Gospel Anti-Semitism in Jesus Christ Superstar

My friend James blogged about
this live performance of JCS

The 1973 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar has an amazing soundtrack, and you can use the story to learn about anti-Semitism in the Christian gospels. First-century Christians wrote the gospels after a war between Jerusalem and Rome. The first Christians had all been Jews, but at the end of the first century there were plenty of gentile Christians as well as Jewish Christians who denounced mainstream Judaism. These early Christians compiled and promulgated the gospels in part to show everyone that it was the wicked Jews who were the enemies of Rome and not the good Christians.  

Jesus was a hillbilly exorcist and apocalyptic prophet. The Jewish leaders had him killed as a threat to public order, which he was. His story has gotten embellished and retold several times. Jesus Christ Superstar delivers a great story, mostly by playing up the conflict between Jesus and Jews: Jewish leaders, the Jewish mob, even his Jewish disciples. Each song contributes a little bit to our understanding of anti-Semitism in the gospels. 

No Talk of God then We Called You a Man. As a Jew in good standing, Jesus never claimed to be God. The fourth gospel portrays Jesus as divine, as misunderstood by the Jews, and as something of a Jew-hater.

What’s the Buzz. The song shows Jesus’ Jewish disciples to be fools. 

Strange Thing Mystifying. Christian churchmen started talking down Mary of Magdala pretty early, and her she is a woman of ill repute. It makes for good drama but, this tradition is not in the gospels. In this song, Jesus rebukes the disciples. You know, the Jewish disciples.

We Are Decided. The leaders of Jerusalem had little choice but to take out trouble-makers to prevent insurrection. They kept the peace through Jesus’ life and for decades after, until AD 66. Historians are divided over whether Jesus styled himself as the king of the Jews.

Everything’s Alright. Here’s another opportunity for Jesus to rebuke his Jewish disciples. After Jesus’ execution, Mary of Magdala might have been the first follower to have a vision of Jesus after his death, but the gospels limit her role. Did Jesus have sex with followers? Maybe, maybe not. There’s not a trace of churchmen denying the charge, so I figure it probably didn’t happen.

This Jesus Must Die. If this rock opera makes High Priest Caiaphas and the other leaders of the Temple seem wicked and creepy, that’s pretty much what the gospel authors would have wanted. 

Hosanna. Historians are split on whether Jesus really did ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. The gospels have the Jews hail Jesus as their king (“messiah”) so that when they turn on him later it comes across as particularly wicked.

Simon Zealotes. Here, Simon refers to Jesus as “Christ” (“messiah”, “anointed [king]”). Historically, Jesus didn’t claim to be the awaited king, but the story is better if it’s their own king that the Jewish leaders execute.

Poor Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders and people don’t understand at all. Jerusalem closes her eyes to the truth.

Pilate’s Dream. Historically, Pilate was a brutal ruler, assigned to rule Judea by decree because no client king could keep these locals in hand. The gospels make this villain into a complex and sympathetic figure, tormented because the Jews force him to crucify their own king, an innocent man.

The Temple. The more of a cesspit this place is, the worse the Jewish leaders look. Historians figure Jesus got crucified for causing a disturbance in the Temple, but the details are not reliable. For sure, the Temple was a source of huge wealth for the Temple leaders, and it probably featured a graven Roman eagle over the main entrance, so there are reasons that Jesus, a penniless exorcist from the sticks, might pitch a fit here. 

I Don’t Know How to Love Him. Even Mary of Magdala, the Jew who knows Jesus the best, doesn’t understand who Jesus is. 

Damned for All Time. Historians are split on whether there was a Judas, and I don’t think so. His name sounds a lot like “Jew”. Who could be so terrible as to betray Jesus? Mr Jew, that’s who! Great song, though. [EDIT: James McGrath helpfully pointed out that the name Judas doesn’t just sound like “Jew”, it was actually the common Jewish name, Judah, the biblical figure that Jews are basically named after. The Jews represent the tribe of Judah, that is, the tribe of Judas. His blog post.]

Last Supper. Boy, those Jewish disciples really are losers, aren’t they? Especially that traitor, Mr Jew.

Gethsemane. Jesus knew that he was about to pay the ultimate price, but those faithless Jews can’t even stay awake with him. 

The Arrest. Mr Jew betrays Jesus, and the disciples are obsessed with fighting. The Jewish people turn on him. 

Peter’s Denial. Historically, Peter was the most prominent Christian leader outside of Jerusalem, at least until Paul came along 20 years later. The gospel writers spent extra time cutting Peter down, such as in this scene where he denies Jesus. 

Pilate and Christ. The gospel writers wanted the Romans and everyone else to know that it was the Jews that were the problem, and Christians aren’t Jews any more. It’s the Jews that lost a war against Rome, just as God planned, and now the Christians are God’s chosen people. 

King Herod’s Song. This scene is not historical, and it’s one more example of the Jews failing to recognize their king. 

