Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story By Richard Carrier

[Mriana]

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006) By Richard Carrier

 

Yes, I thought this would be a good discussion for this area. Carrier brings up some interesting things in this article.

 

For the parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written. Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. Both belong to the same genre of literature: what we call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda, used to promote certain moral or religious views, and to oppose different points of view. The life of Genevieve, for example, was written to combat Arianism. The canonical Gospels, on the other hand, appear to combat various forms of proto-Gnosticism. So being skeptical of what they say is sensible from the start.[3]

 

We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.[9]

 

Only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than respected. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent away, in preference for the local wizard.[10]

 

Consequently, only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.

 

The differences between society then and now cannot be stressed enough. There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police detectives. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show or simply to persuade and "sell" his story, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer.[11] At the same time, doubters didn't care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of which there were hundreds then.[12] And so it should not surprise us that we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century after it began--not even slanders or lies. Clearly, no doubter cared to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to investigate the facts.[13]

 

These are just some of the reasons why we cannot trust extraordinary reports from that time without excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical resurrection of Jesus. For on the same quality of evidence we have reports of talking dogs, flying wizards, magical statues, and monsters springing from trees.[14]

 

there are two other key reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons but doesn't hold water under rational scrutiny.

 

First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven.[17]

 

OK there is a quote limit here, so you all can read what he says in full via the link above. It's a good read, IMO.

[Dagan]

Excellent find Mriana!

 

 

And this leads me to one final reason why I don't buy the resurrection story. No wise or compassionate God would demand this from us. Such a god would not leave us so poorly informed about something so important.[42] If we have a message for someone that is urgently vital for their survival, and we have any compassion, that compassion will compel us to communicate that message clearly and with every necessary proof--not ambiguously, not through unreliable mediaries presenting no real evidence. Conversely, if we see something incredible, we do not attack or punish audiences who don't believe us, we don't even expect them to believe--unless and until we can present decisive proof.

 

I say amen to that.

[Mriana]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed reading it and I agree with what you quoted too. Carrier made a lot of good points as to why the resurrection STORY cannot be taken seriously or as historical.

[agnosticator]

Thanks for the info Mriana! He also has a new (2009) book here which he says also covers this topic. He comments on Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story with this update:

 

Special Note from 2009:This collection of essays is growing increasingly out of date, and I have no plans to update this collection any further. Though I'm not aware of anything egregiously wrong here, I may have changed some of my views or understanding of the methods and facts in the intervening ten years since this collection first began. My most recent published work (in print and online) should be considered as superseding anything it may contradict here, and the following materials should be used with that caution in mind.

 

He's referring to Not The Impossible Faith as the most recent work. Reading both would be great!

[Mriana]

Yes, I wouldn't mind reading it. I haven't read much by Carrier, but he has peaked my interest.

[oddbird1963]

Carrier brings out some interesting thoughts about the popular mindset in a pre-science culture. I'm going to look into this volume.

 

Thanks, Mriana.

[MathGeek]

Does anybody read the reviews of books like these on Amazon.com? If men like Carrier, Ehrman and Michael Martin could be challenged rather thoroughly by seriously well-informed (even scholarly accredited) Christian reviewers, what does it say about the discussion of the Resurrection itself? I have read some of the detailed reviews of Ehrman's recent book and they easily challenge anything Ehrman says. Granted I have not read anything by the abovementioned skeptics mostly because Christian scholars have done much of the leg work in addressing and correcting their "misinterpretations". If I as an ex-Christian reject the existence of the Christian God, I then feel like challenging the Resurrection is a really moot point. I think it comes from my belief that Christianity sets itself in a deductive formation where the existence of the Christian God is the first premise. Maybe I am wrong here, but can a Christian become an ex-Christian without doing all the scholarly legwork necessary to reject that worldview?

 

I guess I have two reasons for typing this post...

 

1) If a teenager tells me they are an atheist, I fear that their religious parents and their church pastor will find ways to make them feel guilty and stay in the church forever. Many teenagers are intellectual neophytes and can be decimated easily by an educated, religious adult.

