Toto

Damask - it might help if you wrote more than a few clueless phrases.

Richard Carrier is one of the founders of the Internet Infidels, has written extensively, and is uniquely qualified to write a book on the controversy over Christian origins. What is your objection to this?

Richard Carrier

That's hardly true. There rarely is any such thing as a grant from a university to write a book, much less a "large" one, at least not in any of the fields I'm in. We're lucky if we can get a tiny travel grant (which won't even cover the actual travel costs, only supplement them) or a sabbatical (a paid leave), and then you need to actually have a professorship to get either (which I won't have, even at the earliest, until 2009, the next hiring cycle), and have worked in that position for at least a few years to earn your chops, and then, in addition to that, you have to convince the university (which is always going to be overly conservative) to support your work, which is no easy feat, and could take some time (which is why, without support now, this book won't get written for many years, if I ever do get to it).



That's true. There is a difference between late and early medieval (and I should add, East and West). So the differences vary. But that's sort of my point: I'm not qualified to tease all these issues out in trying to track down the context of medieval hagiographies written over scattered eras and regions. Hence I'm disinclined to go there in any major way.

However, I think you may be on the opposite end of the same problem. As you know a great deal more about the medieval context, I know a great deal more about the ancient context. You seem to believe that even though the same kinds of rhetoric and logic were taught in the late medieval period (or even in the Byzantine empire), it was the same kind of culture and value set being developed in schools, too. But the medieval period was not agonistic, a term used by experts in the First and Second Sophistic to describe the way rhetoric was used and the cultural values it was deployed to serve, which by all accounts I have seen, was very different from the way the medieval scholars used the same skills.

I suspect in the same way that the medieval schools created an almost entirely fictional image of ancient philosophy as almost entirely Aristotelian (when in fact Aristotle was obsolete already within two centuries of his death, and eclecticism, and the concomitant values of freely assembling personal philosophies by studying them all and debating among them, was standard by the Roman era), and even reinterpreted what they think Aristotle said (and thus were not actually teaching the same things one would have learned from an Aristotelian professor in, say, 1 B.C.), so, too, their image of what logic and rhetoric were used for in antiquity seems also askew.

Had it been otherwise, instead of condemning heresies and attempting to control intellectual discourse by force or intimidation, an agonistic culture would encourage free debate among adherents of different points of view, and tender respect to whomever made the best arguments, and even publicly sponsor and attend such debates, and train students for them. The practical upshot of this culture (which was learned in schools as much as in public) was an increasing improvement and refinement of different points of view, as most are abandoned as untenable (e.g. the Cyrenaics and other obscure schools), the few strongest are settled on and find their adherents, and those then influence each other with their criticisms and debates, then revise their views to meet attacks or correct errors, all to the point that one can even see them gradually coming close to each other on many issues, thus approaching (even if never reaching) agreement over time, and narrowing the field of viable options, all without any central authority.

In short, this was a very different world, with different values, which inspired a different way of looking at acts of persuasion and fact-claiming. I've certainly seen this difference in what I have seen of medieval examples of persuasion and argument, which look very different from comparable examples in antiquity (until the Renaissance--at least certainly things look back in form by the 15th century, and may have been heading that way as early as the 13th, but again I'm not qualified to make any distinctions more refined than that, especially in any effort to contextualize a hagiography so as to draw analogies from it to a 1st-2nd century set of texts).


This is another strange thing. In antiquity you can't have learned to write history without having gone through the exact same education everyone else did. The notion that there were people learning to write who never (?) attended the schools that, as you seem to put it, eventually took up ancient rhetoric and logic as subjects (and also, I know, philosophy) is an even more radically different picture of medieval education than I had imagined. If that was the case, my point is all the stronger.


These are the kinds of distinctions I was thinking of originally, e.g. I've read medieval histories (not only of the Western type, e.g. Nithard's and Bede, but also the Eastern, e.g. Zosimus and Procopius) and the differences in style, aim, and historiographic values and assumptions is more than evident (though more so in the West). These differences are also pervasive, which indicates changes in the educational system, at least in terms of the values it taught and encouraged. Certainly one can identify similarities as well, but it's the differences that pose a problem for me, since I would need to know a lot more than I do to go any further.