Could We Start Again Please. Mary still doesn’t understand. Historically, Jesus’ crucifixion seems to have caught his followers by surprise, and they fled back to the hinterlands of Galilee. His followers were surprised because crucifixion wasn’t part of the plan, but in the gospels they don’t understand even though it is part of the plan, and that’s worse. 

Judas’ Death. Mr Jew’s sin is unconscionable, and the Temple leaders are creepy. Great combo. 

Trial Before Pilate. Historically, it’s hard to understand why the Roman prefect would care or even notice if the local leaders wanted someone crucified as a trouble-maker. In this song, Pilate judges him innocent and tells the traitorous Jews that he’s their king. The Jews demand that he be not just flogged but crucified. 

Superstar. Historically, the disciples did not know how Jesus’ crucifixion fit into God’s plan, but Paul came along 20 years later and came up with an explanation. Is this the least anti-Semitic song in the soundtrack?

The Crucifixion. The Roman’s were expert at inflicting punishment, and crucifixion was a horrific way to go. In this song, you hear Jesus forgive the Roman soldiers that nail him in, reinforcing the theme that Christians are good Roman subjects, not like those traitorous Jews. One anti-Semitic detail that they left out was the Roman soldier recognizing the crucified Jesus as the Son of God. That gospel scene was meant to show that gentiles recognized Jesus while his own people betrayed him.

John 19:41. This verse refers to Jesus’ empty grave, a story designed to reinforce the idea that Jesus really did rise bodily from the dead. John’s gospel downgrades Peter, acknowledging him as the lead apostle only in a bonus resurrection appearance tacked on as an epilog.

Humans love stories, and stories need conflict. The gospel writers set up a conflict between Jesus and “the Jews”, and Jesus Christ Superstar takes this theme and runs with it. Great story, bad history, baked-in anti-Semitism, great vocals—quite the combo. 

[EDIT: Fixed the bit about the church tradition and Mary of Magdala, which I had gotten wrong.]

‘Bible and Music Update’: Religion professor James McGrath commented on this post.

2017

Aron Ra, Historical Jesus, and Bias

Aron Ra was kind enough to have me on his podcast to talk at some length about historical Jesus. We met last year in Seattle when he came through on a book tour, and he took an interest in my debate last summer with Dr Carrier. Aron is a mythicist, although he doesn’t follow Carrier’s hypothesis. The conversation meanders a bit, but there’s a lot of good material in here. We talk about the composition of the early Christian church, Paul’s crucifixion theology, the temperament of atheists, and more. 

Here’s the video, Episode 77 of the Ra-Men Podcast.

Aron was surprised to learn that sometimes atheists call me a fake atheist for promoting the historical Jesus hypothesis. He actually laughed at the idea. Should I have been surprised to see that people who watched the video left comments about me being a Christian? I was surprised, but only because I’m a fool. Of course that’s what some atheists are going to say, even after watching Aron laugh at such irrational behavior. Aron agrees with me that atheists shouldn’t use the historical Jesus as a point of orthodoxy, and that’s my overriding message, so it’s nice to have him on my side on that point.

We also talked a little bit about the divisiveness that seems to be too common among atheists. Aron talked about the people who will shun and slander you for disagreeing with them on one issue, even if you agree on many others. Sam Harris also talks about this phenomenon, the hyper-critical stance that is common among atheists. In the US, atheists are more analytical and more disagreeable than average, and it shows. 

As for historical Jesus, we half agree. About half the stuff he had to say about the New Testament and early Christianity is the same sort of thing I would say. Jesus clearly wasn’t God. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament books contradict each other, and they include a bunch of legendary material adapted from pagan sources. On the other hand, Aron and I disagree on a lot, such as what century the Christian cult started; what the cult that Paul joined was like; whether the first reference to Jesus being placed in history implies that he was born on Earth hundreds of years BC; and why the historical consensus for the last hundred years has been that Jesus was a historical figure. I’ve gotten a lot of practice summarizing others’ points, and I think that habit helped ground the conversation. Most of the conversation was about the historical Jesus. 

I did a little homework after the discussion, and after the end of this post are some notes that I think provide a useful context for understanding the discussion. If you haven’t watched the video yet, you probably want to watch it before reading my notes. 

The big idea: accepting bias as natural

Everybody’s biased, and that’s natural. We atheists know that our beliefs bubble up from our meat brains. They’re not divine inspiration from above. Our beliefs are fallible and often self-serving. Even mythicists like Aron Ra can agree that when atheists accuse me of being a Christian, that’s tribal bias at work. Maybe we atheists can use the topic of historical Jesus as a way to recognize bias in our own community. Recognizing bias is the first step toward mitigating it.

Earlier posts

Am I a Fake Atheist? 

Honest Debate: Historical Jesus with Ricard Carrier

Notes

Roman Catholic Jesus scholars

I got this wrong. A papal encyclical of 1907 prohibited Roman Catholic scholars from evaluating the Bible from an historical-critical perspective, but that restriction was rescinded in 1943. In fact Catholic scholars, such as John Meier, have helped spur today’s renaissance in historical Jesus research.

