows one of his key arguments is not only based on a misreading of a source, but that it has its origins in a Theosophist book from 1903. So much for the great “independent scholar” and historian. There’s a reason this guy is unemployed.
I also discovered this claim which I need help debunking
That’s utter nonsense. If anyone claims those “amazing parallels” are true you just have to ask them to show you primary source material that supports them. And watch them fail. Let’s take the “Mithra” claims for example. First of all, the picture is of the Roman god Mithras, not the Persian deity Mithra. The crackpots just conflate the two and pretend anything that can be said about one can be said about the other, but modern Mithraic scholars are clear that the two gods had nothing in common other than their name (kind of) and their hat. There is a very dubious and late reference to the Persian god’s mother Anahita being a virgin, though it has her becoming impregnated with centuries-old divine sperm from swimming in a lake, which is not exactly much of a parallel with the Jesus story. And that story is not told about the Roman god that supposedly influenced Christianity, given that he was born, fully formed, from a rock, not a virgin. Yalda is on Dec 20/21, not Dec 25, but “near enough is good enough” with these clowns. And neither (Roman) Mithras nor (Persian) Mithra had any association with Dec 25 anyway (as I detail here: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism) The claim that the zodiac that was associated with Mithras are his “twelve disciples” is just stupid. And there is no basis for the claims that he “sacrificed himself” (he killed cosmic bull, not “himself”) or that he “ascended into heaven” (he never descended in the first place).
I’m sure Tim could present more here (he already did!), but how is this much different from say yourself (?) and many others here see the Hebrew Scriptures and their conglomerate joining of ideas from other places the people group was once a part of (Babylon, Egypt, Canaan, etc.)? Like they were part of this ancient world and expressed their ideas similar to how the ancient world thought.
As you have mentioned on your blog before, many of the nonsense pushed by supposed ‘rationalists’ truly has origins with cranks and nutters. As you have said, the idea that Easter=Ishtar (ironically) has its origins with Fundamentalist Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church.
I quite agree with Reggie Donoghue’s observations. I have seen similar things in engagements with New Athesist thinking. I have been referred to books connecting the Ten Commandments with the Book of the Dead, books asserting that the Epic Of Gilgamesh was copied into the book of Genesis by biblical authors claiming “inspiration,” books debunking the existence of Nazareth during the era of Jesus, and to online lectures by various New Atheist writers/speakers. When research leads me in a different direction, I am told that my sources are “biased.” It does not matter that my sources are eminent scholars in relevant fields and theirs are piano teachers or lawyers. It just matters that the viewpoint supports philosophical presuppositions already held by these readers. I suppose we are all prone to that. But it does seem to hold true is the support system of New Atheism – which is fundamentalism of another sort. Thanks for your observations.
[quote=“bluebird, post:34, topic:36301, full:true”]
…When research leads me in a different direction, I am told that my sources are “biased.” It does not matter that my sources are eminent scholars in relevant fields and theirs are piano teachers or lawyers…[/quote]
Indeed, Richard Dawkins has promoted Joseph Atwil, a crank historian with absolutely NO credentials who believes the Roman Empire invented Jesus as a legitimate biblical scholar.
