Debates & Interviews

BY R ICH AR D CAR R IER / ON FEBRUARY 24, 2012 / 17 COMMENTS

In January (as announced beforehand) I debated the question “Jesus: Man, Myth, or Messiah?” with Douglas Jacoby at
Amador Christian Center in the beautiful Sacramento hills. And now theaudio of that debate is available (video might
come later; if so, I’ll emend this blog and mention it in the comments thread). Ben Schuldt produced a goodwrap-up post
on it, briefly reviewing the debate and then surveying all the things he would have wanted the audience to hear (he’s well
aware that debates are on the clock and thus everything that needs to be said simply can’t be, but that’s what blogs are for,
praise Jebus).

Video of my debate with J.P. Holding (also at Amador Christian Center, last year) on the topic of whether the “Text of
the New Testament is Reliable” is also now available. I had announced that long ago in a comment thread, but have
been meaning to blog it up properly for a while, so I’m seizing the opportunity. Not only is the video available (via
YouTube) but you can also download our slideshows and view them separately (Carrier’s | Holding’s).

I was also interviewed for the Oklahoma Atheists podcast (yes, people, there are atheists in Oklahoma, it’s not just all
rusted cars and missile silos), which is now available. In it we discussed my use of Bayesian Reasoning in Philosophy,
especially in The End of Christianity where I apply it to the design argument.

Finally, I was actually on live public radio in Las Vegas a while back, appearing as a phone-in guest (along with a few
others) on Conversations with Cogree. One reason I hate doing call-in shows is that phoneline audio quality is usually
terrible, and with multiple people and signal delays and no body language to observe, talking over each other is a constant
problem. But Cogee does a decent job moderating it all. The theme was “Atheism vs. Faith” and there were multiple
believers and multiple atheists, each coming from a very different viewpoint than the other. Everyone was treated fairly. You
can listen to an archive of the show.

Share
this:

   
THE LA M E THA T W OULD NOT DIE! TA I SOLA RIN: A THEIST OF A FRICA

17 comments
SI LI • F EBR UAR Y 24, 2012, 1:18 P M

I’ve been on an Ehrman binge on Youtube the last couple days (con: He has a limited number of jokes).

The last video I watched was a debatediscussion with a dr Daniel Wallace about the accessibility of the
‘original’ New Testament.

While irrelevant to the discussion, Ehrman was asked about the existence of a historical Jesus, and I was rather
surprised by his answer. It sounded like standard apologetics to me (an uninformed layman): The Messiah was
supposed to be a warrior-king. The Christians claimed the Messiah was crucified. This is so unintuitive and
wrong that noöne is likely to make up such a claim. Ergo Jesus.

I hope I’m being too glib in my summary, but I can’t say I was impressed by that last bit of an otherwise
excellent performance.

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 24, 2012, 6 :48 P M

You are right, Sili, that’s one of the standard arguments scholars use for Jesus being
historical (although, usually also by fundies to argue for his really being resurrected ), yet is
not only fallacious (gods aren’t supposed to be castrated, either; so…therefore, Attis was a
real dude?), it is also factually false. I think Ehrman is not seeing reason on that. His
response to my blog on this sounded to me just like standard Christian apologetics, denying
the obvious meaning and implications of a fact or text in order to try and rescue the “theory”
that no Jews expected their messiah to die, getting cart directly in front of the horse (you’re
supposed to argue from evidence to a theory, not from a theory to the evidence). If he pulls
this in his book, I’m going to call him out on it. But we’ll see how that goes.

(I also extensively document what’s wrong with this argument in On the Historicity of Jesus
Christ, but for those who don’t want to wait for the whole nine yards, I put half a hard of it in
Proving History; see p 335, “dying messiah, concept of.” But again, only half a yard there.)

R E P LY
 MIKE • F EBR UAR Y 24, 2012, 1:30 P M

I wonder if Jacoby has the sense to realize he should be thoroughly embarassed.

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 24, 2012, 6 :29 P M

Mike: I wonder if Jacoby has the sense to realize he should be thoroughly embarassed.

