Tag: Richard Carrier

Deeper Waters 7/27/2013: Chris Winchester

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters podcast this Saturday? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters!

As readers of yesterday’s blog know, Allie and I celebrated three years together yesterday. When Allie and I got married, I sought to include as many of my friends as I could. One of those friends was someone I met at Seminary who is now working overseas to get a further degree in study of the NT and I am convinced is an up and coming scholar in the field. I’m not just saying that because he’s a friend of mine. I’m saying that because he’s an excellent researcher on a variety of topics. (And to add, he’s a good groomsman, even if he was about to pass out.)

Chris especially has had a lot of fun with the mythicist crowd, although he is now getting a bit exasperated, as well as critiquing the writings of several non-Christians such as Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier. In the case of Carrier, this even includes interactions with Carrier himself on his blog.

I can say that whenever Chris decides he’s going to research anything, I find that he consistently throws himself into it and seeks to get the best information that he can. This has included everything from political conspiracies to alien abductions. There’s no such thing as Chris doing just a little bit of looking into a topic. He looks entirely at what he’s doing.

As a good researcher, Chris is constantly asking questions and this is something that we do back and forth. There are many times that I will come and ask him a question and want to know what he thinks about a topic and likewise, he will come to me and ask me a topic. This is the way that we have iron sharpen iron. We can find each other to be invaluable allies when we are working together in a debate. (Yet perhaps he should consider trying to fight against me some when we play Smash Brothers together. Just a suggestion.)

While at the Deeper Waters podcast I have wanted to highlight the work of scholars, I want to also promote those who I think deserve to be promoted and that includes Chris will all that he has done in the area of research. I know that when I have been climbing up the ladder in the apologetics community, that it has been helpful to have other people be willing to showcase my work and since the show gives me a platform to do the same, I want to be able to help out in that way. That’s what friends are for anyway.

Therefore, I invite you to be listening in this Saturday to the Deeper Waters Podcast to hear a good friend of mine. We will be focusing our talk on the historical Jesus and discussing problems with mythicists as well as Chris’s interactions with Richard Carrier online. Show time is from 3-5 EST this Saturday. The call in number to the show as always is 714-242-5180. The link can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 7/20/2013 Tim McGrew!

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it!

I am quite excited about this podcast! Our prior guest had to cancel and will be back later, but right now, our guest is going to be Tim McGrew! Tim McGrew is a name more of you should know! He is one of the most brilliant men I have ever met, yet incredibly humble and an excellent friend!

Tim McGrew will be talking to us about many various topics. In fact, we’re not entirely settled on what it will be since it was last minute, but he is a storehouse of information in many different fields! These includes Bayes Theorem, historicity of the gospels, epistemology, etc. (I’ve also learned recently that this includes Star Wars, much to my shock)

Tim McGrew is also an advocate of reading the old books, and there are times I wonder if there are any that he hasn’t read! It is important to take our modern times and have them tampered by reading the works that came before us. What is often unrealized by many modern skeptics was that their charges were already answered, usually a century earlier!

McGrew also favors undesigned coincidences. These are ways that one detail given by one gospel writer coincides wonderfully by providing missing details of another writer, and in ways that most likely were not planned! In each case, it lends more credibility to the gospel accounts.

Tim is also one of the most prominent members of the Christian Apologetics Alliance, a well-known group on Facebook, and if you’re wanting to study apologetics and you’re on Facebook, it should be a group that you belong to! We could talk with him about that as well!

What about the traditional authorship of the gospels that Bart Ehrman argues against? Tim McGrew would like to get a chance to take that on as well! He has not been as impressed with Ehrman as a number of our skeptics. I have been assured that McGrew will be polite, but he will by no means be gentle.

And what about mythicists like Richard Carrier and others? For these, McGrew finds their position completely ludicrous and he wants to say something about Carrier as well, which could definitely include his ideas about the usage of Bayes Theorem. If anyone is an authority on this, it is McGrew.

Friends. This really will be an astounding show and Tim McGrew is something you definitely want to know about. I hope you will be as impressed with him as I am and especially come to appreciate his love for Christ and concern for the well-being of the apologetics community. I am pleased not only that Tim McGrew is my guest, but also that he is my friend.

