Note: A little fun at Richard Carrier's expense, in a piece I wrote many years ago, before Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels came out, but that I never got around to posting. I found it in my "drafts" file a few days ago, and thought some readers might enjoy it.
I am presently completing a book which serves, in small part, to refute Dr. Carrier's long two-volume attempt to establish mythicism (the notion that Jesus never lived) as a respectable academic position. And indeed, my Amazon review of Carrier's crucial second volume, On the Historicity of Jesus, has received 105 "helpful" votes so far, more than any other critical review. The review is, obviously, full of specific, substantive critiques of Carrier's book. (I say "small part" because I do not see refuting mythicism as a worthy goal for an entire book, or even a serious article. I have bigger fish to fry in that volume: demonstrating the strong historical credibility of the gospels.)
Carrier has almost certainly read my review. He attacked me personally on Amazon as a "liar" for more neutral comments before I posted it. We've debated in public, and he's lost his temper in my direction on other occasions as well.
Oddly, however, after two years, he does not seem to have responded to my criticism.
That is, unless you call the following a response:
Jeremiah L: Predictably enough David Marshall has now put a review (of sorts) on his blog at http://christthetao.blogspot.co.uk. Or rather, he has selected one or two pieces such as your use of Rank-Raglan hero-types, and attempted to critique these. As expected, this is heavily laden with fallacies, contradictions (e.g. you based the analysis on Matthew not Mark – but the figure for Mark is still higher than for any historical figure) and personal attacks, with a special penchant for the No True Scotsman fallacy (e.g. Jesus was not a king, Joseph was not his foster father).
I suspect that engaging this guy in serious discussion would risk burning up a lot of time for questionable benefit. But maybe this could be a good segue into explaining on the blog some of the thinking on Rank-Raglan that you have already explained in OHJ?
Richard C: Yeah. Marshall is awful. Rambling, confused, inaccurate, specious, pompously indignant. His arguments are so poor that the thing he is arguing against already stands as adequate refutation. Requiring no response from me. Anyone who isn’t delusional who reads my book (and then his rambles) will get a good laugh at his attempt at a rebuttal.
Well that certainly saves time. Richard and I agree: read his book, then mine. (Which rips his to even smaller pieces than that little review, along with those of Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan, before offering 30 arguments for the gospels, none of which Carrier laid a hand on, and few of which he seemed to understand.) If that doesn't make up your mind, you may not be "delusional" (I'll leave the over-the-top pejoratives to the New Atheists), but you certainly are stubborn.
In the meanwhile, let me point out six flagrant new "delusions" in these two short paragraphs:
* One or two points? Actually I pointed out twenty or thirty mistakes in Carrier's book in that review. And of course, Rank-Raglan is one of the centerpieces of Carrier's argument, so it's not like his arguments would survive, if that criticism alone were accurate. (Which it is.)
* Jeremiah's sole attempt to mark an alleged "contradiction" in my review completely fails. I point out that while Carrier argues that Mark was the first gospel, his argument that Jesus is a Rank Raglan myth is based not on Mark, but on Matthew. The inconsistency lies in Carrier's book, not in my review of it. Why would one anachronistically argue against Jesus' historicity from a later, rather than an earlier, account of his life? (Not that I really think that matters -- Matthew is plenty early, and full of powerful internal evidence for the historicity not just of Jesus, but of the essential Gospel story.) If Jesus were a Rank-Raglan myth, the characteristics that prove that should be more pronounced in the earlier sources. You need to attack the source material itself, not later, allegedly derivative works.
* The claim that "the figure for Mark is still higher than for any historical figure" cannot be substantiated. Carrier certainly does not substantiate it. I doubt that Richard, or Jeremiah, have even read accounts of every historical figure, let alone applied RR analysis to their lives. And if they haven't, they cannot know what they claim to know, even in theory. By my analysis, in Mark, Jesus passes only two or three of the 23 criteria that Carrier gives, including the astounding claim that he died on a "hill or high place." (Whereas Romans usually crucified their victims underground, as everyone knows, to terrify indigenous moles)
* "Heavily laden with personal attacks?"
This is simply a lie. In the first half of my review of Carrier's book, not a single "personal attack" on Carrier appears. At the end of the second half, I do have some fun with Carrier, but it is both relevant to my point and gentle. Following Carrier's methods, I argue, one could prove that Carrier himself cannot exist, or cannot be the scholar he claims: "Now let's try Richard Carrier's method out on his person. (Again, this is meant in fun, not in heart-felt hostility.)"
I am reducing Carrier's argument to the absurd, not attacking him personally at all. Still less are my pieces "heavily laden" with personal attacks. That is a patent falsehood.