Timeline

Aron and I had trouble agreeing on the timeline of when various works and ideas entered the historical record. Here is an approximate timeline according to mainstream scholars.

30, Jesus’ ministry and execution
50s–60s, Paul’s writing and ministry, introducing the crucifixion to Christian theology
70, Gospel of Mark, first record of Jesus’ biography
90?, Epistle to Titus, describing elders/overseers, roles that later developed into priests and bishops
90, Josephus, who refers to John the Baptist and Jesus
150, Justin Martyr’s First Apology

Docetics, “phantomists”, early Christian faction

They believed that Jesus had “walked among us”, although he only appeared to be physical. This belief shows how implausible Carrier’s celestial-only Christ would be. Even the early Christians who hated the physical world still taught that their divine-only Christ appeared to people here on Earth. The Gospel of Thomas represents a similar view, in which the celestial Jesus came to Earth temporarily. Docetist beliefs are first documented in 1 John, written about a generation or two after Paul.

Ebionites, “the poor ones”, Jewish Christians

Basically, these were original Christians, before Paul came in and established Christianity 2.0. They were Jewish ascetics who hung out around Jerusalem, fawned on Jesus’ brother James, and waited for Jesus to return and usher in the End Times. There was no faction of Ebionites when Paul joined Christianity. The zealots hanging out around Jerusalem were just regular old fanatics. They became a “heresy” only after Paul’s Christianity 2.0 took off and the hard-core fanatics didn’t go along.

Jesus ben Ananias
Around AD 70, this madman reportedly prophesied against Jerusalem and was killed during its siege. “Jesus” was the sixth most common male name at the time. 

Justin Martyr, Christianity’s firs apologist

He wrote the First Apology around AD 150. He argued that pagans should accept Christians because their account of Christ was like stories about their own gods. And why were the stories about Jesus like those of the pagan gods? According to Justin, the gods and heroes were similar to Christ because demons had studied the prophecies concerning the future Christ and had imitated them. Here’s what he says:

When the demons heard through the prophets preaching about the coming of Christ, … they proposed many so-called sons of Zeus, supposing that they could cause people to think the things about Christ were a catalogue of marvels similar to those uttered by the poets… But even though demons heard what was said by the prophets, they did not accurately understand them, but they imitated in error the predictions about our Christ.

Justin expands on the point, showing how various “son of Jupiter” were failed attempts to create fake “Christs” based on Jewish prophecy.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Chris, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and descended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. Be well assured . . . that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, “strong as a giant to run his race,” has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when I hear . . . that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.

Historians’ presuppositions

Mythicists commonly say that historians are biased or that they have a blind spot about Jesus. Carrier says they wear “Christian goggles” even if they’re not Christian themselves. Are historians really unwilling to question Jesus’ existence? History says otherwise. From the early 1800s to the early 1900s, it was respectable for a historian to promote one mythicist theory or another. Influential scholars, such as Bruno Bauer from Tübingen, argued that Jesus was a fiction. Mythicism waned over time, and early in the 20th century it collapsed when historians reached a consensus that the gospels were written in the 1st century, not in the 2nd. Historians have all sorts of things to say about how the gospels were written and how that history reflects on historical Jesus. Mythicists, on the other hand, tend to deal lightly with the topic of how and why the gospels were composed. An historical Jesus became the consensus not because historians always assumed Jesus existed but because decades of research along mythicist lines didn’t lead anywhere.

Multiple angels and different Jesuses

Aron was referring to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in which Paul writes, “But even if we, or an angel from the sky, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let them be accursed” (Gal 1:4). Later in Galatians (4:14), Paul equates Jesus with an angel. Paul thought that Jesus was an angel who had taken on human form to live and die among humans, as part of God’s plan. 

Context questions for mythicists

In the future, I’ll try to remember to to ask questions like these. Mythicists like to focus on specific arguments, and questions like these help put the conversation in a broader context.

• What scholar do you follow most closely?
• What’s the least plausible part of your hypothesis? (Carrier names the cosmic sperm bank and the undocumented switch from celestial to earthly Jesus.)
• What’s the best evidence for Jesus’ historical existence?
• What cult in history is most similar to the Jesus cult that Paul joined? (Carrier says the Osiris cult.)
• What book is most similar to the Gospel of Mark? (Carrier says the account of Elijah and Elisha in the Books of Kings.)
• Where did the crucifixion story come from? (Carrier says a vision by Peter.)
• About how sure are you that you’re right?
• When someone tells you that the scholarly consensus is wrong, how skeptical should you be?
• What would happen to a historian who could demonstrate that Christianity started without a historical Jesus? 

Narrative of Christian origins

A telltale difference between the mainstream account and mythicist accounts is that mainstream historians can provide a plausible story of Christian origins that fits the evidence we have. Mythicists like to pick at the evidence for Jesus, but they don’t like to explain in any detail how early Christianity developed and how it left the historical traces we have. I would love to see a mythicist narrative that covers these points, all of which are explained by the historical Jesus hypothesis. I am not even asking for proof, just a believable narrative.  