Call in number will be 714-242-5180! The link can be found here. The show will air on the 20th from 3-5 PM EST and I invite you to be ready with your call in question for Tim Mcgrew! I look forward to having you in my audience!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Profit With Delight

What do I think of Pervo’s take on Acts? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Richard Carrier has said that if you want to know Acts isn’t reliable, read Pervo. I found a work of his on the genre of Acts, though this is not the one I think Carrier is referring to. Still it is worth sharing my thoughts on this one.

Pervo’s thesis in this work is that Luke is writing a kind of historical fiction. At least, that’s the impression when one does not see Pervo ranting about how obviously unhistorical the work is, something that plays a huge distraction from the content that is already in there. Pervo wants to jump at any chance he can get to show why he doesn’t think Luke is historical. (To be fair, I think this book was written before Colin Hemer’s massive work.)

This is not to say that the work is without any merit. For instance, the chapter on humor and irony in Acts I find to be quite pleasing. It is a mistake we’ve made with the text of Scripture that we often do not look to find any humor in it. In fact, this is a topic I’m interested in doing more research on someday.

If the rest of the book had been like that, I would not have had as many concerns, but alas, it isn’t. The whole idea of the thesis comes as that the book is so incredibly inaccurate that it could not possibly be considered to be historical in genre, therefore, it must be some sort of fiction.

Unfortunately, Pervo isn’t that accurate I find with the data that he presents. One such example is found where he writes about how ancient writers liked intrigue and conspiracy with the following:

“Evil Chenephres, jealous because of Moses’s civilizing innovations, tries to do away with him by ordering that he invade Ethiopia with an army of untrained peasants. After Moses is nonetheless victorious, Pharaoh strips him of this command and alienates his Egyptian lieutenants. Assassins are secretly sworn. They back out. Pharaoh does not. Having gained the allegiance of one Chanethothes, he dispatches Moses on a diplomatic mission, planning to ambush him on the road. An insider reveals the plot. In flight (on advice from Aaron), to Arabia, Moses meets and kills Chanethothes in single combat. The resemblance to Acts requires no comment.” (Pages 33-34)

The resemblance to Acts?

What resemblance?

It’s seeing claims like this that get me to think that I have to take everything that is said in here with a huge grain of salt.

Pervo’s thesis has not found wide acceptance, and for good reason. Most do realize that Luke is intending to give a historical account. Even if there were errors in it, that is certainly the intention. One can say that there are statements in Luke that match novels of the time, but that could be said of most any work in ancient history. A writer would write in a way that would catch his audience’s attention. Luke was a skilled and talented writer, in fact, so skilled that those who are learning Greek are told to not start trying with Luke. Luke is a highly difficult writer in Greek to understand since he knows it so well.

The reader is encouraged to instead go for ideas that have far more scholarly backing. A good reply to Pervo can be found in The Jesus Legend by Boyd and Eddy.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Rulers Of This Age

Where did the rulers of the age reside? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve been looking lately at some arguments given to advance the idea that Jesus never existed. An interesting verse given is in 1 Cor. 2:8. The text reads as follows:

“None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

Now it is argued that elsewhere where Paul uses the word archon, which is translated as rulers, then it refers to rulers of the air and that refers to spiritual powers. So it is that Jesus did not really confront earthly rulers, but he instead confronted the rulers in the heavenlies and this heavenly story later on took on an earthly meaning.

One place where Paul uses it is in Ephesians 2, but there he clarifies the term by speaking of the ruler of the power of the air. The qualification is so you will know that Paul is not speaking about an earthly ruler but in this case about a spiritual ruler.

Another place the term is used is in Romans 13, but here I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that it refers to any sort of heavenly ruler. The passage is about governing authorities on Earth and how Christians are to respond to them. So what do we do in 1 Cor. 2?

Do we have any reason to think that the reading of earthly rulers would not apply? Upfront, no. The only basis for taking it the other way is because somehow saying rulers of this age makes it a spiritual battle going on.

Now of course, Christians would not deny that spiritual powers were at work in the crucifixion of Jesus, but these were spiritual powers who operated through earthly rulers. The problem with people like Carrier and others is that they have made it an entirely either/or situation. It is EITHER spiritual powers at work meaning this is a myth, OR it is earthly powers at work. If it is spiritual powers, then it is ipso facto by that argument not earthly powers, but why should this be accepted?

