I fear Richard Carrier is a bit of a film-flam man. Perhaps he is even fooling himself, but he is definitely full of himself. However, he is making a very basic error in his use of Bayes theorem. He is using a statistical formula that is only valid when used for quantitative values, not qualitative. I am by no means a statistician, but check out The New Oxonian blog from May 29, 2012 at rjosephhoffman.wordpress.com/tag/Bayes-theorem/ for a full explanation of his error. His determination of what values to use is totally subjective and, predictably, garbage in / garbage out.
john76 said
Richard Carrier has posted his review of Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God.” Here it is: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Any thoughts?
I think Carrier’s arrogant style and over-blown ego is his worst enemy.
Reading through the “errors” section, it is apparent that most of it consists of his disagreements with Ehrman on the topic. There may be some trivial errors, like you can find in any scholarly book. However, one should not misuse the word “error” when it comes to disagreements. This is particularly revealing when it comes to his opinion on Q, where he declares his minority opinion to be self-evident, and therefor Ehrman and the majority is in “error”.
magpie said
I fear Richard Carrier is a bit of a film-flam man. Perhaps he is even fooling himself, but he is definitely full of himself. However, he is making a very basic error in his use of Bayes theorem. He is using a statistical formula that is only valid when used for quantitative values, not qualitative. I am by no means a statistician, but check out The New Oxonian blog from May 29, 2012 at rjosephhoffman.wordpress.com/tag/Bayes-theorem/ for a full explanation of his error. His determination of what values to use is totally subjective and, predictably, garbage in / garbage out.
He’s the kind of academic flim-flam men, who attracts intellectual teenagers and undergraduates in need of a guru. There used to be lots of them in the weird 70’es. It lasts for some years…
Just started to read this and have to say that I agree with Carrier about Bart changing his mind from a previous position both about the existence or evidence that Jesus lived. And Bart definitely changed his views about the deity of Jesus from day 1 as it were.
There is very little evidence from the Gospels themselves that the disciples ever thought that Jesus was God, or was pre existent or even the actual Son of God. Indeed as Jews they would not have done so and that is why Jesus himself would never have accepted that premise and said on one occasion, “Why call me good, only one is good and that is God” etc. I don’t even see that after the resurrection either.
I will comment further and I did say this on Bart’s own blog and he never replied I don’t think. It may be a long shot but really wonder if Bart’s wife and close friends are having an effect on his previous stance rather than any historical evidence? Or even possibly reverting back to his former Christian beliefs as an evangelical Pastor? Nothing wrong with changing his mind of course.
I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate when this site goes to la la land and loses my post. This is at least the third time this has happened so from memory…..
I really wanted to read this review, but sweet Jesus, when in the first paragraph Carrier says “On the other hand, I am starting to see a trend in his writing now, wherein he gets right anything he simply culls from existing scholarship and distills for public understanding, but doesn’t always get right everything he tries to add of his own or off the cuff.” I lose all patience with any point he wants to make.
This is the petty gaspings of a wanna be with no background in this field he wants to protest from. What is the point of being dismissive of one of the leading voices of his field to the point of attempting to strip him of any possibility of any original thought that has value? To garner attention? Daddy issues?
Apropos to who ever said above that he was a flim-flam man: he sounds more like a cult leader to me “I am the only one who can offer you the truth”. I’ve never given Carrier any attention before so I guess I shouldn’t change at this point.
To MikeyS: C’mon man, I generally agree with what you say, but why would anyone seriously think Bart is reverting? He’s done or said nothing, in my opinion, to make one think he’s going back to be a Christian. Didn’t he just talk about being an agnostic once again in his Christmas post? Do you feel this way because he’s changed his mind about something? I know something else he’s changed his mind about (no big secret what I’m talking about but I don’t want to go off on a tangent), but that doesn’t mean he’s going back to being a Christian. A scholar who enters his field with a set of views that never change has nothing to offer his profession.
