Chaucer

You can find a newly uploaded complete 40-minute Richard Carrier lecture on his take on Jesus, together with a 20-minute Q&A, at YouTube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

I was expecting that Carrier would at least be careful and precise in analyzing and disposing of the chief supports for HJ that he fails to be convinced by. Not only does he ignore the two most critical supports. He pretends they don't exist.

At 2:00-17, he states explicitly that Josephus is only known for one reference to Jesus, not two! That is manifestly wrong. And from his further description, it's very clear he's addressing Antiquities 18 only, which has already occasioned some general doubts among peer-reviewed surveys, due to certain turns of phrase that seem rather unlike Josephus. Josephus's other Jesus mention in Antiq. 20 has not occasioned the same kind of peer-reviewed doubts at all, but this less questionable passage Carrier completely ignores. How very convenient -- and plainly deliberate -- for Carrier to say in so many words that the only Jesus mention in Josephus is the one for which there are already some peer-reviewed doubts! To overtly pretend that the less questionable Antiq. 20 doesn't even exist is highly misleading at best.

At 2:35-40, Carrier repeats the urban myth that there is no Pauline reference to Jesus as a human being who lived and died as a human being. Now that is just typical of the amateur MJ-er's way of professing total ignorance of the many and varied references in the earliest least suspect Paulines that do indeed cite a human Jesus in so many words --


Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4 - 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

The family was either partly related to the David line or merely viewed as descended "of David" figuratively by dint of their being Jewish.
Romans 1 - 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1 - 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9 - 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7 - 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9 - 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2 - 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11 - 23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He told his followers he'd come back miraculously after his execution, and those who might die in the interim would join him in the resurrection when he'd return.
1 Thessalonians 4 - 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

He was crucified, a typical Roman penalty.
1 Corinthians 2 - 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

After he was buried, some of his followers thought they saw him raised from the tomb.
1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.


Thoughts?

Chaucer

Toto

I think you heard something that was not there. He says that a Talmud passage is the earliest identifiable reference to Jesus outside the Bible, and gives the TF as an example of a passage inserted by a Christian scribe. He doesn't say explicitly that this is the only reference to Jesus in Josephus. You may infer from this that he also dismisses the second Josephan references as an interpolation. I could probably find an example where he has written this if I wanted to spend the time.

After all, this is a talk at Skepticon that starts with a quote from the great philosopher Al Franken. It is somewhat breezy and lacks footnotes.

No, that's not what he said. Please adjust your speakers. He says that Paul does not tell us anything about Jesus outside of visions and stylized creeds. I think your laundry list of alleged references to the historical Jesus can be summarized as visions, stylized creeds, and a misinterpretation of the phrase "the Lord's brother[s]". Later, Carrier notes that Paul does not recount any stories or parables about Jesus, or describe his physical characteristics.

Chaucer

No such luck. He only makes reference to "a whole paragraph" in Josephus, which would have to be Antiq. 18, since Antiq. 20, the stronger reference, is strictly a sentence. Maybe that alone might just be carelessness on Carrier's part, or a deliberate reference to one passage only. But Carrier compounds that by his immediate follow-on from that: "Now, that leaves us just with the New Testament". He is misleading the listener there into thinking that he has disposed of Josephus entirely when in fact he has omitted the most salient textual reference of all, Antiq. 20, and one often viewed as such by some who are duly suspicious of Antiq. 18. Once one has referenced the more questionable mention in Antiq. 18, the consequent omission of any reference to the stronger mention in Antiq. 20 is badly misleading at best. How possible is it that someone like Carrier is unaware that Antiq. 20 is the less questionable passage of the two?

O.K., maybe one might argue that the myther approach could dictate that one might say either that there are no (sure) references in Josephus at all or two questionable ones. Now, I don't agree that both are questionable, only certain phrases in one of them are questionable. But it has a kind of mad logic to say that there are no real references at all, if one's an honestly wild-eyed myther. The thing is, the only honest alternatives are to claim either no Josephus references at all -- if one is a wild-eyed myther -- or two (however questionable). Citing one and only one reference instead is just plain odd and remains badly misleading.

We're talking about Carrier here, not Josephus, and Carrier with all his knowledge leaves the badly misleading impression that there is only one Josephus reference. That's simply wrong, whichever way you slice it.

His only possible out after saying something like that might have been for Carrier to have added that the one real reference in Josephus is a sentence in Antiq. 20. One might claim that as a plausible position. But instead, Carrier goes out of his way to specify in addition that the one mention he cites is a paragraph, not a sentence, which must mean Antiq. 18 only -- the more questionable mention of the two in Antiqs.!