In the ancient world, there was not this great dichotomy between so-called natural and supernatural. Instead, the divine was seen to be active in everything and that included earthly affairs. If you asked if spiritual powers had Jesus crucified you could be told “Yes.” If you asked if earthly powers had him crucified, you could be told “Yes.”

Do we have any evidence that goes for the traditional interpretation?

Yes!

Tacitus in the Annals in 15.44 tells us that Jesus was crucified and this under Pontius Pilate. Lucian tells us that Christians follow a crucified sophist. We could also include Josephus depending on how much of the testimonium is considered valid since it refers to the crucifixion. Definitely we could include the gospels, Acts, and numerous other statements in other epistles and other Pauline epistles.

All of these other statements MUST be wrong for the mythicist theory to hold here. That sounds like awfully weak ground.

It’s at this point I do wish to remind skeptical readers that there are several atheists who admit Jesus was a historical figure and go on to lead happy and meaningful lives.

I conclude that the case is just not persuasive at all to see this as less than a simple statement of fact that Jesus was crucified by the authorities on Earth at the time. This is a contrast to the soon coming age of the Messiah when Jesus will instead stand in judgment over them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Passed On What I Received

Did Paul receive a creed from another, or was it something else? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The point has been argued that when Paul says he passed on what he received in 1 Cor. 15, that that is the language that is used in Galatians 1 and Galatians 1 refers to a divine revelation. This leads us to the conclusion that Paul is not passing a creed that he has received, but sharing a revelation he has had of a divine and heavenly Jesus that later got turned into an earthly one.

Yes. That really is what is being argued.

So what are we to make of such a claim? Well the word for received is the same in Galatians 1:9 as it is in 1 Cor. 15, and both of them are talking about the gospel, but there are marked differences and that is where we need to look. When comparing two things, it is most important to see how they are different.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul says he passed on what he received, and the information about passing on puts this in the area of oral tradition. He got it from someone else. Scholarship agrees across the board that this information is not original with Paul. This was instead an early creedal Christian statement. The latest you’ll usually see this dated is five years afterwards. Even the Jesus Seminar places it early.

There is no doubt that this is a creed as well. It was formulated for easy memorization and contains a number of words in it that are non-Pauline and as the experts in the language tell me, is written in a very rhythmic fashion to aid in memorization.

What is going on instead in Galatians 1? Paul is talking about the confirmation of the gospel. No doubt, he had some content of it already. He knew the belief that he was persecuting! He just didn’t believe it! Let’s look at some of the language he uses.

1:12 “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ”

Paul is saying that his gospel is from Christ Himself and he received it by a revelation. Does this mean He received all the content? No. He knew what was being said in his life of persecution prior. What he instead received was confirmation of the gospel.

1:15-17 “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.”

Consider the language of “set apart before I was born.” Does that sound familiar? Consider this other passage from the OT.

““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.””

That’s Jeremiah 1:5. Paul is finding himself in the tradition of Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations in a far greater sense as he goes into Gentile territory. His divine commission was also an act of God. Why do this? He’s setting up authority. He is showing his authority is equal to that of the other apostles. He’s also showing he is not dependent on them, which is going to be important for when he challenges Peter. He’s not a student publicly admonishing his teacher. That would be disgraceful. He’s an apostle dealing with someone who is on the same level as he is. After all, the Judaizers could say “We are doing what is proper! Look at what Peter did!” Paul says he has the right to speak due to his divine commission. As Christ called Peter, so he also called Paul.

Keep in mind also that Paul is quite clear on what is revelation and what is not. He does not simply make a claim and then say it is revelation. In 1 Cor. 7 Paul says in regard to a question that “The Lord, not I, says” meaning that there is a clear answer in the Jesus tradition. Yet later he says “I, not the Lord, say” meaning that this isn’t explicitly covered in the Jesus tradition, but Paul is going to give his answer to it and he thinks he has the wisdom as an apostle to answer it.