Having read some more, I don’t agree with Carrier at all that Mark wrote an allegory and should not be taken literally. If that WAS the case, then we may as well throw the whole lot out as complete guesswork by anyone caring to give an opinion. Its pretty obvious that Jesus as an Apocalyptic Preacher like John the Baptist was with both telling people to repent and get ready for God’s judgement in their generation. There was no evidence of any atonement by Jesus needing to die for man’s sins, in fact the conversion of Zaccheaus proves that beyond any doubt. This was all obvious to his Jewish followers except Paul to made the whole lot up because it was an opposite doctrine. We also know that John’s Gospel was written last towards the end of the century by Greeks who formulated the God from God mantra and incarnation narrative. So even that is not true or even fails as an allegory too.
Carrier says Bart has now come into mainstream historicity but who cares what the majority think, if it fails the obvious test? Almost no Christian treats the Gospels as an allegory. I wish they would and put that on the cover of the bible. But then we may as well replace it with Pilgrims Progress. It would have saved an alwful lot of deaths over the centuries.
gmatthews said
I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate when this site goes to la la land and loses my post. This is at least the third time this has happened so from memory…..I really wanted to read this review, but sweet Jesus, when in the first paragraph Carrier says “On the other hand, I am starting to see a trend in his writing now, wherein he gets right anything he simply culls from existing scholarship and distills for public understanding, but doesn’t always get right everything he tries to add of his own or off the cuff.” I lose all patience with any point he wants to make.
This is the petty gaspings of a wanna be with no background in this field he wants to protest from. What is the point of being dismissive of one of the leading voices of his field to the point of attempting to strip him of any possibility of any original thought that has value? To garner attention? Daddy issues?
Apropos to who ever said above that he was a flim-flam man: he sounds more like a cult leader to me “I am the only one who can offer you the truth”. I’ve never given Carrier any attention before so I guess I shouldn’t change at this point.
To MikeyS: C’mon man, I generally agree with what you say, but why would anyone seriously think Bart is reverting? He’s done or said nothing, in my opinion, to make one think he’s going back to be a Christian. Didn’t he just talk about being an agnostic once again in his Christmas post? Do you feel this way because he’s changed his mind about something? I know something else he’s changed his mind about (no big secret what I’m talking about but I don’t want to go off on a tangent), but that doesn’t mean he’s going back to being a Christian. A scholar who enters his field with a set of views that never change has nothing to offer his profession.
Hi GM,
Its late here in Engand UK and should read more of that review before commenting but have noted that Bart seemed on the face of it to change his mind on a few important issues and Bart has indeed agreed that he has. OK, that’s fine but I have argued for a long long time that reading what we have in the Gospels, except for John’s Gospel, almost nobody agrees with the view that Jesus was and is God, except maybe the Roman Catholic Church and who cares what those idiots think? Especially when they spend millions in telling lies about Store bread and wine and all their services leaving Jesus in the tomb. Going off topic again!
I completely agree with you on the divinity of Jesus (or lack thereof). I think he and his followers immediately upon his death would be shocked at what people today believe in his name. Note Bart’s slight mention in yesterday’s blog that Q is believed by some to be of a “non-Christian Jesus movement” (my paraphrase of his words). I asked for books on this since I’ve been thinking for a while that what Jesus taught might be at odds with what Christians believe today. Bart recommended a couple of books when I asked for them and one is The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. I think you’ll be interested in the first couple of paragraphs of the prologue here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **. You can preview the book to see what’s in it so just click the picture of the book to open it.
We know that The Gospel of Thomas was simply a collection of logia (sayings, wisdom) attributed to Jesus without anything to do with his supposed divinity or death. We also know that Q doesn’t indicate a Passion narrative (not the same thing as saying it didn’t have one since we can’t know what WASN’T in it). Both of these were two of the earliest Christian writings (or in the case of Q possibly “distributed oral tradition” is a better description) and neither say anything about Jesus being God or that he rose from the dead.
Shouldn’t that be extremely important?
I plan on buying that book before I go to bed so I’m eagerly looking forward to what it has to say!