So by Carrier citing only one Jesus mention in Josephus and specifying that one as a paragraph, he seems to be evading the less questionable mention found in a sentence in Antiq. 20. How possible is it that that's just carelessness? How possible is it that a man like Carrier is unaware of the stronger of the two mentions of Jesus in the Antiqs.? He seems to be painting out the stronger of the two mentions purely for convenience.

Chaucer

avi

Hi Chaucer!

I do not think it is correct to criticise someone for citing Josephus with an accompanying note signalling caution....

I doubt that we have an accurate version of anything by Josephus, since our earliest extant manuscript dates from the tenth century.

avi

Chaucer

None of this addresses the fact that fewer questions have been raised about Antiq. 20 than about Antiq. 18. Whether or not Antiq. 20 is also questionable, it still has a relatively firmer footing than Antiq. 18. Hence for Carrier to cite only the weaker Antiq. 18 and then to imply that nothing else is left beyond that but the New Testament is ........... bizarre, to say the least.

I already wrote here that this thread is about Carrier, not Josephus. To discuss anything in Josephus here without reference to Carrier's odd passing over of the Antiq. 20 sentence is off-topic in this thread -- and I wrote the OP, so I should know :-)

Carrier clearly glosses over a stronger Josephus mention of Jesus in favor of a weaker, compounding that by saying "Now, that leaves us just with the New Testament". Too convenient by half.

Kindly address Carrier's odd highlighting of the weaker and seemingly planned ignoring of the stronger mention of Jesus in Josephus, by his saying "that leaves us just with the New Testament". How do you make sense of that, please?

Thank you,

Chaucer

Toto

Chaucer -

1. The "brother of Jesus called Christ" is not a stronger mention. It is just not quite as blatant a forgery. But there is still a respectable case to be made for it being an interpolation by a Christian scribe.

2. Carrier was delivering a popular lecture presenting his view of the historicity of Jesus. He obviously thinks that both mentions of Jesus in Josephus were written by later Christians. If he had spent time examining every nuance of every detail of Josephus, he might not have gotten to his main points.

3. If you really have a concern about what Richard Carrier thinks of the two references in Josephus, you can email him or wait for his book to be published.

Carrier is quoted from a debate here as saying "The Major Testimonium is a Fabrication, absolutely. Some scholars try to theorize it had an underlying (now lost) authentic core, but there are no sound arguments for that. As for the Minor Testimonium, I believe I can prove it's an accidental interpolation, and thus not authentic, but not a deliberate fabrication either. I'll say more about this in my next book."

Chaucer

But it would have come off more honest if the one he'd picked had been Antiq. 20 instead of 18. The very fact that he picked the one that's easier to question and only the one that's easier to question renders his entire approach suspect.

His book may possibly turn out to be more scrupulous. But that does not excuse his having misled an entire audience, and misled them badly, in a well-attended lecture.

I'm delighted he addresses it there. It remains seriously misleading on his part not to have addressed it in a well-attended lecture, particularly since even Carrier, to go by your quote, apparently views Antiq. 20 as less egregious in its provenance than Antiq. 18. That only makes his bizarre choice of Antiq 18 in his video lecture of even graver concern.

Chaucer

lpetrich

Chaucer, what was your opinion of the rest of RC's speech?

Some of it was rather satirical, I will concede, but I do think that he makes a lot of valid points. The implausibility and out-of-character nature of parts of the Gospels and Acts. How after Jesus Christ's ascension in Acts, nobody seems to treat him as historical in the rest of that book, and how they don't even mention his family.

I especially like what that psychology professor stated about Paul's letters -- how it's like someone who devotes several pages of gushing about some favorite teacher, while hardly ever mentioning any personal features of that teacher.

Toto

No it's not off topic. You continue to claim that the shorter mention in Josephus is somehow stronger and more worthy of discussion. It's not. It's an ambiguous phrase that, standing on its own, is almost meaningless.

The implication here seems to be that Carrier was hiding a key argument in favor of the existence of Jesus, rather that just failing to mention an offhand phrase in Josephus that a few desparate historicists cling to as an indication that Jesus actually existed.

I think this idea is flat-out wrong.

And please note that these implications of dishonesty border on libel, or at least a rules violation here, since Richard Carrier is a registered user. Please confine your comments to actual evidence.

I contend that no one was mislead. Both Josephan references are highly suspect. And the shorter one is actually hard to connect to the alleged Jesus of Nazareth without the details in the longer one.

There's nothing bizarre or nefarious or misleading here. Carrier made a brief mention of the most discussed paragraph in all of Josephus in the course of an hour lecture, which was not a scholarly treatment of the subject, but more like stand-up comedy, entertainment for a convention of skeptics. Your language - "misleading" - "egregious" - "bizarre" - "grave concern" - is totally out of sync with the situation.

John Kesler

Previous thread about this lecture.