I will certainly recommend this avenue for those qualified to take it. You are right, certainly, that the hagiographies evolved directly from the gospel tradition, and there is much to be learned there, but that's part of the problem with them.

For example, suppose I cite a scholar who proves that a completely fictional hagiography exists about a Saint who is entirely fictional but at the time was passed off as historical (and believed to be historical until modern critical methods were brought to bear). Could I argue from this that the same thing happened to Jesus? I can already anticipate the objections, and a lot of them would center on exactly what I am saying: the hagiography was produced in a relevantly different context that undermines any attempt at analogy.

Conversely, suppose I cite a scholar who proves that a particular Saint existed, but almost everything written about them even within a generation of their death is not historically credible. Could I argue from this that the same thing happened to Jesus? Again, the moment I attempted to build such an argument, crucial points in the analogy would break down, owing to the differences of context (which I should remind you were not limited to the educational, which was indeed different despite what you've said, but included the political and social and even religious context), and I would fully expect criticism again. And I suspect it would be fully deserved, and not because of there being differences (differences often don't matter, despite critics attempting to claim they do), but because the differences are so great, numerous, and fundamental (which are the kind of differences that almost always do matter).

In contrast, for example, we know the names, and in some cases the titles, and occasionally quotations, of maybe a dozen eyewitnesses who wrote books about Socrates (even beyond those that are extant, e.g. Plato and Xenophon), and later biographers and historians used and sometimes (obviously) named these sources, and composed accounts from these sources reflecting the historiographical values of the time. The same literary habits and skills and interests remained in the first century. Thus, we can ask why we have such a better historical record for Socrates than we do for Jesus. That does not mean historicists can't answer this question, but whatever answer they provide, if it is to be plausible in context and defensible on extant evidence, it will limit what they can honestly say about a historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity. This must be accepted first (by both sides of the debate) before any progress can be made either way.

Richard Carrier

Because that's what is needed: a scholarly book, aimed at scholars, addressing the debate competently by a qualified expert. There are already a half dozen or more books written for the lay market, and it is precisely because so many people are perplexed over which of them (if any) can be trusted, or to what extent, and because scholars, who have the knowledge and skills to sort this out, are ignoring it because it appears to be just a movement outside academia and thus too easily dismissed as such (or even dismissing it by applying a bad methodology), that a book bridging the gap (and articulating a defensible method) is most in need.

However, I can assure you anyone with anything comparable to a college education or even a good high school education will be able to understand everything in my book, and anyone interested in the topic will be able to find and buy it. Though it will be aimed at scholars, laymen will also be able to follow it and benefit from it, as they can many other books for experts that are properly written, even when they occasionally must delve into "technicalia" (for example see my latest blog entry).

andrewcriddle

Hi Richard

To a limited extent I agree with what you are saying above. For example the weird and wonderful world of Irish hagiography comes from a context so different from that of late classical antiquity that it is not a suitable analogy to the Gospel narratives. However, I would regard the Acts of the Martyrs of the then Roman Empire, and their development rewriting and invention during the period up to say 800 CE, as much more relevant that you appear to do. (See for example Delehaye on the Acts of Procopius and how a simple devout Christian cleric became transformed into a leading Roman general.)

Andrew Criddle

Richard Carrier

Possibly. I'll look into that.

Clivedurdle

Don't forget the life of St Christopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly

Ted Hoffman

Please set us straight in terms of what can be argued, what is evidenced and what is valid wrt:
born of woman
kata sarka
archontes
Philippians 2:8-11 - incarnation on earth or on another plane?
The cosmology of the middle-platonic universe vis a vis archontes/archotons

Thanks.

premjan

hayagriva

Zeichman

Richard posted this in a comment on his own blog (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...22830507581627)
To all who have pledged to join in employing me to write a book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ:

Pledges are approaching $17,000, which is enough to justify undertaking the project. So I have decided to take on the project and will officially begin on May 15 (though I'm prepping my calendar and research notes and schedule now).