• How and when did the cult start? Who founded it? 
• Where did the crucifixion story come from and why do the pre-Pauline creeds and the Didache omit it? 
• Who were Peter, John, and James (the brother of the Lord)?
• When Paul joined, what did the cult structure look like, why did it look like that, who was in charge, and why? 
• What did Paul contribute to the sect? 
• How did Mark get written? Why does it include embarrassing details that later gospels had to walk back? Why is Jesus’ messianic identity a secret? On what authority was the gospel accepted by Christians? 
• How did Matthew get written and where did the strikingly original material in the Sermon on the Mount come from? How did two Beatitudes end up separately in Thomas?
• How did Luke get written and why are its phrases harder-edged than parallel phrases in Matthew? Where did the additional parables come from? 
• How did John get written, how is the story different from the earlier gospels, and why? 
• How does John the Baptist change from Mark to John and why? 
• How did the structure of the early church develop from Paul’s time to the end of the first century? 

2017

Carrier on Jesus-myth scholarship

Bad Jesus Scholarship for Atheists

Dr Richard Carrier and I disagree on a lot of points regarding Jesus, but in our debate last summer there was one important point on which we agreed. Most of the Jesus-mythicism scholarship out there is bad scholarship. He called out in particular the parallels between Jesus Christ and Horus as an example. Carrier and I did not delve into why so many atheists are willing to accept bad scholarship about Jesus not existing. To me, the answer is simple: tribalism. Humans have instinctive tribal feelings that lead us to see our own “tribes” in a positive light and to see “enemy tribes” in a negative light. See, for example, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene. For lots of atheists, Jesus Christ is the “sacred totem” of the “enemy tribe”. They are willing to accept bad scholarship provided it tells them what they want to hear, which is that Jesus never existed. 

The phenomenon that energizes me about this topic is the emotional commitment that many atheists have to mythicism, all while portraying themselves as more objective than mainstream historians. I know an atheist who says that hearing the phrase “historical Jesus” makes him want to retch. That reaction is visceral, not rational. In the local atheist book club, the topic of whether Jesus was historical is prohibited in side conversations. In the past, too many discussion were derailed by emotional arguments over this issue. Christians, for their part, also disagree with mainstream historians about who Jesus was. For example, they consider the gospel of John to be historically valuable. Christians have perfectly understandable reasons for preferring a nonstandard view of early Christian origins. Muslims also have their pet ideas about who Jesus was. So do a lot of New Age promoters, such as Richard Bach, the author of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. And along come atheist mythicists proving that atheists are human, too. Atheists sometimes let their tribal affiliations channel their thinking, and lots of atheists promote their pet ideas about Jesus over the longstanding consensus of mainstream scholars. 

In my dream world, atheists would use the Jesus-mythicism controversy as a reality check. The well-documented willingness of atheists to accept bad Jesus-myth scholarship would wake us atheists up to our own biases and tribal instincts. Even atheists who think that Carrier is right would acknowledge that the track record for atheists evaluating Jesus-myth scholarship is dodgy. Atheists commonly criticize religious people for letting their feelings cloud their judgment, and the Jesus-myth phenomenon could be eye-opening for us atheists. We could acknowledge that being led astray by tribal feelings is part of the human experience. Tribal thinking is not a unique sin committed only by people who believe in the supernatural. Am I dreaming? Can atheists really be the first “tribe” to acknowledge our own tribalism and rise above it? Probably not, but hope springs eternal. 

As I mentioned in my debate with Carrier, I once got a little carried away with some bad scholarship about Muhammad not existing. Like any human, I’m vulnerable to having my intellect be swayed by feelings. I also had some unrealistically positive feelings about the historical Jesus before I did the research and accepted the evidence. Contradicting what I’d been taught, I learned that Jesus’ message was to his fellow Jews, not to the whole world. I like Jesus, so I don’t like the idea of him being so “ethnic”, but that’s where the evidence points. My message to my fellow atheists is not, “Be without bias”. That’s unrealistic because we’re all human. If you think you’re without bias, you’re probably more biased than average. Without bias, I couldn’t get up in the morning. Every hour I care more about some things than other things. That’s bias. Instead of “Don’t be biased”, my message to my fellow atheists is, “Acknowledge your own bias and humbly follow the evidence”. 

