I'm
going against advice and deal with arguments by carm atheists because I
think it's important to remember that certain things have been
answered. Dealing with an old article by Richard Carrier that was
sighted recently on CARM. Even though it's old these guys are rallying
around it like its new and the same bunck is being noised about by
atheists all the time.
Carrier's article is here:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html
this is prompted by Fleetmouse's statement that:
"You have no answers to Carrier's essay. "
He
seems the most worked up over the idea that since carrier proves the
superstitious nature of the folks of Jesus day, like he never considered
that. That's something I knew about as a kid. I used it in highschool
to justify my own atheism (1973). I can't imagine anyone being
impressed by it. Be that as it may that's not an argument so examine it.
Carrier
My first reaction to reading
the beginning is it's an argument from analogy based upon ideological
assumptions. the argument itself assumes what all atheists assume
"anything that tells us a SN event can happen must be wrong
a priori"
they
always jump the track form that (the SN itself must be wrong) to "the
historicity must be wrong as well.That's really nothing but good old
fashioned doubt. This is something in which I refuse to believe,
therefore, it can't be true.
To reinforce it he uses argument from analogy. He shows the story about some
saint in the 500s which is ridiculous. Then asserts that because that
story is false then the NT stories are false. That is argument from
analogy that is not proof. There's a huge difference in the level of
evidential understanding, claim and documentation in first century and
sixth. Sixth century story is European and not Mid eastern. They had an even more
tenuous grasp of proof and testimony than did the Mediterranean folk who
had the Greeks to teach them. From point on the answers to his essay are just the regular arguments
one finds in any argument about the res. I'll have more on it latter.
Te then asserts Hume's
foolishness that "why doesn't this happen today. it does. In fact he's
begging the question. We have tons of miracle claims from the current
era and
some good science that shows they are unexplained.
The only factor that is different is the prayer, so prayer is the
logical candidate to explain it. In addition to the Lourdes stuff (above
link) there is also the
Casdroph evidence. While not as systematic or rigorous it does have the evaluation of a medical staff of a hospital in the 70s.
Carrier
is using an example from the time of legends in the dark ages which is
not backed by anything like the kind of testimonial support of the
Gospels.In making that argument he's just begging the question and
asserting the ideology of naturalism. He evoking doubt as a fact rather
than proving facts. again, he is privileging doubt. Doubt privileged
means doubt becomes proof. The dark age European stuff has nothing like
the
eight levels of verification that I've demonstrated back the Gospels.
Let's examine his specific arguments. Carrier states:
But
we should try to be more specific in our reasons, and not rely solely
on common sense impressions. And there are specific reasons to
disbelieve the story of Genevieve, and they are the same reasons we have
to doubt the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. For the
parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of
their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the
case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels
were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were
added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were
actually written. Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by
numerous people. Both belong to the same genre of literature: what we
call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as
representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal
aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by
the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such
literature was also a tool of propaganda, used to promote certain moral
or religious views, and to oppose different points of view. The life of
Genevieve, for example, was written to combat Arianism. The canonical
Gospels, on the other hand, appear to combat various forms of
proto-Gnosticism. So being skeptical of what they say is sensible from
the start.[1]
That's
exactly why we can't compare that story to the resurrection. Not only
is it from a different time and different culture but it was written for
different reasons. The Gospels were primarily written to answer
concerns of given communities of the early chruch. Their concerns
revolved around securing the testimony of their cloud of witnesses as
they began dying off. They were making the transition from oral culture
to written culture. They were deal with the original testimony of eye
witnesses. The European guys were dealing with a
palimpsest [2] of legend that never had that kind of eye witness support. Thus they are not analogous and the argument from analogy fails.
Carrier asserts the typical atheist pechant for 19th century dating of the Gospels.
It
is certainly reasonable to doubt the resurrection of Jesus in the
flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have
only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing,
and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first
non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't
mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection
until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the
first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his
information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any
historian would consider good.