Bart said
MikeyS, Hey that’s a good one!! My wife influencing my view of 1 Corinthians?!? I’ve known Sarah for 19 years, and we’ve never had a discussion about 1 Corinthians (or women in the church) in our entire lives! She wouldn’t know an interpolation in 1 Corinthians if it bit her on the nose. And as to my reverting to be an evangelical pastor — ha! I’m still laughing!! I marshal the evidence for my views in my book — not sure if you’ve read it. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about God, Jesus, or anything else (I am very firmly an agnostic/atheist). But as to 1 Cor. 14:34-36, I’ve thought it was an interpolation since I was a graduate student in the mid 80s. And my views about Jesus being thought of as God is not a reversion to what I used to think. It’s completely different. I spell out how it all happened in the book. Sorry if I didn’t reply to a question you had on the blog. I try to answer questions people ask.
Hi Bart,
I wasn’t actually referring to 1 Corinthians 14: 34-36 my friend.
I may be mixed up with all this religious stuff but I was referring to you saying the disciples accepted that Jesus was God AFTER the resurrection even if they didn’t except that before. ie It was an early belief and not later Christology. ie IF I understood you correctly Bart, when I heard and read that? As it was pointed out that if Jews believed in Angels being heavenly created bodies by God as they did, why would they elevate Jesus to God as virtually none of them would ever believe that God would ever become human, never mind being crucified. OK I know you have different versions of that like God/Man, Man/God and Jesus as a vision and not actually flesh and blood etc. There are a couple of verses that the Church uses, like I am before Abraham etc and if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. But even the Angels were before Abraham.
So Bart. let me ask the question again please and you may have answered on the blog and I know you try and answer every single point which is really good on you. But do you think the Synoptic Gospels suggest the disciples thought Jesus was God? And was that belief widely believed at THAT time? I can’t see that Paul referred to him as God, always Praise God the Father and Jesus as Lord, whatever that meant to him?
Just to give you another smile..
It was perhaps tongue in cheek when I said your wife may have caused you a rethink of your beliefs and it does happen both ways where one has a strong belief either way. Peace is sometimes paramount in the household or maybe a three thousand miles separation between England and NC can sometimes help a lot and enable you to be a workaholic. Much to our benefit as well but try that in some marriages my friend and know hell on earth in the here and now!
I’m quite surprised that as both of you were strong Christian believers, there was no discussion on that verse in Corinthians as I have had that many times with my wife and other Christians. But then you know, most Christians I know, didn’t think about any biblical verse seriously and certainly would not question it as they all believed it was the word of God and unchallengeble. It really was a pick and mix menu for the Pastor and doubt you ever preached on God as a killer of babies and children or women should be silent in Church or that Gays and Adulterers should be stoned to death. God is not like that y’know!
Lastly Bart, its a personal question but I cannot understand why you have become an Atheist when you could be a Deist that can still believe in God aka Thomas Jefferson/Paine etc. I know your stance of suffering in the world etc. But to go from Evangelical believer, who had an profound experience of God, to atheism makes no sense. You must have read Thomas Paine, Age of Reason and see how the cookie crumbles?
Me and my Wife who will never waver from her beliefs no matter what I think, may just be like most who were indocrinated as Children and nothing on this earth can persuade her to any different view. Luckily I can just go and play golf occasionally or work in my shed making things!
Finally Bart, many many thanks for all your input across all sections of the community, including here in trying to seek and promote religious truths and encourage people to question everything and not least your whole reason for doing what you do and that of course is your charity work and surely one day Jesus may well say, “Come unto me my child, for the least of my brethren you did for them, you did for me, God bless you, come this way”!
Mike
Not really a fan of Richard Carrier’s work, for me he is to atheism what David Icke is to conspiracy theorists.
For anyone interested in the mythist viewpoint i would recommend : Nailed by David Fitzgerald. This is a area that I personally find a little frustrating, I will try my best to explain why. First I need to layout what i understand “myth” to mean:
Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
As a atheist I do not find the idea of a “historical” Jesus an offensive idea, at the same time a “historical” Jesus is not the “biblical” Jesus (or perhaps i should say “Jesus’s”). The “biblical” Jesus may have started as an “historical” person who became shrouded in “mythical” stories as time passed. Everything from angels appearing with messages, the virgin birth, the Empire wide census, Herod killing the First born sons ect ect. These are “Traditional or Legendary stories” which come under the title “Myth”.