For his part, Carrier sets himself above other mythicists because he takes on a greater challenge than they do. He not only tells people that they “might have reason for doubt” about historical Jesus, he also offers an explanation for how 1st-century Christianity originated. Who started it? How did it develop? How did it leave behind the historical traces that we have today? If there was no historical Jesus, how did everyone—believers, heretics, and skeptics alike—come to think that he had existed on this Earth? Carrier offers an explanation. In brief, someone had a vision (or claimed to have a vision) of an angel being crucified in outer space to free Jews from the Temple, and soon enough the allegorical stories about this celestial angel were misunderstood as historical stories about an actual historical figure. Carrier does a favor to everyone interested in Jesus mythicism by providing an alternative account of Christian origins. We can look at his account and judge how plausible it is compared to the mainstream account. If Carrier is wrong, then most likely Christianity is based on the life and teachings of a Jewish, hillbilly faith healer and preacher. Carrier says that this mainstream account is plausible. In our debate, Carrier did not summarize his own account of 1st-century Christianity, and his 3-page summary in On the Historicity of Jesus is light on details but heavy on argumentation. Here he describes one part of his account as ”not so implausible as it may seem”. He’s written about his history on his blog and Facebook, but it looks like he’s not going to spell out his account in a clear, chronological outline. My guess is that he knows that his account would sound implausible if it were laid out end-to-end with no embellishment. 

What Carrier and I agree on is that atheists are too willing to accept bad scholarship that says Jesus didn’t exist. If you hate that statement, and if you can feel that hate in your gut, that’s probably a tribal instinct at work.

- - -

4 minutes of Christian origins: My summary of Christian origins, from Jesus’ career to the composition of Mark (video from the debate).

Am I a fake atheist?: How my fellow atheists treat me when I betray “the tribe”.

Honest Debate: Historical Jesus with Richard Carrier

Dr Richard Carrier, me, Brandon Hendrickson (moderator)

Below is a link to the video of my debate with Dr Richard Carrier over the historicity of Jesus, which I lost decisively. While I lost the debate, I also feel as though there’s real value here, and it was a useful start at addressing the serious problems with Dr Carrier’s hypothesis of Christian origins. It’s definitely worth a look. Here is some context to help you see what is going on in the video.

First of all, through a miscommunication, Dr Carrier didn’t understand what was being asked of him in the middle section of the first part of the debate. I was asked to give a historical summary of Christian origins, which I did. He was asked to give a historical summary of Christian origins, which he did not. Instead, he focused on the writings of Paul and his evidence that Paul thought Jesus was a celestial angel but not a man. He has debated the historicity of Jesus plenty of times, and he approached the topic the way he is used to doing it rather than in line with our format. The fault lies with us organizers, as we did not explain clearly enough what we meant when we asked him to give a 4-minute spiel on the history of early Christianity, from AD 20 to AD 100, followed by 6 minutes of my critiques and his defense. His account of Christian origins sounds, in his own terms, “incredible”, and the meat of my argument was going to be showing people how implausible it is. Since Dr Carrier didn’t outline his account of Christian origins, I could hardly critique it. For me, that’s where the debate fell apart, and I never really recovered. My central point is that the historical account of Christian origins is plausible while Dr Carrier’s is not. In personal email after the debate, I asked Dr Carrier to provide a spoken or written outline of Christian origins to parallel the one I provided in the debate, and he said he might write up such an account for his blog. To my mind, the more details people know about Dr Carrier’s account, the better. 

Second, I apologize for losing my cool during the debate. While preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find out how insulting Dr Carrier is to other scholars. His negative words about Bart Ehrman were particularly galling since I have read a lot of Ehrman’s work and value his contributions to my understanding of early Christian history. Ehrman has taken it on himself to popularize Jesus research so that regular folks like you and me can get a look at what the scholars are saying, and that’s wonderful. In my own humble way, I’m a popularizer myself, having written a children’s book to teach kids that we evolved from fish. Dr Carrier’s comments about other scholars disturbed me so much that I felt quite ambivalent about giving him a platform and helping him sell books, but the debate was already scheduled, and I went on with it. Dr Carrier and I shared our notes with each other ahead of the debate, and he took issue with the way I was going to bring up his treatment of Ehrman and other scholars. I dropped that material from my notes, but it was still on my mind. In the debate when Dr Carrier said that other scholars are 100 years behind if they haven’t read his book, that might seem like innocent hyperbole, but it set me off. The moderator received a question from the audience asking me to explain why that claim set me off like it did, but he declined to ask that question in the Q&A, so I didn’t have the chance to explain myself. Here’s what I was getting at. If Dr Carrier says that other historians are 100 years behind, he’s implying through simple algebra that he is 100 years ahead of other historians. That’s a striking claim, and I don’t want people to miss it. Since no other historians have adopting Dr Carrier’s view, he is, by his own estimation, the world’s leading expert on Christian origins. If his hypothesis is right, he is the only historian who understands how Christianity really started and how the gospels were really written. In fact, he’s not just 100 years ahead of other scholars, if he’s right then he is 2000 years ahead. Dr Carrier doesn’t press this point himself, and in fact he backed off of it when I questioned him about his “100 years” comment, so it falls to people like me to point it out. He also claims to be ahead of other historians in his use of Bayes’ Theorem. Perhaps in the future, Dr Carrier will be recognized as history’s most important Jesus scholar, as well as the founder of truly modern historical research. Perhaps. 