Note he stresses that
it's all "sacred" that means in atheist speak we can't trust it because
anything religious people write must be a lie and propaganda. Of course
any testimony in favor of the resurrection would be sacred so there
can't be any such thing as pro res evidence that is not a lie and can be
trusted. He implies that the resurrection was not part of the faith
until early second century or there about. That's an old fashioned view
that was disproved a long time ago. Now the consensus in the field is
Koester's notion of the
pre Mark Passion narrative with empty tomb emerging in mid first century. "
John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than
Denker]...he argues that this activity results in
the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" [3]
Now
we find one of the more ridiculous tactics to which Carrier resorts. He
pulls a bait and switch between historian's standard of evidence and
the atheists own standard.
Nevertheless,
Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for
the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest
standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian's own
criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the
resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the
ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing
of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian
apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims,
and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon
for a minute:
He's going to through a list of things
where the documentation for Caesar is supposedly so much better than
the Gospels. First of all, this is a total the reality of the issues. In
setting up the idea that Caesar is better documented the notion of an
atheist victory is looming. The problem is we should really expect that
because Cesar was the ruler of the known world at that time. Jesus was
an itinerant prophet form the sticks who did not even interest the
historians or men of letters. That we have any testimony of Jesus is a
miracle. The idea that Caesar is better documented is not proof that
Jesus is badly documented. Moreover, it may be overstated that Jesus'
evidence is better (he did quote a perhaps rash comment to that effect)
yet let's examine the aspects of the statement and see they are using
two different sets of criteria.
First he argues that we
have Caesar's writings, we have no writings of Jesus. He asserts that
this equates to not knowing what Jesus said or believed. We actually
more about Jesus beliefs than Caesar's becuase while Caesar express some
ideas Jesus is quoted by his followers in a full body of teaching that
covers many aspects. Since the Jews had an oral culture in which they
memoirs the words of their teachers and spit them back ver batiam we
probalby do have a good accurate understanding of Jesus' teachings, at
least as they were applied by his first follows a few years
after the communities were established. Oral tradition was not just wild random rummer but actuate reflection of the teacher through the student's memorization.
It worked and there is a great deal of evidence to that effect.
Secondly
he records the fact that at least one of Caesar's enemies documented
his crossing the Rubicon, that is Cicero. While he argues that there are
no such records of Jesus enemies or neural particles that is not the
case. There's good documentation that Jesus was written about in the
Talmudist writings, some of those date to first century.
MICHAEL L. RODKINSON in his translation of the Babylonian Talmud says:
Thus
the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple,
although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his
days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and
Bathueians and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these
last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of
the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees...[4]
Moreover
the fact that Talmudic sources talked about Jesus is born out by
Celsus. The points that he says the Jews gave him are things the Talmud
says about the alleged "Jesus figure." See my pages on Jesus in the
Talmud for
good documentation.
He
also includes inscriptions on coins. That's not a good source and it
doesn't prove much. We had a dime with Mercury on it. That doesn't mean
Mercury was a real guy. Coins documented legends and mythology.
He tires to use mulitiple sources to establish Caesar's crossing the Rubicon:
Fourth, we have the story of the
"Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including
the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian,Cassius Dio,
Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability,
since a great many of their reports on other matters have been
confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they
often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of
the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically
examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough,
all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.
Just having good sources, or even
better vetting than the Gospels, is not proof that the Gosples have no
historical basis. It may or may not be true that the statement by
Douglas Geivett might be a bit of an exaggeration in being as well
attested as the crossing of the Rubicon. Nevertheless that is not proof
that the Gospels don't hold up. I also say we can give Carrier a good
run for his money. He only names three sources that back the crossing,
they are not eye witnesses. We have four sources that are eye witnesses.
Although in reality it's all coming form the pre Mark Passion
narrative. Yet the veracity of it is attested to by it's use in other
sources. So in using in four Gospels the communities produces those
Gospels are saying "this source is correct." That's not counting non
canonical gospels that agree with it. one I now of is GPete (Gospel of
Peter). That's at least five attestations. Moreover, the sources Carrier
sites for backing the crossing were not eye witnesses and were not
contemporary, probably got their information from Caesar's writings.