What this means for us is that Paul is very careful with his words. He wants to make clear what has its origins in Jesus and what doesn’t. His words in Galatians indicate that the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship. To deny Jesus ever even lived would mean that Paul was persecuting a group that showed up suddenly with no historical basis, and just as quickly changed his mind and joined that group. This would mean that all of these Jews suddenly thought it would be a good idea to abandon their ancient heritage given by YHWH Himself and take up another belief system and just as Paul got caught up in this delusion, he happened to meet other apostles who had done so at the same time, and oh yes, there was also a creedal statement with eyewitnesses mentioned that shows up soon after and no one takes the time to call into question before abandoning their ancient traditions.

You are free to take a position that the apostles were wrong on the resurrection. You are free to say that some information about Jesus is legendary. You are free to say that the accounts are unreliable. Let’s just stop the nonsensical idea however that while the ancients might have been gullible, and I would contend they weren’t, that they were so idiotically gullible to make such quick changes that would put their entire lives on the line. To change a quote from Monday’s blog “It’s wrong to say Jesus never rose from the dead. It’s very wrong to say He never existed.”

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Brother of the Lord

Is James really a brother to a historical figure? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote about the problem of internet atheists and gave the Christ-myth as an example. I can anticipate that someone will ask me about the claims of Richard Carrier. I figured it would be good to look at some of the claims that are made against Jesus being a real historical figure and for a start, thought that I’d look at the passage that talks about James being the brother of the Lord.

Now if James is a brother to someone, it would be self-evident that that person either now exists or at one time did exist. You can still be the sibling of someone who is dead after all. If it is the case that Jesus now existed or even at one time did exist (Perhaps for the sake of argument, he never rose from the dead), then the Christ-myth theory is false.

There can be no doubt that the NT often uses the term “brother” and “brethren” in a spiritual sense. This is still used today of course. The question we have to ask is “Does this mean that every time the text identifies someone as a brother, it means in a spiritual sense?” This would be a highly problematic feature since it would mean no one could positively be identified as someone’s brother in the text.

Could there be any way to make a stronger case? Yes. I think there is. I would like to start with the Galatians passage that’s usually brought up. This text is Galatians 1:19 and reads as follows:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Now this is often dismissed since we know about the case of spiritual brothers. Yes. We certainly do. However, to state that it can often refer to spiritual brethren in the NT is not to argue that in this case, it means a spiritual brother. Here are some reasons I think it does not.

First off, we have a specific identifier remark. James is a brother. A brother of who? A brother of Jesus. This is to set him apart from numerous other people named James. Keep in mind James was an extremely common name in the time of the NT. How do you know which James, it’s the one who is an apostle and more importantly, the brother of the Lord.

Note also that to identify someone by their brother is something extraordinary. Most people would have been identified by their father. This James is identified by the person he is a brother of. This indicates that the person he is a brother of would have been well-known in the church.

Second, James is set apart from others. Would not John and Peter have also been considered brothers of the Lord in a spiritual sense? Yet this is not said of John or Peter. Some have speculated a group called “the brothers of the Lord” and that James belonged to this and none others. Unfortunately, we have no mention of such a group. It is created wholesale to fit the theory. We do, instead, have references to brothers in the NT, even physical brothers, and thus no ad hoc creation is needed.

Third, this reference shows up in Josephus. In there, we find a reference to James, the brother of Jesus. This occurs in Antiquities 20.9.1. The whole reads as follows:

“Antiquities 20.9.1. “And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.” ”

A Christian inserting such a passage would not say Jesus was called Christ. They would say Jesus was the Christ. (Especially if such a person had inserted the earlier reference in Josephus entirely) Josephus scholars have no problem accepting this passage. Some think the final Jesus is the one being talked about, but there is no evidence that this Jesus was ever called the Christ and if so, there’s no reason why he would have been made high priest. In fact, if the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah, it is most certain a high priest could not be Messiah. (Hebrews explains Jesus being one from a Christian perspective)

There are other references in the NT that I think lend support to the idea of brothers not having to be a spiritual term.

1 Cor. 9:5 “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

Again, why should I create an ad hoc group when instead I could just say these are the brothers of the Lord. Why would apostles not be included in such a group? Why would Cephas not be included in such a group?