I’m not sure what you mean. In the context of his delusion, he handled himself reasonably
well. He did lose the debate on any objective technical measure. But that’s not embarrassing.
I’ve seen embarrassing, and it doesn’t look like that (the Catholic opponents in the
Hitchens-Fry debate, that was embarrassing).

R E P LY

M I K E • F E B R U A R Y 2 7, 2 0 1 2 , 6 : 2 0 A M

I’m not saying there has never been a more embarassing debate. I also don’t see why being
in a context of a delusion makes something less embarassing.

I would give the following as just a few reasons one might be ambarassed, as far as debate
performances go:

– His opening statement reminds me of a bad sermon from my Assemblies of God days. It
consists largely of unsupported assertions and very sloppy reasoning.

– The argument that the miracles actually help the reliability of the NT is downright hilarious.

– He had to contradict himself when you cornered him about the Jewish culture adopting
things from neighboring tribes.

And that’s just a few examples from the first hour. On a positive note, I thought you did well.
I’ll have to keep listening until the end to see if there is interaction with the audience, which
I’m guessing is a church audience. I’d be interested to hear how they thought it went.

R E P LY

RICHARD CARRIER • F EBR UAR Y 28, 2012,

9 :22 AM

Mike: I also don’t see why being in a context of a delusion makes

something less embarassing.
 Granted. But I find it more sad than embarrassing. Embarrassing is when
someone really shows they don’t know what they are talking about,
explicitly eats their foot, and can’t reason logically, and as a result doesn’t
even come close to a technical win or draw in a debate. Jacoby was at
least well informed (he made only a few mistakes of fact), could reason
soundly (his fallacies were complex and thus not “obvious”), and knew
how to pick up drops and otherwise go for a technical win in a debate. In
other words, he was competent. He just made a few key mistakes as to
underlying premises, and it is on top of those that his entire delusion is
built–yet, built entirely logically and informedly. That’s the trouble with
delusions in smart people: they can make them perfectly consistent with
logic and (almost) all facts. It’s just those few little blindspots that allow
this to be possible. So I distinguish between someone with a few (albeit
fundamental) blindspots and who makes a few (ancillary) errors, and
someone who is completely out of touch with logic and reality (like, say,
Josh McDowell or Newt Gingrich).

R E P LY

JA K E • F EBR UAR Y 24, 201 2, 7:1 6 P M

Is there a case for religious people or even theological institutions to think of Ehrman as a “useful idiot”, in the
sense that he can say what he likes about the bible, but as long he is making a case for a historical Jesus then
that’s half the battle to them?

As long as they have this basis then they know they can argue about “divinity” for the next thousand years. But
what author or historian is going to be given the limelight considering that limelight has very often a religious
institution as its benefactor?

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 26 , 2012, 1:27 P M

Jake: Sorry, I don’t understand either of your questions.

R E P LY

BLOTON TH ELA N DSC A P E • F EBR UAR Y 25, 2012, 5:26 AM

Jacoby was straight-out proselytising in his closing statement! Shocker!

But other than that enjoyable. Honestly, it sounds like a more informed version of a typical conversation between
my dad and I.

I also have trouble drawing the link between schizotypal behaviour and christianity, or indeed calling it a cult,
without it coming across as insulting. I think you did that very well.

R E P LY

SI LI • F EBR UAR Y 25, 2012, 11:36 AM

Thanks, I remembered http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/10/dying-messiah.html and read it after

writing my comment.

Can I find Ehrman’s response somewhere, or did I just miss it in the comments?

Incidentally, are gods supposed to be lame? If not, then Hephaistos must be real as well.

Speaking of Hephaistos, and delving into parallellomania: Is there any connection between Vølund the Smith and
Hephaistos?

And on a similar note, is the Old Testament story of Jephtah and his daughter related to the child offerings in
Homer? Idomeneus seems to be the nearest parallel, but Agamemnon and Iphigenia seem to fit, too.

(I realise your expertise in NT, but you’re more likely to have come across this, than I am.)

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 26 , 2012, 1:00 P M

Sili: Can I find Ehrman’s response somewhere, or did I just miss it in the comments?

It was in backchannel conversation between us. I expect he polished his side of the debate
up for inclusion in his book out this March.