Third, the moderator confessed to us at the break that he had inadvertently given Dr Carrier more air time than he had given me. There are plenty of points I never had time to bring up. In addition, the questions after the break were not as useful as we had envisioned. While there was good material in the debate, it did not live up to our expectations. 

Despite my loss, I think that the debate demonstrates some points on my side. We get to hear from Dr Carrier himself the negative way in which he talks about other historians. He acknowledges that the mainstream historical account is plausible. He agrees with me that whoever is responsible for the Sermon on the Mount was a counterculture genius. He names the cult of Osiris as the cult most similar to the early Christian cult, which is strange. Perhaps he was answering the question, “Which cult had a savior figure most like celestial Jesus?” because the Osiris cult as a religious organization is hardly like the early Christian sect. Since he didn’t bring up the “cosmic sperm bank” from which he says the celestial Jesus was created, I did. On these and other points, the debate shows the beginning of what could be useful inquiries into Dr Carrier’s account of Christian origins and its many problems. 

As I said in the debate, I am not trying to prove to anyone that Jesus existed. My point is that the mainstream historical account is the most plausible account of Christian origins available to us. It might be wrong, but there is no other account that is equally plausible. The small number of historians who agree with Dr Carrier about the historical Jesus being dubious also agree with me that his account is not plausible. When debates about Jesus are filled with competing proof texts, they can make the eyes glaze over, and it’s hard for non-experts to evaluate the evidence. Lay people are better suited to evaluating a debate that evaluates the relative plausibility of two hypothetical accounts of Christian origins. I learned a lot from this debate, and I hope I get a chance to do better in a similar debate some other time. 

Link to debate

Other Posts

Honest Debate Format—The format for this debate, plus links to more data on historical Jesus.

Honest Debate: Christianity Good and Bad—Here’s my post on the previous debate. It is a better example of the “Honest Debate” format than my debate with Carrier is.

New Testament Plot Fixes—The New Testament is full of erroneous details invented to paper over the inconvenient facts of Jesus’ life. These inventions point back to the historical Jesus, whose life and ministry they amend and “improve”. 

2017

Dr Richard Carrier is the world’s
leading doubter of the historical Jesus.

Honest Debate Format

Update: Last Friday I debated Dr Carrier and lost decisively. Several things went wrong. Then again, several things went right. Other than that, I’m saving my commentary until the video of the debate goes up.

Friday, August 11th, I'll be debating Dr Richard Carrier, the world's leading doubter of historical Jesus. This debate is the fourth in our series, and it uses the “honest debate” format inspired by Daniel Dennett and Jonathan Haidt. Classic debates are polemical, and they date from an era when “men” thought that Reason was a divine faculty. Now we know that cognition is messy, and we understand that a productive dialog requires a better format than dueling proofs. Verbal disagreements tend to trigger tribal instincts of us-versus-them, and our debate format is designed to avoid that reaction. Here's a rundown of our event outline, with commentary. Richard and I are termed "advocates" because we each advocate a position. We're not opponents because we have a shared goal of presenting both sides clearly to the audience. A moderator runs the dialog. 

We are recording the event for publication online. 

Link to Event — August 11

Debate Format

We want to start by defining the positions Richard & Jonathan represent, so we start by polling the audience, and giving each advocate a 2-minute opening statement.

We want to show our audience where both sides agree, so we’re doing a quick Agreement Round. We quickly cover points that establish a common ground, making it easier to understand the context of each position. On an emotional level, this exchange sends a signal to everyone that this dialog is not a fight.

We want to show our audience where both sides disagree, so we’re doing a quick Disagreement Round. Again we cover points quickly, framing the scope of the debate and hitting some high points.

We then want to dig into why each advocate believes what he believes, so we’re doing a Straight Debate Round.  

• The Straight Debate Round will consist of 3 major topics.
• The Moderator asks each advocate to summarize the other advocate’s views.  (This is to help our debate stay focused; it’s even more helpful, though, to allow the audience to focus on the big points.)
• Our three topics are the mainstream narrative of Christian origins, Richard's narrative of Christian origins*, and the state of Jesus scholarship. 

We want to see how the audience is responding, so we take a halftime poll.

We want to collect audience questions, so we take an intermission and hand out index cards.

• At the beginning of the intermission, both advocates privately ask each other if they’re succeeding at keeping the tone polite and respectful.

We want to address audience questions, so we do a Q&A Round.

• Questions are submitted on cards to prevent verbally aggressive audience members from dominating air time. 
• During the Q&A Round, we’ll go extreme in re-stating the other advocate’s opinion.
• Again, the purpose of this is to help keep the debate on track — but even more it’s to model “first understand, then discuss” for people in our community. Part of why we do these debates is to improve people’s understanding of what good debate looks like.
• Specifically, here’s how it will go: 
• The Moderator reads an audience question.
• Richard will have 1 (uninterrupted) minute to answer the question.
• Jonathan will get 1 sentence to restate the gist of Richard’s answer.
• The Moderator asks Richard if Jonathan got it at least 80% right.  If so, then we switch.
• Jonathan will have 1 (uninterrupted) minute to answer the question.
• Richard will get 1 sentence to restate the gist of Jonathan’s answer.
• The Moderator asks Jonathan if Richard got it at least 80% right.  If so…
• Both panelists have a 5-minute free debate — which might look more like a two-way conversation, or like more a moderated dialog, depending on how it shapes up.