So all pledgers: please now donate (instructions below).

There are over 40 of you in all. I am very moved and thankful that so many came together to offer so much to support my work, and I will certainly work hard to produce something valuable that you can be proud of.

Atheists United has agreed to broker a charitable grant to fund my research and writing.

You may now donate to my project through them, and claim your donation as a charitable deduction on your income tax (AU is an IRS-recognized nonprofit). How to do this will be explained below. All donations should be sent this way, even if you (like me) earn too little to benefit from claiming charitable deductions, since it will still be more convenient for all if everything goes through one channel.

Basic Procedure:

1. Make your donation by one of the means explained below.

2. Then email me (at rcarrier@infidels.org) with:

(a) the details of when and how and how much you donated, so I can check records with what AU receives and ensure every donation gets properly flagged;

(b) whether you want to be thanked in the book as a funder of the project, and under what name;

(c) whether you can receive a large email attachment (a PDF under 3 Mb) and want to receive an advanced draft of the book near its completion so you can comment and make suggestions for the final draft (I make no promises whether I will heed any of these, but there is a good chance many will be helpful), and what email address I should send this to when the time comes;

(d) and finally, your regular postal address, if you donated at least $250 and want two free copies of the book when it is published (five free copies if you donated at least $500); note that if you want fewer just let me know and I'll mail the balance of books to whomever else whose address you provide, or to scholars I think may want to review the book in print; also, if you want any of your copies personally signed by me, please mention it.

How to Donate:

Send your donation along with a filled-out donation form (both electronic and paper methods are available) to Atheists United, by one of the many means they provide here:

http://atheistsunited.org/membership/

You do not have to be a member or become a member of AU (and if you do, you have to submit membership dues separately from any other donations anyway). Follow the instructions and use the forms provided at the link above for any method of donating you prefer (including personal check), and do the following to ensure your donation gets properly earmarked for my research grant:

1. Add 16 cents to your pledged amount (so instead of $1000 make it $1000.16). This will flag all donations as intended for my project.

2. Also write "For Carrier Research Grant" in the donation form line labeled "If applying for family membership, please list your other family members' names" (I know that label has nothing to do, but AU staff know it will be used specially for this project), or in the "Comments" section if paying by PayPal.

3. If sending a personal check it may also be handy to write this also in the memo line of your check (both for your convenience and AU's).

NOTE:

Some donors have been having problems with the credit card system at AU, thought not everyone has, so I'm not sure what the problem is. If that happens, you can use PayPal instead (though I believe they take a cut), or just mail in your credit card donation the old fashioned way (just fill out and print the regular mail-in form, which has spaces for credit card info, signature, etc., and put that in the regular post just as if sending a check).

AU will send you a receipt, which you should keep with your tax records.

PayPal donors: Other methods are preferable since PayPal typically takes a percentage, but you may donate through AU by PayPal (as their website explains), in which case you should print the PayPal payment confirmation page and use that as a back-up receipt for your tax records. On the PayPal screen select "Donate" rather than "Join" and include "For Carrier Research Grant" in the "Comments" box.

Donors Outside the U.S. and others who may be interested: For those who are not registered at PayPal, please note that PayPal accounts are free and easy to register for (at www.paypal.com), although (as noted above) PayPal should be a last choice method of sending money. But once you are registered, and logged in, all you need is the email address of another registered recipient and you can send money to anyone anywhere in the world, using any credit card, most bank cards, and many other methods (though with greater difficulty, as the PayPal site will explain). PayPal will do currency exchanges but you'll have to figure out how (since I've never used that feature).

Thank you all again for making this possible and keeping me employed!

spamandham

That's fascinating. When comparing this statue to the painting above, I began to wonder if the arms were broken off from the ravages of time, ...or on purpose.