 

2) Any subsequent moral worldview that gains ground in the West is invariably built upon the work that other past philosophers have completed. It always remains open to the charge that any worldview without a Godly foundation is inexorably corrupt logically.

[Mriana]

Yes, MathGeek, Xians are vicious animals. Regardless, I take what they say with a grain of salt and form my own opinion. I always have. I've just not always voiced my opinions.

[MathGeek]

Yes, MathGeek, Xians are vicious animals. Regardless, I take what they say with a grain of salt and form my own opinion. I always have. I've just not always voiced my opinions.

 

Thanks, Mriana. I guess the God virus is far ingrained into well-known scholarly Christians that no amount of counter-evidence will change their mind.

[Mriana]

Yes, MathGeek, Xians are vicious animals. Regardless, I take what they say with a grain of salt and form my own opinion. I always have. I've just not always voiced my opinions.

 

Thanks, Mriana. I guess the God virus is far ingrained into well-known scholarly Christians that no amount of counter-evidence will change their mind.

 

I know that isn't as true with those who study all the religions or as many as they can. I pissed off a Catholic prof who taught a course on C. S. Lewis. 1. She was upset because of his "Myth to Fact" or whatever it is was not convincing to me as a humanist. 2. she wasn't too keen a humanist was taking her class. Hey, it's a literature course too, isn't it? Whatever. 3. She disagreed with them that Lewis was never an atheist. She thinks he was, but upon closer inspection, he wasn't. She still gave me an A for the research paper, but admitted she did not agree. I said, "I didn't expect you to agree." and other prof heard it and chimed in, "It's nice when people can agree to disagree without expecting the other to agree." It cut her off at the knees and any other discussion about my paper we were having in the hall ended with her saying, "Yes, I guess it is." She really hated it that I would not give in and agree with Xianity or alike. I bet she had a difficult time not being biased as she graded my papers, but somehow she managed it and we came out of it amicably in the end, with a prof occasionally intervening. She had to refer to another prof concerning my statement that that silly tomb didn't prove Jesus existence. He sided with me. Poor woman. She ended up grudgingly learning from me and in the end, she even said she learned some things from me and was grateful to have such diversity in her classroom. I just about fell on the floor when she told me that in the privacy of her office at the end of the semester. I guess I made an impression on her, gave her some food for thought, or something, because after all the disagreements and all, I did not expect her, a Catholic, to say that to me.

[Shyone]

 

I pissed off a Catholic prof who taught a course on C. S. Lewis.

 

This is exactly why Christianity (or Islam or any other current religion) should not be taught to elementary school (or any public school) students.

 

In college, it's a different matter perhaps, but if the bias of the course is not evident in the syllabus, then the school has done it's students a disfavor.

[Mriana]

 

I pissed off a Catholic prof who taught a course on C. S. Lewis.

 

This is exactly why Christianity (or Islam or any other current religion) should not be taught to elementary school (or any public school) students.

 

In college, it's a different matter perhaps, but if the bias of the course is not evident in the syllabus, then the school has done it's students a disfavor.

 

The thing is, I wasn't fond of C. S. Lewis when I started the class, but I had only read one book (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe), so I thought, what an opportunity to find out what people do like about him. We read many of his books besides the Narnia series. I like him even less after that class, but even though we ended amicably at the end of the semester, the prof didn't make it very appealing for me. I must say though, she called on me a LOT to explain the mythology within his books because I knew the mythology behind it very well. However, try as she might on the side lines, she was not convincing with the "Myth Became Fact" essay by Lewis and she truly believed that should be convincing to any non-believer that Xianity was indeed a fact. You see, she was trying, in her own Catholic manner, to evangelize at the same time. We might not have butted heads so much if she had not tried that. Oddly enough though, she went around the classroom the first day and asked all that students, after telling her background and upbringing, what their religious orientation was. I was the only humanist in the classroom, of course. There was another from a view other than Xianity in class too. He was still whatever he was at the end of the course too. All the rest were some form of Xianity. However, I can't get her for teaching religion in a literature class, because that literature course was placed in the religious dept. So it was both in this case.