Carrier, on the other hand, typically attacks not only me, but anyone who finds my arguments at all persuasive ("delusional"). Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black, or the man with the beam in his eye removing the sliver from someone else's.
* I have no idea what the No True Scotsman "Fallacy" has to do with my observation that in the gospels, Jesus is not presented as a literal, as opposed to figurative, king. Carrier demands that in evaluating Rank Raglan, we critique claims rigorously and cautiously. Well, rigorously speaking, Jesus did not reign in Jerusalem or Rome or anywhere else as king. Metaphorically, he is spoken of as "King of the Jews," but no one claims he had been anointed, possessed political power in Israel, or was given any crown but one made of thorns. What I do is quote the Oxford definition of "king," but I'm not sure what that has to do with Scotland, either. (The capital of which is Edinburgh.)
* I didn't say Joseph was "not Jesus' foster father."
To all that confusion, without a single word of accurate criticism, Carrier simply says, "Yeah. Marshall is awful."
* "Rambling, confused, inaccurate, specious, pompously indignant."
I'll let readers judge for themselves on the first four adjectives. (Aside from pointing out that no inaccuracies had been pointed out beneath the acerbic review of Carrier's book that I posted on Amazon, even with some 468 comments posted -- all lost to posterity now, for better or for worse, thanks to Amazon's changes in commenting policy.)
But while I admit enjoying a refreshing round of pomposity from time to time, I categorically deny feeling any "indignation" at Richard Carrier's attempt to show that Jesus never lived. As I have said many times, if Richard Carrier did not exist, we would have to invent him. I find his arguments a delight. Carrier is like a volleyball player on the other side of the net who secretly wants your team to win, so he sets the ball up at the perfect spot, hanging five inches above your side of the net, so you can spike it and win point after point. Or he is like the basketball player who lets you steal the ball and stuff it over his futilely outstretched hands, walking on his knees to gain elevation. For apologists, Richard Carrier is our Washington Generals. And he offers his arguments up with a comical self-confidence, even self-worship, that gives one all the fun and exercise of a comedy routine, of Steve Martin with his nose in the air, along with the workout that his random shots give to one's legs and abs.
So I call psychobabble on that. Pompous, maybe. But indignant? You wish, Richard. You'd have to make a good argument to begin disturbing Christians who are grounded in history.
But I'll stop rambling, now, until Carrier finds another way to tickle my funny bone.
Oddly, however, after two years, he does not seem to have responded to my criticism.
That is, unless you call the following a response:
Jeremiah L: Predictably enough David Marshall has now put a review (of sorts) on his blog at http://christthetao.blogspot.co.uk. Or rather, he has selected one or two pieces such as your use of Rank-Raglan hero-types, and attempted to critique these. As expected, this is heavily laden with fallacies, contradictions (e.g. you based the analysis on Matthew not Mark – but the figure for Mark is still higher than for any historical figure) and personal attacks, with a special penchant for the No True Scotsman fallacy (e.g. Jesus was not a king, Joseph was not his foster father).
I suspect that engaging this guy in serious discussion would risk burning up a lot of time for questionable benefit. But maybe this could be a good segue into explaining on the blog some of the thinking on Rank-Raglan that you have already explained in OHJ?
Richard C: Yeah. Marshall is awful. Rambling, confused, inaccurate, specious, pompously indignant. His arguments are so poor that the thing he is arguing against already stands as adequate refutation. Requiring no response from me. Anyone who isn’t delusional who reads my book (and then his rambles) will get a good laugh at his attempt at a rebuttal.
Well that certainly saves time. Richard and I agree: read his book, then mine. (Which rips his to even smaller pieces than that little review, along with those of Bart Ehrman and Reza Aslan, before offering 30 arguments for the gospels, none of which Carrier laid a hand on, and few of which he seemed to understand.) If that doesn't make up your mind, you may not be "delusional" (I'll leave the over-the-top pejoratives to the New Atheists), but you certainly are stubborn.
In the meanwhile, let me point out six flagrant new "delusions" in these two short paragraphs:
* One or two points? Actually I pointed out twenty or thirty mistakes in Carrier's book in that review. And of course, Rank-Raglan is one of the centerpieces of Carrier's argument, so it's not like his arguments would survive, if that criticism alone were accurate. (Which it is.)
