As many know I was interviewed for the film The God Who Wasn't There, which came out years ago and includes an extended version of my interview in the DVD extras. When I finally got to see the film, I privately circulated (eventually to journalists, academics, colleagues and others) a brief white paper on potential errors in it (only regarding the first third regarding ancient history, as that's my field). I then forgot about it. Several people recently have asked me about the film again, which reminded me I should just publish my brief. It is now available via my website as Critical Notes on the Movie The God Who Wasn't There (2005). Some of the points I make in that document I have since revised in subtle ways (as will be clear in my book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ), but it's adequate enough to stand un-edited from the original.People have also asked me my opinion of the film. In general, the movie is as much about the supernatural God who isn't there (the Jesus everyone believes is going to come back from outer space and kill us) as the historical man who wasn't there, so it's not exactly a documentary about historicity (that subject only occupies something like a third of the film and is covered entertainingly but briefly). I find the film fun, funny, well-edited, and (for the most part) well-produced. It's definitely a feel good movie for atheists, and it definitely pisses off Christians to no end. I like it.
But it's not PBS edufare. GWWT suffers from the unavoidable problem of all entertaining documentaries:
it oversimplifies things. But it's nowhere near as egregiously full of sh*t as Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has been thoroughly debunked as absolute garbage by several knowledgeable commentators (the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post on that awful doco). I wouldn't recommend Zeitgeist at all. But I only wouldn't recommend GWWT as a scholarly introduction to Jesus Myth theory. I still recommend it as awesome entertainment, played out with acceptable license. It takes liberties, but they aren't that excessive (as my white paper explains), and if you want authoritative discussion, you really ought to be reading a book instead.[Though I grant you,
there aren't any such books I'd recommend yet, beyond Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which is in its own ways flawed and incomplete--as you might glean from my critical review.
Besides what you can read there, what I would say Doherty's book is lacking (and only because it's impossible for a single book to include everything) is coverage of a variety of essential supplementary topics, such as the fiction-myth analysis of the Gospels provided in Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions, which I also highly recommend (even though Helms doesn't argue Jesus didn't exist).]
Posts
22 comments:
A highly summarised version of Helm's arguments can be found in Miracles and the Book of Mormon
Likewise, the very name "Easter" derives from the Germanic pagan ritual of the same function, where the Goddess Eostra gave a rabbit the power to lay eggs once a year to symbolize this agricultural resurrection of life.
I'm curious where you got this from. Bede doesn't say it and he's essentially our only source for this goddess. Is this some speculative reconstruction?
Yeah, I was wondering why I never saw any kind of criticism on the film from you. Thanks.
Ben
Any thoughts on www.jesusneverexisted.com, the website information or the book?
Helms' book is really excellent and eye-opening indeed!
Hi Richard,
In "Not the Impossible Faith" page 394, you say that Christians are told point blank "don't debate" and you reference Galatians 5:20-26. This passage says:
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."
How exactly does this say for Christians not to debate?
Perhaps it's the "dissensions" part?
Dictionary says: "Difference of opinion; disagreement."
Ben
Maybe it just meant that sin tends to divide people up. I mean, people can be united even if they have disagreements on some issues. It's usually just when someone does something wrong that it produces "discord".
"Discord" is also on the list separately.
It says that discord is produced by sinful nature, but I don't think that this necessarily means a certain amount of argument in search of the truth. Although Carrier disagrees with me. From page 399 of his book:
(4) For
example, [Holding] claims Galatians 5:19-26 “says nothing at all
about debating” even though it has the word “debate” in it
(eris), as well as “disagreements” (dichostasiai, from the
verb dichostateô), and references to the common consequences
of both: “factions” and “sectarian divisions”
(eritheiai and haireseis), which both essentially meant “taking
sides” in a debate. Here Paul obviously equates arguments
(and taking positions threatening or contrary to church
dogma) as fundamentally comparable to murder or adultery
or any other sin (“debaters,” as those who ask questions to
discover the truth, i.e. the syzêtêtês, are similarly denounced
in 1 Corinthians 1:20). That he saw such things as the destructive
product of personal passions and ambitions is besides
the point, or rather supports the point, since it was evidently
hard for Paul to imagine criticism, questioning, or debate
as something that could have sincere motives or useful
ends.
It's always plausible that an author "doesn't really totally mean it" and was "just thinking of what he was thinking of" in that kind of myopic circular way, but it does just seem to list general dissent as bad. Paul apparently didn't have a problem debating outsiders like the Jews, but once you are inside, since his revelations come from God and that's what goes, it would naturally follow that in-house dissent was seen as sinful.
Ben
All right, I found the Eostre egg theory.
Oberle, K A. 1883. Überreste germanischen Heidentums im Christentum. Baden-Baden. Page 104.
And to answer my own question, yes, it's a speculative reconstruction.
I heard that the makers of GWWT interviewed people without any historical background for the historicity portion (such as Richard Dawkins). Is that true?
I just got the new book called "Christ in Egypt" by D. M. Murdock / Acharya S. Her earlier books were ridiculous, but her last book "Who Was Jesus?" was alot better and more serious, it seemed to me anyway. I really wish Richard Carrier would review this new one because it looks pretty serious but I can't decide if she is a scholar or a charlatan, or maybe a little bit of both. any thoughts about this from anyone?