We want to bring all the information together, so we conclude by giving each advocate a 2-minute closing statement.

We want to see how views have changed (if at all), so we take a final poll. 

*This section, Richard’s account of early Christian origins, is the part that got dropped, due to miscommunication.

Moderating and Humanizing

Two features of the debate are not apparent from the outline. 

The moderator sometimes takes an active role in getting the advocates to come to terms with each others’ questions or arguments. 

We put some work into humanizing everyone involved, for example with personal details in bios. The human touch helps set a tone of collaboration. 


Other “Jesus” Pages
Several posts on this blog flesh out my take on Jesus as a historical figure. See my blog posts on Jesus. 

Other “Honest Debate” Pages

These are the other posts I've made about this debate format.

Honest Debate: Christianity Good and Bad: Good example of the format working right, with me as Moderator. Link to video. 2016. 

Agreeing How to Disagree: Theory behind the practice, with reading list. 2014.



Evidence Can Bring Us Together

At Seattle's March for Science, I said that evidence can bring us together, and I think that's true with history as well. Here are some great resources, assembled by a Daniel N. Gullotta, a Ph.D. Student in Religious Studies (Christianity) at Stanford.

Dale Martin at Yale Universityhttp://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

Philip Harland of the University of Toronto's podcast on ancient religion in the Mediterranean world:
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/religions-of-the-ancient-mediterannean-podcast-collection-page-series-1-6/

Stanford's Continuing Studies podcast has a good one with Thomas Sheehan:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=10

Mark Goodacre of Duke University's the NT Pod:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/nt-pod/id420553592?mt=10

Bart D. Ehrman of UNC Chapel Hill has his great course on the Historical Jesus:
https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/the-historical-jesus

HDX's "The Letters of Paul" taught by Laura Nasrallah, who is based at Harvard University:
https://www.edx.org/course/early-christianity-letters-paul-harvardx-hds1544-1x

And finally, if you want to watch a documentary on the historical Jesus with the world's best scholars, the best one, with no pandering and no sensationalism is From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians from PBS. 
Part 1: https://youtu.be/kZPKCDOeyMg
Part 2: https://youtu.be/NB1WXhoEA0o
Part 3: https://youtu.be/S0pfQ2ZBe2Q
Part 4: https://youtu.be/-_jY2E8I_mA

2017

the presenter as a grade-school atheist

Outline of Jesus Presentation

Tuesday I’ll be presenting about the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism at the Seattle Skeptics meeting here in Seattle. Here is the outline of my presentation, plus links to resources. 

Your Humble Presenter

Lifelong atheist. Raised liberal Christian. 

Atheist community organizer: “honest debates”, Darwin Day, Winter Solstice Potluck.

Author of Grandmother Fish: A Child’s First Book of Evolution.

Mainstream views on Jesus. The experts’ evidence convinces me.

Talk Format

There’s too much material to cover in one night, so I’ll review the whole thing briefly and then I can answer questions or expand on topics that folks find interesting. 

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt
says humans are “groupish”.

Human Cognitive Shortcuts

These biases make it difficult to hold a productive debate over the question of Jesus. 

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
—Programmer Alberto Brandolini.

Thinking Fast and Slow, emotions first and reason as your press agent.
I.e., You think you’re right when you feel you’re right.

Us versus them, emotionally motivated reasoning.
E.g., Am I a fake atheist? 

Binary thinking, all-or-nothing intuition, pattern matching.
E.g., “Are the gospels fact or fiction?” 

Confirmation bias, difficulty in recognizing one’s own error.
E.g., forgetting inconvenient facts. 

“May I?” thinking versus “Must I?” thinking, grasping at straws.
E.g., “There are no contemporary accounts.”

David Strauss said the gospels were
history plus mythology (1846)

Topic One: Historical Jesus

Who he was and how we know.

History of historical Jesus scholarship.

Who was Jesus, according to secular historians: The Jewish hillbilly exorcist.

The best evidence for Jesus: his disorganized cult. Lots of strong evidence about this leaderless cult. 

My favorite evidence for Jesus: his remarkable way with words.

Other evidence.

Jesus’ crazy life story.

How beliefs about Jesus changed from AD 30 to 100.

State of scholarship.

Occam’s razor.

If Richard Carrier can make his case, he will
revolutionize the scholarly study of Jesus

Topic Two: Jesus Mythicism

Historical evidence aside, skeptics can tell the mythicism is bogus by looking at it skeptically.

What is Jesus mythicism? Radical denial of evidence.

Mythicist arguments. They criticize historical evidence but offer little their own evidence.

Who are the mythicists? Atheist writers you’ve heard of only because they’re mythicists.