* Jeremiah's sole attempt to mark an alleged "contradiction" in my review completely fails. I point out that while Carrier argues that Mark was the first gospel, his argument that Jesus is a Rank Raglan myth is based not on Mark, but on Matthew. The inconsistency lies in Carrier's book, not in my review of it. Why would one anachronistically argue against Jesus' historicity from a later, rather than an earlier, account of his life? (Not that I really think that matters -- Matthew is plenty early, and full of powerful internal evidence for the historicity not just of Jesus, but of the essential Gospel story.) If Jesus were a Rank-Raglan myth, the characteristics that prove that should be more pronounced in the earlier sources. You need to attack the source material itself, not later, allegedly derivative works.
For example, suppose we know that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, was a historical horror-comedy mash-up written in 2010. And we know that Charles Sumner, a close associate of the president, gave a eulogy to him in 1865. Would anything about the character of the former detract from the latter as historical evidence? I think not. However mythological or fictional later adaption of a great man's story may be, that does nothing to detract from the evident character of early and close accounts.
So if Carrier wants to make a case based on genre against Jesus' existence, and he thinks Mark came first, he needs to work with Mark, not Matthew. That's just common sense.
So if Carrier wants to make a case based on genre against Jesus' existence, and he thinks Mark came first, he needs to work with Mark, not Matthew. That's just common sense.
* The claim that "the figure for Mark is still higher than for any historical figure" cannot be substantiated. Carrier certainly does not substantiate it. I doubt that Richard, or Jeremiah, have even read accounts of every historical figure, let alone applied RR analysis to their lives. And if they haven't, they cannot know what they claim to know, even in theory. By my analysis, in Mark, Jesus passes only two or three of the 23 criteria that Carrier gives, including the astounding claim that he died on a "hill or high place." (Whereas Romans usually crucified their victims underground, as everyone knows, to terrify indigenous moles)
* "Heavily laden with personal attacks?"
This is simply a lie. In the first half of my review of Carrier's book, not a single "personal attack" on Carrier appears. At the end of the second half, I do have some fun with Carrier, but it is both relevant to my point and gentle. Following Carrier's methods, I argue, one could prove that Carrier himself cannot exist, or cannot be the scholar he claims: "Now let's try Richard Carrier's method out on his person. (Again, this is meant in fun, not in heart-felt hostility.)"
I am reducing Carrier's argument to the absurd, not attacking him personally at all. Still less are my pieces "heavily laden" with personal attacks. That is a patent falsehood.
Carrier, on the other hand, typically attacks not only me, but anyone who finds my arguments at all persuasive ("delusional"). Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black, or the man with the beam in his eye removing the sliver from someone else's.
* I have no idea what the No True Scotsman "Fallacy" has to do with my observation that in the gospels, Jesus is not presented as a literal, as opposed to figurative, king. Carrier demands that in evaluating Rank Raglan, we critique claims rigorously and cautiously. Well, rigorously speaking, Jesus did not reign in Jerusalem or Rome or anywhere else as king. Metaphorically, he is spoken of as "King of the Jews," but no one claims he had been anointed, possessed political power in Israel, or was given any crown but one made of thorns. What I do is quote the Oxford definition of "king," but I'm not sure what that has to do with Scotland, either. (The capital of which is Edinburgh.)
* I didn't say Joseph was "not Jesus' foster father."
To all that confusion, without a single word of accurate criticism, Carrier simply says, "Yeah. Marshall is awful."
* "Rambling, confused, inaccurate, specious, pompously indignant."
I'll let readers judge for themselves on the first four adjectives. (Aside from pointing out that no inaccuracies had been pointed out beneath the acerbic review of Carrier's book that I posted on Amazon, even with some 468 comments posted -- all lost to posterity now, for better or for worse, thanks to Amazon's changes in commenting policy.)
But while I admit enjoying a refreshing round of pomposity from time to time, I categorically deny feeling any "indignation" at Richard Carrier's attempt to show that Jesus never lived. As I have said many times, if Richard Carrier did not exist, we would have to invent him. I find his arguments a delight. Carrier is like a volleyball player on the other side of the net who secretly wants your team to win, so he sets the ball up at the perfect spot, hanging five inches above your side of the net, so you can spike it and win point after point. Or he is like the basketball player who lets you steal the ball and stuff it over his futilely outstretched hands, walking on his knees to gain elevation. For apologists, Richard Carrier is our Washington Generals. And he offers his arguments up with a comical self-confidence, even self-worship, that gives one all the fun and exercise of a comedy routine, of Steve Martin with his nose in the air, along with the workout that his random shots give to one's legs and abs.
So I call psychobabble on that. Pompous, maybe. But indignant? You wish, Richard. You'd have to make a good argument to begin disturbing Christians who are grounded in history.
But I'll stop rambling, now, until Carrier finds another way to tickle my funny bone.
No comments:
Post a Comment