I can not prove Jesus existed or that he did not exist, I am open to both ideas (just not when put forward by Richard Carrier). I can say with some certainty that the “biblical” Jesus did not exist and for me that is the most important point.
Hopefully I have made my case for a middle ground reasonably clear. Although I can already feel fundamentalists from both sides gathering round 
@manx
Today, in the West, most people can have whatever opinions they want about their faith and its pretty obvious that scientific knowledge eg the Universe and Evolution has virtually destroyed the Genesis account and so the fall of mankind could not have happened, so no need for redemptive sacrifice by Jesus etc. The Catholic and Anglican Church now accepts evolution but can’t make the other BIG step because that would destroy their central doctrine and reason for doing what they do and so highly unlikely they ever will? But I meant to add that in early Christianity and the middle ages, people were put to death by having a different belief even about the incarnation and trinity etc. Its not that long ago that ordinary citizens here in the UK had to pay a fine if they did not turn up for the Church service on a Sunday. And of course homosexuals were put in prison.
Its why religion was so corrosive and bad that it shoud be condemned for what it was…IE Myths and fairy tales and the bible was never the word of God. That is a downright LIE! And until all religious people begin to THINK for themselves and realize that its not religion that has enabled a more compassionate society but secularism and the places where that is absent now in the world is where religion is endemic and compulsory and you all know where that is. Had the Christian Church still had it way, we still would be jailing Gay people and have slavery. Indeed just read yesterday that one State in the USA has just passed a law that its acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. Can this be true? What next? Black people?
@Mikey S …
Whilst I think that your average Christian is a ok person I agree whole hearted with you that Religion is founded on lies and corruption. You only need to look at the History of the Vatican to see that corruption. And here in the UK we are pretty much free to believe or not believe … Although a recent conversation with a lady of the Methodist Church almost made me believe i was living in the “dark ages”.
Unfortunately even here in 2015 UK we have religious cults that are allowed to operate oppressive regimes and blatantly lie to their members. A example would be “The Watchtower” who provide the leadership for the Jehovah Witness’s. If you log onto the Watchtowers website and lookup what it has to say about “Taze Russells” 1914 predication it says:
The End of the Gentile Times
The Bible Students believed that “the times of the Gentiles,” spoken of in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (King James Version), would end about October 1, 1914. As October drew near, anticipation increased. Some Bible Students even carried a countdown card so that they could mark off each passing day. Many felt that they would be called beyond the veil, or to heaven, on that date.
On the morning of October 2, 1914, Brother Russell entered the Bethel dining room and announced to the Bethel family: “The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day.” Some of those present would have recognized those words, which were based on song 171 in their songbook Hymns of the Millennial Dawn. Since 1879, the Bible Students had been singing “The Gentile times are closing,” but those words were no longer true, since the Gentile Times, or “the appointed times of the nations,” had indeed ended. (** you do not have permission to see this link **) In time, our songbooks reflected this important change.
Now i have read Russells work and he was very clear that 1914 was Armageddon … The End Of The World (He had already predicted the same for 1874). Since then “The Watchtower has predicted “Armageddon” for 1925 / 1941 / 1975 and Quietly for the year 2000. All of these dates are are well documented by “The Watchtower” themselves in their own publications which I have read . So why don’t people leave … well some do. You look at a teenager who want’s to leave the “Witness’s” and it is a scary prospect because they will be “Dis-Fellowshiped and shunned even by their own families.
So I agree we should expose “Religion” for what it is … @manx
Bart said
OK, thanks for the clarification. But it’s equally funny to think that Sarah would have any impact on my thinking about early Christology. She’s a Shakespeare scholar! And her religious beliefs have never had any impact on anything connected with my scholarship — any more than on my golf game….I didn’t become a Deist because I don’t see any reason to think the world was created by a superior being who then went off to do something else. I think we’re here because of time and chance. And thank God we are.
Bart, I have read most of your books (Audible mostly) and love your site, just joined. Would love to hear more of your views on existence. I Like your sense of humor in dealing with these questions, “thank God”. With not even Deist views and being an agnostic/atheist, how do you think we even got the “time and chance” for existence? We need a separate category for this. Is there an iPhone app for this site? Thanks, Shell
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)