 

There is no picture of the prof., but this is the same prof who taught the class and what she had to say about The Golden Compass: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010991 I don't agree with her at all and I happened to like the movie personally (saw it on DVD), which was banned from theatres here the very first day it showed in town, by none other than the A of G and the Catholic watch dogs. Read and weep, because she dogs atheists in the second paragraph and you can get an idea of the battles I occasionally had with her too. As you can see, she had a corn cob up her butt about Harry Potter too, but she is less threatened by Harry Potter than she is by the Golden Compass. BTW, she is on Facebook too, but that should give you some idea of what I went through with her. Obviously whatever impression I left on her did not last long.

[MathGeek]

 

There is no picture of the prof., but this is the same prof who taught the class and what she had to say about The Golden Compass: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010991 I don't agree with her at all and I happened to like the movie personally (saw it on DVD), which was banned from theatres here the very first day it showed in town, by none other than the A of G and the Catholic watch dogs. Read and weep, because she dogs atheists in the second paragraph and you can get an idea of the battles I occasionally had with her too. As you can see, she had a corn cob up her butt about Harry Potter too, but she is less threatened by Harry Potter than she is by the Golden Compass. BTW, she is on Facebook too, but that should give you some idea of what I went through with her. Obviously whatever impression I left on her did not last long.

 

I read the series for myself and I thought it was far better than the Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. It's rather sad that the religious group in question had to have a kneejerk reaction to a film production. Here's my question: where were the protests against the films Max and 9 Songs? Why aren't they protesting against the films G.I. Joe and Transformers? And honestly, for shiggles, I listened a couple of fundie sermons about the Golden Compass being an avenue toward atheism. How exactly? My high-school aged sister didn't lose her faith after reading the first two books, and she reads fantasy novels like I drink beer. It's bizarre if you ask me.

 

Sorry for sending the thread off track but it's amazing how damaged and selective religious people when it comes to the release of certain films and media.

[Shyone]

When that link popped up, and I saw the picture, for just a moment I thought your prof looked exactly like Nicole Kidman. Wow.

 

Personally, I don't think even "religion department" classes offered to undergraduates should be biased. There is a difference between teaching religion and proselytizing.

 

But, again, that is the problem with trying to teach current religions in any school.

 

I wonder how the Christians would like for an atheist to teach Christianity?

 

That would be interesting...

[Mriana]

 

There is no picture of the prof., but this is the same prof who taught the class and what she had to say about The Golden Compass: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010991 I don't agree with her at all and I happened to like the movie personally (saw it on DVD), which was banned from theatres here the very first day it showed in town, by none other than the A of G and the Catholic watch dogs. Read and weep, because she dogs atheists in the second paragraph and you can get an idea of the battles I occasionally had with her too. As you can see, she had a corn cob up her butt about Harry Potter too, but she is less threatened by Harry Potter than she is by the Golden Compass. BTW, she is on Facebook too, but that should give you some idea of what I went through with her. Obviously whatever impression I left on her did not last long.

 

I read the series for myself and I thought it was far better than the Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. It's rather sad that the religious group in question had to have a kneejerk reaction to a film production. Here's my question: where were the protests against the films Max and 9 Songs? Why aren't they protesting against the films G.I. Joe and Transformers? And honestly, for shiggles, I listened a couple of fundie sermons about the Golden Compass being an avenue toward atheism. How exactly? My high-school aged sister didn't lose her faith after reading the first two books, and she reads fantasy novels like I drink beer. It's bizarre if you ask me.

 

Sorry for sending the thread off track but it's amazing how damaged and selective religious people when it comes to the release of certain films and media.

 

Wasn't so much off track since we were talking about scholars, but I agree with you, The Golden Compass was far better than Narnia and Harry Potter. Don't ask me where the protest were. I guess they like war or something. Who knows.

[Mriana]

When that link popped up, and I saw the picture, for just a moment I thought your prof looked exactly like Nicole Kidman. Wow.

 

Personally, I don't think even "religion department" classes offered to undergraduates should be biased. There is a difference between teaching religion and proselytizing.

 

But, again, that is the problem with trying to teach current religions in any school.

 

I wonder how the Christians would like for an atheist to teach Christianity?

 

That would be interesting...