Jude 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,

Once again, why should I think this is referring to something spiritual. Jude would be identifying himself by a famous marker. He does not identify himself as a brother of Jesus, likely so as not to draw attention to himself and be seeking to steal honor from others. He instead goes with the brother of James, which would be a famous one, and why not the one who is a brother of Jesus. Could Jude be saying James is a spiritual brother, but no one else? The more natural reading fits best.

It is for reasons like this that I do not think the brother of the Lord claim of Carrier being a spiritual brother really holds waters. To argue otherwise is to adjust the evidence to fit the theory and vice-versa.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

If anyone is interested, a friend of Deeper Waters also translated this post into Spanish.

El Hermano del Señor
¿Es Santiago en verdad el hermano de una figura histórica? Hablemos de esto en Aguas Profundas.

Ayer escribí sobre el problema de los ateos de internet y puse como ejemplo al Cristo mítico. Puedo anticipar que alguno me preguntará por las afirmaciones de Richard Carrier. Se me ocurrió que sería bueno dar un vistazo a algunos de los reclamos que se hacen en contra de que Jesús sea una figura histórica, y para empezar pensé en el pasaje que habla sobre Santiago como el hermano del Señor.

Ahora, si Santiago es hermano de alguien, sería obvio que esa persona o bien existe ahora o existió alguna vez. Después de todo uno todavía puede ser hermano de alguien que está muerto. Si es el caso que Jesús existiera ahora o que alguna vez existió (quizá, para propósitos de argumentación, nunca resucitó de los muertos), entonces la teoría del Cristo mítico es falsa.

No puede haber duda de que el NT a menudo usa el término “hermano” y “hermanos” en un sentido espiritual. Esto por supuesto todavía se usa hoy. La pregunta que hay que hacer es “¿Quiere decir esto que cada vez que el texto identifica a alguien como un hermano, significa en un sentido espiritual?” Esa sería una característica altamente problemática, ya que significaría que nadie podría ser identificado positivamente como hermano de alguien en el texto.
¿Podríamos decir algo más contundente al respecto? Sí. Creo que podemos. Me gustaría empezar con el pasaje de Gálatas que usualmente se toma como ilustración. El texto es Gálatas 1:19 y dice como sigue:

“No vi a ningún otro de los apóstoles; sólo vi a Santiago, el hermano del Señor.”

Ahora, a menudo se descarta este versículo puesto que sabemos del caso de los hermanos espirituales. Sí. Ciertamente sabemos. Sin embargo, decir que a menudo puede referirse a hermanos espirituales en el NT, no es argumento de que en este caso significa un hermano espiritual. Aquí hay algunas razones por las que pienso que no:

Primero, tenemos una marca de identificación específica. Santiago es un hermano. ¿Hermano de quién? Hermano de Jesús. Con esto se lo distingue de otras numerosas personas llamadas Santiago. Hay que recordar que Santiago era un nombre extremadamente común en el tiempo del NT. “¿De qué Santiago hablas?” “El que es un apóstol y, más importante, el hermano del Señor.”

Note además que identificar a alguien por su hermano es algo extraordinario. La mayoría de personas eran identificadas por su padre. Este Santiago es identificado por la persona de quien es hermano. Esto indica que la persona de quien él es hermano habría sido bien conocida en la Iglesia.

Segundo, Santiago es distinguido de otros. ¿No habrían también Juan y Pedro sido considerados hermanos del Señor en un sentido espiritual? Aun así, esto no se dice de Juan y Pedro. Algunos han especulado sobre un grupo llamado “los hermanos del Señor” y que Santiago pertenecía a este grupo y los otros no.

Desafortunadamente, no tenemos mención de tal grupo. Es inventado por completo para ajustarse a la teoría. Sí tenemos, en cambio, referencias a hermanos en el NT, incluso hermanos de carne, y por tanto no se necesita una creación ad hoc.