Haukur said... I'm curious where you got this from. Bede doesn't say it and he's essentially our only source for this goddess. Is this some speculative reconstruction?Not mine. I can't recall my source. Probably some run-of-the-mill encyclopedia. It wasn't relevant to the film so I didn't double-check. If the word Easter has some other source or the egg thing some other origin do let me know. I see you found a 19th century source and it was speculative. If you find anything more concrete on where "Easter" and/or the egg hunt come please give a report here. Though it's possible no one knows with enough certainty.
Aircave said... Any thoughts on www.jesusneverexisted.com, the website information or the book?What book? The website is too confusingly constructed to even warrant my time.
AIGBusted said... In "Not the Impossible Faith" page 394, you say that Christians are told point blank "don't debate" and you reference Galatians 5:20-26...How exactly does this say for Christians not to debate?You must not have read pp. 399-401 at the time. I answer exactly that question there (as I see you eventually realized). Note, also, that that isn't the only relevant passage I discuss, and they must all be interpreted in light of each other.
BTW, please post such comments next time in my blog about that book, so they will be on topic. I typically delete off topic comments.
Kenny said... I heard that the makers of GWWT interviewed people without any historical background for the historicity portion (such as Richard Dawkins). Is that true?You tell me. Watch the film and note if anyone asked for their expertise on that subject isn't qualified to discuss it. Then report who and what they were asked.
Will77: On Murdock see my response to your duplicate comment in Craig Debate Wrap.
On Easter: I've been researching these questions with some fellow Wikipedians. The English Wikipedia article on Eostre is now pretty solid and should answer most questions. The main thing missing are the alternative etymological theories but the German Wikipedia article has that stuff down pretty well.
The short version: Bede tells us there was a goddess named Eostre in whose honor spring festivals were held. He doesn't tell us anything more and no other primary source tells us anything. Scholars seem to be about evenly divided on whether Bede was right about the existence of such a goddess.
Some European Easter customs (hares, eggs etc.) may have their origin in pagan times but that's all very speculative due to the lack of old sources on these customs.
Now, if Eostre was an actual spring goddess (more likely than not, in my opinion) and if hare and egg customs date back to pagan Germania (hard to estimate the probability of that but it's certainly not an absurd notion) then it's likely that there was a connection between hares and eggs and Eostre. Obviously this is speculative but since the 19th century it has often been presented as fact.
Neo-pagans are usually happy to appropriate bunny/egg customs for their spring activities - they may be originally pagan and even if they're folk customs originating in Christian times there's nothing inherently Christian or objectionable about them and they can easily be interpreted in pagan ways.
Philippians 2
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth....
Paul is clear that Jesus was only called Jesus after he died.
Romans 1
'... made of the seed of David according to the flesh'.
If Jesus had been a human being, why would Paul have ever thought to use such a phrase?
After all , Paul never says Jesus had a nose.
Because that is too obvious to state.
So the bizarre phrase 'according to the flesh', must have some meaning other than was flesh and blood.
As everybody would have known that if it was not true.
It could mean physically descended , rather than a legal descendant.
But that is just a guess by me.
What did Paul really mean?
Steven Carr said... Paul is clear that Jesus was only called Jesus after he died.
Unfortunately, no. The text is ambiguous. The "name" he was given could refer to a hidden name (God had many hidden names of power, YHWH was supposed to be one of them) that isn't stated in the text, or to the designation Christ or Lord. In which case, the "at the name of Jesus" wouldn't refer to the name "Jesus" but the name that Jesus was assigned (which would either be a name not here disclosed, or to the "names" Christ or Lord), or it would indicate that the name "Jesus" now has the power of whatever other word of power the text is referring to (again, either a secret name not stated in the text, or the names Christ or Lord), i.e. because Jesus was granted the name of power, the name "Jesus" now shares that same power.
On the other hand, the text could mean exactly what it appears to say, that "Jesus" (Joshua = Savior) is the very name of power that he was assigned after his resurrection (which would support but not prove mythicism, since the historical man may have had another name before, like Immanuel). But that seems less likely to me, since Jesus was a common name held by many ordinary men, so can't have been a "name above all names" whose invocation granted supernatural power.
Romans 1: '... made of the seed of David according to the flesh'. If Jesus had been a human being, why would Paul have ever thought to use such a phrase?
That is indeed bizarre. More so than historicists usually grant. But not as much as you seem to think. Do note that Paul is here drawing a contrast: Davidic (and thus human, and royal) in respect to the flesh, but Son of God (and thus divine) in respect to the spirit. Taken in context, the phrase isn't "out of the blue" bizarre, since it is explained by Paul's need to explain how a guy can be divine and human at the same time (and without blasphemously suggesting Yahwheh "got busy" with the Lord's mum). So again, historicists have a perfectly respectable explanation of what's being said here and why. Whether it is the best explanation is another matter. But we have to be fair to both sides when evaluating evidence.
Haukur: Regarding Easter: Thanks! All good to know. I've just changed the text in the PDF to reflect the ambiguity of the evidence, since the precise details weren't relevant there, and I don't want to misinform anyone.
Hello Dr Carrier. I hope you are well and feeling fine. I wish you and your family a happy and joyful winter solstice celebration. Sir, could you comment on your intentions and or progress on your book "On the Historicity of Jesus Christ"?
Best Regards
Robert Bumbalough
Robert Bumbalough, book is in progress and coming along well. I just sent donors a progress report a month ago. The material I have will become several books, but one general one will come first. I will produce no other book (of my own) until that one comes out.
Post a Comment