[5] That is not even verification.
At
this point Carrier makes several absurd statements: "Compare this with
the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian
mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by
Christian historians." That's not true first of all. We have the
attestation of Papias, his writings dated bewteen
95 and 120 AD. That he sure was before the third century.
Clement of Rome is said to have been writing around 94 AD.
Polycarp's death
is attributed to 155 AD..The point is all of these guys attest to the
resurrection and all of them claim to have had ties with actual
disciples and Apostles who Knew Jesus. One might argue that they are not
established historians but the historians of that era were not
academically trained social scientists they were just any educated
person who wrote about what hapepned in the past these guys have a link
to the eye witness testimony that has to outweigh the onus of being
"chruch historians." The historians writing about Caesar probalby got
their information form Caesar. Carrier goes on, "And of those few others
who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any
wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or
critical examination..."That's just not true. All of the afore
mentioned chruch father attribute their knowledge to eye witnesses,
within whom they had personal contact. None of the historians Carrier
sites can do that for the crossing. He says they dont' show wide reading
or skill as historians. That is nonsense. Clement of Rome (who seems to
have known both Peter and Paul) seems to be widely read. His letter is
elpqunt and shows a vast learning as a complex concept of the Gospel is
presented. Carrier might refuse to accept because the content is
Christians but no oen can deny the complexity. Moreover that's just not
necessary to the honesty and knowledge level of the witnesses. So what
if they are not great writers compared to Plutarch, that doesn't negate
the first hand nature of their evidence.
Here he makes an argument that is quite fallacious. It's so telling that all the CARM atheist acted like it's a big proof:
Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had
Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could
have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could
not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's
forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the
rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection
happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused
that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection.
Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent
history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.
That's
just shifting arguments. In effect he's saying if this event had no
happened historian would be different so therefore we know it happen.
That is a silly way for any historian to think.The fact is yes some
group of solider moves across teh river to fight Pompey and that changed
Roman history. That means they got men across the river. that in no way
proves that Caesar led them or that any other things Caesar says
really happened the way he says it. That's like saying we know that JFK
was shot by a lone gunman becuase had he not been shot he would have ran
for re-election. History would be different, so therefore it was a lone
gunman. The same fallacy works with the claim that it proves is that
the assassination was a conspiracy. All it proves is that the President
was assassinated.
Moreover, he asserts: "There is
nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that
could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection."
That's really a red herring because there would be no belief without an
empty tomb, and they could not have gotten the body past the guards had
he not risen from the dead. To answer that this could be held by mere
bleief and didn't require a real resurrection is nothing but begging the
question. We can't assert that we know there was true resurrection just
because bleief in resurrection might have flourished without an actual
event. We don't really know that it did, and there is a possibility that
the belief would not be possible with an actual event. That is rather a
moot point and it is no way to do history!
The big
historian's brilliant knowledge fails to impress. There is one other
major issue that the CARM folks were so taken with. he argues that
superstition was so rampant in that day they would bleieve anything.
That's supposed that prove it didn't happen. Some of the CARM atheists
seemed to think this is some big innovative to show the superstition
level of the day. I knew about that as a child. I sued that argument in
my pro atheism arguments when I was a junior in high school.
But
reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the
setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an
age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere,
and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this:
we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar
eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the
result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when
an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and
blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So
tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of
how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a
superstitious people.
the sources he
footnotes are an article by himself and his Masters thesis. In those
articles he quotes other source but does not document with standard
method of FN. He never shows that the superstitions about eclipse were
prevalent in Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, nor does he show that
people were so set on them that they could be convinced to see things
that weren't there.
He talks at length about how people in that day were certain that an
eclipse was a witch stealing the moon or a Dragon easting the sun. the idea that they would believe an
eclipse
was special dragon eating the sun or witch stealing the moon or
something. That doesn't prove that they would believe in a resurrection
just because they are told about it. Carrier would assert this but it's
the opposite: the eclipse is a real event that is very dramatic. It's
rarity and its' encompassing nature, it seem terrifying and mysterious.