Tercero, esta referencia aparece en Josefo. Allí, encontramos una referencia a Santiago, el hermano del Señor. Esto ocurre en Antigüedades 20.9.1. El pasaje entero reza así:

Antigüedades 20.9.1 “Y ahora César, después de enterarse de la muerte de Festo, envió a Albino a Judea como procurador. Pero el rey removió a José del sumo sacerdocio, y confirió la sucesión a esa dignidad sobre el hijo de Ananías, llamado también Ananías. Ahora según se dice, este Ananías mayor probó ser muy afortunado; porque tenía cinco hijos los cuales habían todos ejercido el oficio de sumo sacerdotes delante de Dios, y él mismo había ostentado esa dignidad mucho tiempo antes, algo que nunca había ocurrido a ninguno de nuestros sumo sacerdotes. Pero éste Ananías más joven, quien como ya hemos dicho tomó el sumo sacerdocio, era un hombre de temperamento osado, y muy insolente; el cual así mismo era de la secta de los Saduceos, los cuales son muy rígidos para juzgar ofensores, por encima del resto de los judíos, como ya hemos observado; cuando, por lo tanto, siendo que era esa clase de hombre, y creía que se le ofrecía, como Festo estaba ahora muerto, y Albino estaba de camino, convocó al Sanedrín de jueces, y trajo delante de ellos al hermano de Jesús, llamado el Cristo, cuyo nombre era Santiago, y a algunos otros; y cuando hubo formado acusación contra ellos como infractores de la ley, los entregó par ser apedreados: pero los ciudadanos más moderados y afectos a la ley, se indignaron; y enviaron mensajeros al rey, pidiéndole que por carta exhortara a Ananías a que, en adelante, no hiciera tales cosas, pues lo realizado no estaba bien. Algunos de ellos fueron al encuentro de Albino, que venía de Alejandría; le pidieron que no permitiera que Ananías, sin su consentimiento, convocara al sanedrín. Albino, convencido, envió una carta a Ananías, en la cual lleno de indignación le anunciaba que tomaría venganza contra él. Luego el rey Agripa le quitó el sumo sacerdocio, el cual ejerció por tres meses, y puso en su lugar a Jesús, hijo de Dameo.” Un cristiano que insertara tal pasaje no diría que Jesús era llamado el Cristo. Ellos dirían que Jesús era el Cristo. (Especialmente si tal persona había insertado la referencia anterior en Josefo en su totalidad) Los eruditos en Josefo no tienen problemas para aceptar este pasaje. Algunos piensan que el Jesús que se menciona de último es al que Josefo se refiere, pero no hay evidencia de que este Jesús era llamado el Cristo, y si fuera así, no hay razón para que lo hubieran hecho sumo sacerdote. De hecho, si el Mesías era de la tribu de Judá, es muy seguro que un sumo sacerdote no podía ser Mesías. (Hebreos explica que Jesús lo es, desde una perspectiva cristiana) Hay otras referencias en el NT que pienso dan apoyo a la idea de que “hermanos” no tiene que ser un término espiritual.

1 Cor. 9:5 “¿No tenemos derecho de traer con nosotros una hermana por mujer como también los otros apóstoles, y los hermanos del Señor, y Cefas?” De nuevo, ¿Por qué tendría alguien que crear un grupo ad hoc cuando en su lugar podría decir “estos son los hermanos del Señor”? ¿Por qué no estarían incluidos los apóstoles en tal grupo? ¿Por qué Cefas no estaría incluido en ese grupo? Judas 1:1 “Judas, siervo de Jesucristo y hermano de Santiago” Una vez más, ¿Por qué deberíamos pensar que esto se refiere a algo espiritual? Judas se estaría identificando con un marcador famoso. Él no se identifica como hermano de Jesús, probablemente para no llamar la atención sobre sí mismo ni robar el honor de otros. En su lugar, se identifica como el hermano de Santiago, y no como el hermano de Jesús. ¿Acaso dice Judas que Santiago es un hermano espiritual, pero nadie más? La lectura más natural encaja mejor.
Es por razones como ésta que no creo que la afirmación de Carrier de que el “hermano del Señor” es algo espiritual quede en pie. Argumentar lo contrario es ajustar la evidencia para que encaje en la teoría y vice-versa.

En Cristo,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Did Jesus Exist?

What do I think of Bart Ehrman’s latest book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve had this one sitting for awhile meaning to read it but some of you may know how it is. You find one more book that you want to order at the library and you do so and that becomes another and then another and then another and those books you have at home that you’re meaning to read never seem to get there. Encouragement from others on this book finally got me to sit down and go through it and I do agree, it is a good book.