 

Might fun. Just think what we could do.

[Neon Genesis]

 

There is no picture of the prof., but this is the same prof who taught the class and what she had to say about The Golden Compass: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010991 I don't agree with her at all and I happened to like the movie personally (saw it on DVD), which was banned from theatres here the very first day it showed in town, by none other than the A of G and the Catholic watch dogs. Read and weep, because she dogs atheists in the second paragraph and you can get an idea of the battles I occasionally had with her too. As you can see, she had a corn cob up her butt about Harry Potter too, but she is less threatened by Harry Potter than she is by the Golden Compass. BTW, she is on Facebook too, but that should give you some idea of what I went through with her. Obviously whatever impression I left on her did not last long.

That lady rambled on about how horrible it was but she never really explained why other than that it acknowledges the existence of bad Christians and people say religion is false, oh the horrors! You don't see mass protests from atheists against the Narnia series and some atheists are fans of Narnia. I can't remember who it was, but I remember it was some Catholic bishop guy who actually approved of The Golden Compass and thought it actually fit in with the Catholic church's teachings and was more spiritual than people give it credit for and thought anyone who protested the series had a really weak faith.

[Mriana]

 

There is no picture of the prof., but this is the same prof who taught the class and what she had to say about The Golden Compass: http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010991 I don't agree with her at all and I happened to like the movie personally (saw it on DVD), which was banned from theatres here the very first day it showed in town, by none other than the A of G and the Catholic watch dogs. Read and weep, because she dogs atheists in the second paragraph and you can get an idea of the battles I occasionally had with her too. As you can see, she had a corn cob up her butt about Harry Potter too, but she is less threatened by Harry Potter than she is by the Golden Compass. BTW, she is on Facebook too, but that should give you some idea of what I went through with her. Obviously whatever impression I left on her did not last long.

That lady rambled on about how horrible it was but she never really explained why other than that it acknowledges the existence of bad Christians and people say religion is false, oh the horrors! You don't see mass protests from atheists against the Narnia series and some atheists are fans of Narnia. I can't remember who it was, but I remember it was some Catholic bishop guy who actually approved of The Golden Compass and thought it actually fit in with the Catholic church's teachings and was more spiritual than people give it credit for and thought anyone who protested the series had a really weak faith.

 

For her, the fact that Pullman is an atheist, criticizing the Catholic Church is her problem with the movie. You should have seen her face when I said I am a humanist. Anyway, to stir the thread back on topic, she is one of those scholars who would vehemently disagree with Carrier concerning the resurrection. She even disagreed with the Jesus seminar and their conclusion that most of what was attributed to Jesus, he did not say, as well as acted like it was the dumbest thing in the world to come to that conclusion. IMHO, such close-minded people with Ph. D.s are not scholars, because they cling to what was spoon-fed to them as children, instead of what they learned during their college years. Of course, she went to a Catholic institution of higher education, so she was still being spoon-fed, which makes no sense as to why she would be teaching at a State Uni. I can see what she would say about Carrier's book- she would reject it in a heartbeat, in favour of her brainwashing. She might have gotten the BullSh** degree, More of it, and then got it Piled high and Deep, but she did not learn anything scholarly. She truly believes the resurrection happened and Narnia symbolized the resurrection with Aslan (I'm thinking his name refers to Norse mythology, but my brain isn't working tonight, sinus headache, but some mythology) and that Aslan really died and came back to life. I prefer not to view the lion as dying, but rather in a deep sleep. Be that as it may she laughs concerning what some scholars come up with concerning J.C. and vehemently disagrees because it is not in keeping with Xianity mythology. She is on so-called scholar who would make every attempt to debunk what Carrier says.

[Shyone]

Why would she object to a film that depicts resurrection as an event in the movie? I would almost think it sounds like it supports Christianity in some sense. But it's a fantasy, so who cares?

[Mriana]

Why would she object to a film that depicts resurrection as an event in the movie? I would almost think it sounds like it supports Christianity in some sense. But it's a fantasy, so who cares?

 

She doesn't object to Narnia- she objects to the Golden Compass, because it "disrespects Xianity". She would be the same with Carrier's book.