It's really happening, the sun really goes away for a bit. That doesn't
prove they would believe something just becuase they are told about it.
That proves the opposite really that there has to be a real event that's
terrifying and out of the ordinary to trigger such belief. A real
resurrection would fill the fill the bill,I don't know what else would.
Another
problem is that he doesn't even bother to document the time or place of
Jesus day. He's not quoting evdience about how Jews of Jesus time
thought. He's asserting that all ancinet world people thought the same.
that's an old atheist assumption that all ancient people are stupid.
Only
a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points
of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and
their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than
respected. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the
sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent
away, in preference for the local wizard.[10] By modern standards,
almost no one had any sort of education at all, and there were no mass
media disseminating scientific facts in any form. By the estimates of
William Harris, author of Ancient Literacy [1989], only 20% of the
population could read anything at all, fewer than 10% could read well,
and far fewer still had any access to books. He found that in
comparative terms, even a single page of blank papyrus cost the
equivalent of thirty dollars--ink, and the labor to hand copy every
word, cost many times more. We find that books could run to the tens or
even hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Consequently, only the rich
had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which
there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of
science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor
even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story
like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class
society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who
wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly
from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.
He's
talking about Europe in the middle ages.He has some application to
first century meridian. That's a long way from proving that a whole
popular would up and believe in resurrection just become people started
saying someone rose form the dead. Some of the advocates of resurrection
were those educated men who were not carried by superstition. Paul and
Luke fall into that category. Some of the Romans Paul was talking to in
his letter to the Romans would fall into it. Priscilla,Paul's friend the
wife of Aquila probalby, since her name is a Patrician name.
End notes
[1] Carrier FN at this point:
Besides my summary of Metzger on The New Testament Canon, cf. R. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (1992); H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (1990); W. Lane's New London Commentary on the New Testament (1974); and also Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1993).
[2]
palimpsest:
noun
noun: palimpsest; plural noun: palimpsests
a
manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing
has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces
remain.
something reused or altered but still bearing visible traces of its earlier form.
"Sutton Place is a palimpsest of the taste of successive owners"
[3] Helmutt Koester.
Ancient Christian Gospels:Their History and Development.
.
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. 1990, 218.
[4] Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, tr. Vol 1 Chapter 2
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TALMUD DURING THE LAST CENTURY OF THE SECOND TEMPLE'S EXISTENCE (i.e.
THE FIRST A.C.) SHEMAIA--ABTALIAN--HILLEL--SHAMMAI--THE PRINCES (NASIS)
OF ISRAEL--R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI--SANHEDRIN OF JAMNIA--THE JEWISH
CHRISTIANS.accessed 9/6/14
by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com accessed 9/6/14
The
Talmud was written in second century on, but the works it used were
passed on orally and date much earlier. Rodkinson states:
"The
Talmud is a combination of Mishna and Gemara, the latter is a
collection of Mishnayoth, Tosephtas, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre and
Boraithas, all of these, interpreted and discussed by the Amoraim,
Saboraim, and also Gaonim at a later period. "The Mishna is the
authorized codification of the oral or unwritten law, which on the basis
of the written law contained in Pentateuch, developed during the second
Temple, and down to the end of the second century of the common era."
The author of which was R. Jehuda, the prince named "Rabbi" (flourishing
toward the end of the second century), taking the unfinished work of R.
Akiba and R. Meir as basis."
[5] Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 AD. Suetonius wasn't born until 70 AD! Appian was bron in 95 AD Cassius Dio born in 155,
Plutarch born in 45 AD. so he could have been there if he had been taken along as a two year old historian.
On CARM HRG says: " It is mentioned in De bello civile, Cicero's Philipplicae and Velleius Paterculus. " http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?200585-why-I-don-t-buy-Carrier-s-article-about-not-buying-the-Res
Interesting
that Carrier didn't use those guys becuase he has a Ph.D. in world
history, so he surely would have known they were contemporary with the
event. He must know of them. But one might well wonder were they there
or did they know if from reading Caesar? Sure they knew the crossing
was alleged to have existed, that doesn't mean they were there.