A great advantage that we have in this book is that this is someone that normally the atheist community respects, although there has been quite a backlash against Ehrman since he wrote it. It is quite amazing that atheists who often say Christians go against all of scholarship in being against evolution can often themselves do the same in going against all of scholarship in being Christ-mythers and yet they think that this is a respectable position. It is not. It never has been. It never will be.

Not only this, Ehrman gives plenty of evidences that the Christian can use in dating the evidences. For instance, Ehrman says within a couple of decades of Jesus’s death, we have numerous accounts of his life in a wide geographical area. He notes that there are at least eleven sources. (82-83) He makes it clear that there are possibly more. On page 108 we read “The Other is that the Acts account gives clear evidence of being very early and Palestinian in origin.”

Also, Ehrman does not hold back when he speaks about people like Acharya S. and Freke and Gandy in “The Jesus Mysteries.” He repeats a number of statements that he refers to as howlers that can be found in them. He will also throughout the book deal with other Mythicists like Richard Carrier, G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and Robert Price. I do know Price has recently responded to Ehrman’s appearance on Unbelievable? talking about this and Carrier was quite vehement in his reply to Ehrman.

Ehrman also includes a basic historiography and tells us about how we can establish someone’s existence in the ancient world. He lays myth to the idea that the Romans kept excessive records and points out that there is hardly mention of many people whose existence we do not doubt in the ancient sources. Josephus is not mentioned for instance. Ehrman also thinks it’s implausible to point out that Caesar is mentioned, as if the person who rules the Roman Empire could be compared with any person living in the Empire. (Nevertheless, Jesus does get an impressive number of mentions)

I do think his responses to why Jesus isn’t mentioned in other sources are weak. I would answer that the reason Jesus isn’t mentioned is the same as it would be today. Suppose you hear about someone halfway around the world who is working miracles. Are you really going to investigate it? Even if you get on your computer, you’ll find one site that explains it away and that can be enough. Most of us don’t take that claim seriously, even if we believe in miracles!

Now transplant that to the Roman Empire. Suppose you’re in Rome. You hear about this Jewish rabbi in the backwater area of Palestine who is doing miracles. What are you going to say? Simple. “What a bunch of ignorant superstitious people.” You’re not going to bother because you’re predisposed to be against miracles, especially if you hear about a resurrection. After all, who wants to come back to life anyway? Finally, if you hear he has been crucified, well that clinches it. No great ruler would be crucified.

In fact, this is something Ehrman states repeatedly with regards to crucifixion. Jesus’s crucifixion is not something the early Christians would have made up. They would have done anything to avoid it, but the reason that they preached it is that they could not avoid it. It was an undeniable fact and they not only had to share it, but they even saw the basis for it in the Scriptures. If this was the wisdom of God, they were to find it.

Also, Ehrman does a number on the position that because something is in the Bible, we should not accept it as evidence. Ehrman believes the atheist is as wrong as the fundamentalist Christian. It is neither fair nor scholarly. Something does not fall outside the realm of historical inquiry just because the word “Scripture” is given to it. He also says there is no God-given hermeneutic for reading them and they are human and historical. Christians can agree by and large. While we think there is a divine origin, it is also through human authors.

In looking at a response to Mythicist themselves, Ehrman repeatedly points out that the whole of scholarship is in disagreement. The book gives an impression of one Ehrman is disappointed he has to write. The idea is that this theory is so absurd that it does not even, as he says, get a toe-hold in the academy. This also includes even the claim that Nazareth didn’t exist of Rene Salm and Ehrman frequently quotes scholars on the subject, seeing as archaeology is not his area, who make it clear how shoddy they think Salm’s approach is.

He also goes after Kersey Graves, who is a regular source for mythicists, and says that not one of his claims is footnoted with any scholarly evidence. Where does Graves get his information from? We don’t know. We do know that numerous mythicists online are still quick to point to his material about 16 crucified saviors. It is always important to ask people who make the claims about Jesus being a copycat Messiah to back their claims with primary sources.

When it comes to those pagan beliefs, Ehrman says that they did not have a foothold in Palestine and that while there are similiarities, there is no basis to say copying was going on. This brings up a point some readers might wonder about. What do I think about this book in comparison with J.P. Holding’s “Shattering the Christ-Myth.” After all, Holding spends much more time on the matter of copycats then Ehrman.