P.S. I don’t know much about Nordic religion, so I can’t help you with that question. As to
child sacrifice in the OT, that’s not influence from Homer, but influence from widespread
ANE religious culture in general, which independently influenced both Homer and the Bible.
Avalos covers this in Christian Delusion, pp. 224-27 (see also End of Christianity, pp.
147, 186-88.

R E P LY

SI LI • F EBR UAR Y 25, 2012, 12:38 P M

If I may critique you’re performance, I have to say that you’re speaking too fast for the audience. You’re
hurrying through material that is likely unfamiliar to your audience. Holding comes across as more sympathetic, I
fear.

Incidentally, the moderator was charming. The coffee and cookies were a nice touch.
R E P LY

R A Y STA R OOF • F EBR UAR Y 26 , 2012, 8:23 AM

Thank you. I was just running out of Richard Carrier audio. Have you thought about putting out audio versions
of any of your books?

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • F EBR UAR Y 26 , 2012, 12:20 P M

Ray Staroof: Have you thought about putting out audio versions of any of your
books?

Ideas are in progress. I have the equipment now. It’s finding the time to do the recording
that’s the obstacle at this point.

R E P LY

C ON GA BOY • MARCH 3, 2012, 10:41 AM

I’m listening to the debate with Jacoby. I’m at the part where you both had 5 minutes to rebut each other and
Jacoby says that he cannot see the parallels between other religions and Xtrianity. He is in denial, but perhaps
you could use more modern examples like the similarity between Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story.
Another example could be the movie Star Wars (the original) and every story about good versus evil that has
ever been told. You can argue that West Side Story is nothing like Romeo and Juliet, WSS takes place in the
20th century and has Latin gangs vs. Anglo gangs. They fight with fists and knives and not swords. They’re not
family members, but just gang members. And no one is named Romeo or Juliet; they are completely different
and unrelated stories.

I was 13 years old when Stars Wars was released. I thought it was the most amazing thing I had ever seen. I
convinced my mother to see it with me. When the movie was over, I asked her whether she found it as awesome
as I did and she said to me that it was just the same old story. My mother’s review of the movie really opened
my eyes about the origins of stories and how the same story can be retold in different ways.

Also, the New Testament is a collection of self-promoting documents. The books were written by people who
were trying to promote their own beliefs. How is the New Testament any more reliable than a television
commercial promoting any other product or service?

R E P LY

RICH ARD CARRIER • MARCH 5, 2012, 11:36 AM

 congaboy: Great analogy. I may indeed use that one someday!

R E P LY

R OB • OC TOBER 6 , 201 4, 3:1 4 AM

Dr Carrier

how do you address the following ?

is it true that theological power would have PREVENTED corruption?

…just as the lack of centralized temporal power by Christians explains the lack of physical survival of the oldest
manuscripts, the lack of centralized THEOLOGICAL power within the Christian church by any one group after
70 AD means that NO one group had the power to universally/consistently change the NT books.The
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and Nero’s persecution in 66 destroyed Jerusalem or Rome as candidates for a
universal Christian theological power — the church had divided into Coptic, Abyssinian, Nestorian, Levantine,
Anatolian, Greek, and Latin branches/churches who protected their own copies of the NT writings.

Yes, it is possible all of these groups falsified something to suit their fancy, but it is vanishingly unlikely that they
all falsified something in the same way — so Christian scholars can have high confidence that the points that all
the earliest manuscripts agree on are the text of the (lost) original.​

R E P LY

Add a Comment (For Patrons & Select Persons Only)

Enter your comment here...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search This Blog

Search here...

Get Carrier’s Latest!

 Follow Richard Carrier’s Work & Announcements

 

Categories

Select Category

Archives

Select Month

About The Author

Richard Carrier is the author of many books and numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to
Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, and the
origins of Christianity and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He
is also a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and historical methods.

Support Dr. Carrier

Subscribe To This Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,459 other subscribers

Email Address
Subscribe

Subscribe

Books By Dr. Carrier

Explore C.H.R.E.S.T.U.S.
 Get Your E-Books Signed!

Take Online Courses With Dr. Carrier

As An Amazon Associate I Earn From Qualifying Purchases Following Links On My Website.

Buying From Here Helps Fund My Work.

Recommendations

Proudly powered by WordPress | Copyright 2016 Danza