Overall, I do think Holding’s work is more thorough and better at dealing with the copycat theory and every other aspect. This could also be because Holding’s material is written by a group of individuals. One wonders how long one could write individually on the Christ-myth before one thinks they were repeating themselves. One can find much more in Holding’s book on Mithras, the Testimonium Flavianum, and Remsberg’s list. (I don’t think Remsberg is even mentioned in Ehrman’s.)

Many Christians find disappointment with Ehrman’s book at the end when he describes Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. Coming from a Preterist perspective, I did not find this section disappointing but rather confirming. After all, I see Ehrman as reading the predictions of Jesus with the same fundamentalist thinking he condemns elsewhere. I can easily look at the text and say “Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and He was right!”

While I do think Holding’s material is superior for the reasons given, I still think this is an important one as the skeptic is more prone to listen to someone like Ehrman. I will still be including links to both resources.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Shattering the Christ Myth can be found [url=http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Christ-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1606472712/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347303077&sr=1-1&keywords=shattering+the+christ+myth]here[/url]

Did Jesus Exist? can be found [url=http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347303116&sr=1-1&keywords=did+jesus+exist]here[/url]

The Ehrman/Carrier debate

How’s the view from under the bus? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I have yet to read Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” although I do have a copy of it here, but library books come first. That having been said, it has been amusing on some web sites to see how Richard Carrier is now going after Bart Ehrman and this no doubt places the usual village atheist in a bind.

Typically, fundy atheists online have relied on Bart Ehrman. One can hardly read the new atheists without seeing a reference to Bart Ehrman as the authority. At the same time, the new atheists seem quite open to the idea that Jesus never existed and now, the champion that online fundy atheists have claimed for so long has come out with a position deemed heretical.

So now what to do? Apparently for fundy atheists, in the past, Ehrman’s books were seen as excellent because Ehrman is a scholar and he is right in what he says, but now that this one has come out, what to do? Do we want to still say he’s a scholar and value what he says, but if so then we have to drop the idea that Jesus never existed? How could Ehrman give such a betrayal as this?

For the rest of us in reality who actually look at claims on a case-by-case basis and have it be more than “X says so”, this isn’t a problem. We can recommend the works of someone on a case-by-case basis realizing some positions we agree with and some don’t. Not so for the typical fundy atheists who treats the paragons of his faith more seriously than most Christians treat Scripture.

Enter Richard Carrier. Carrier has long been the go-to man for online skeptics and is one of those few people who still holds to this position that Jesus never existed. Carrier also seems to think he’s an authority on several issues and gets called out quickly when someone else comes along who is one. Most notably, he has quite an ego online.

Watching these two fare off is quite amusing, but even more so is the fact that Ehrman is shown to know what he’s talking about by and large while Carrier is picking at tiny little points thinking that this somehow makes a difference in the overall argument.

Not to be outdone in the “X says so” category, we’ve also seen that P.Z. Myers has applauded Carrier for dealing with Ehrman and that Stephen Law has come out against the existence of Jesus. Keep in mind that both Myers and Law in their respective fields will be demanding evidence to believe something, which in itself I have no problem of, but when it comes to history which they do not study professionally, they are quick to say the evidence is not enough.

By all means, let them do it. By doing so, the new atheist movement is becoming more and more out of sync with reality and when they have to defend this historically atrocious position, then they will have to keep doing more and more all in the attempt to save face rather than face that dreadful alternative of saying “I was wrong.”

This has to be done in fact because the last thing that can be admitted is that the Christian theist actually has a point. Once that is done, then the atheist has to admit that it is no longer blind faith. It is faith that has reason behind it and there goes another one of their favorite cards in their deck.

The idea seems to be that we’re all supposed to stand together and Ehrman has gone against that stand. He must be dealt with. It will be amusing to see if this means online atheists will quickly move away from Ehrman when in a debate someone says “Ehrman. Ehrman. Isn’t he the guy who wrote that book demonstrating that Jesus did exist?”

For now, let the new atheists continue their strong defense of Carrier as their champion and just wait and see what happens when it is shown that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps then we can ever hear a biblical lament at that point about how the mighty have fallen.

After all, when you’re married to an ideology, why let a little thing like evidence get in the way at that point?

In Christ,
Nick Peters