Is mythicism a conspiracy theory? Is “historical Jesus” the biggest con game in the history of secular scholarship?

Who’s right, the experts or you? What are the odds?

Conclusion

Links

Here are links for folks who want to see more.

History for atheists: examines evidence for and against Jesus, by and for atheists. http://bit.ly/atheistJesusTO

Christopher Hitchens lays out “impressive evidence” for a historical Jesus. http://bit.ly/hitchjesus

State of scholarship, this blog post addresses that issue: http://bit.ly/tweetjesus

Changes in belief about Jesus from AD 30 to 70, this blog post addresses that issue: http://bit.ly/TweetNTplotFixes

Other blog posts on Jesus: http://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/search/label/Jesus

Encyclopedia Britannica, an article written by the world’s top historical Jesus expert: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus

A coherent mythicist account of Christian origins: No link. So far no one has been able to show me one of these, so if you find one, let me know. Update (August ’17): Dr Carrier gives a brief account of how Christianity originated in On the Historicity of Jesus. I’m happy to critically compare the mainstream account to Carrier’s account any time.

New Testament Plot Fixes

Jesus' repentance and baptism under John
required a lot of explanation.

We modern people are sophisticated consumers of media. In our commercially oriented lives, we have heard more sales pitches than people in any other time or place in history. We hear and evaluate propaganda from our political and societal leaders. We are better educated, savvier, and harder to fool than ever. Today we find it easy to read between the lines and guess at an author’s motives. The Christian gospels were written for a less sophisticated audience, so it’s easy for us to see through them. The gospels were written generations after Jesus’ ministry, and all four of them plus Paul’s letters include “elaborations”. With our modern eye for shams, we can see the authors struggling to make the historical elements fit their mythic Christ figure. In particular, many parts of the New Testament read like answers to skeptical questions that 1st-century Christians may have heard from their dubious neighbors. Here is a list of hypothetical skeptical questions and the Bible verses that look like early Christian responses to them. 

Scripture Sources

Responses to each question are in chronological order, as found in the following works.

  Q, a lost compilation of Jesus’ sayings, written by c 50

  Paul’s letters about theology and conduct, written c 60

  Mark’s gospel, about how Jesus had secretly been the Messiah, written c 70

  Matthew’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a Jewish audience, written c 80

  Luke’s gospel, which is Mark + Q + extras, edited for a gentile audience, written c 90

  John’s gospel, a bold retelling with an all-divine, not-at-all-secret Jesus, written c 100

Skeptical Question: If Jesus was the Son of David, why was he from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem? 

  Matthew: Jesus was born in Bethlehem where his father lived, but they had to flee to Nazareth (by way of Egypt) to escape evil King Herod.

  Luke: There was this weird census, and Jesus ended up being born in Bethlehem because that’s where his father’s lineage was from.

SQ: If angels or wise men came to herald Jesus’ birth, why didn’t Jesus’ neighbors know he was special? (The story of Jesus’ neighbors not having faith in him is in Mark and Matthew.)

  Matthew: Jesus family was lying low, since the authorities were out to get Jesus. 

  Luke: Mary kept Jesus’ miraculous birth to herself.

SQ: John the Baptist preached about a great apocalyptic figure to come, but he never named Jesus as that figure. Why didn’t John recognize him?

  Q, Matthew, Luke: John was in prison when Jesus started his ministry, but he sent his followers to ask about Jesus, and that’s how he came to recognize Jesus as the Son of God.

SQ: If the Holy Spirit came to Jesus the instant he was baptized, why didn’t John recognize him then?

  Mark: As soon as the Holy Spirit came to Jesus, it drove him into the wilderness. John was already in prison when Jesus came back and started his ministry, so John never had the chance to recognize Jesus. 

  Matthew: Actually, John did recognize Jesus, but secretly. In fact, Jesus was born of a virgin, so he was already the Son of God before he was baptized, and John recognized him as such.

  Luke: Actually, John did recognize Jesus. In fact, Jesus was born of a virgin, and John recognized him as the Son of God before the two of them were born (because their mothers were cousins, you see). 

  John: What are you talking about? Jesus was never baptized. That’s for sinners. He’s the incarnation of God’s own Word, the pure Lamb of God. And John the Baptist told everyone that Jesus was the great figure that he had predicted. We have his sworn testimony on record. 

SQ: But why did Jesus get baptized anyway? If he was the perfect Son of God, then why did he need baptism for the remission of sins? Was he a follower of John’s?

  Matthew: Of course he didn’t need to be baptized, and John said as much privately, but Jesus insisted that they do the baptism in order to fulfill all righteousness. 

  Luke: Why are you so fixated on Jesus’ baptism anyway? The Holy Spirit came to Jesus after John was done baptizing everyone, when Jesus was praying.

  John: Jesus showed up where John was baptizing people, but he didn’t get baptized himself.

SQ: If Jesus was the Son of God, why didn’t he tell people? 

  Mark, Matthew, Luke: It was a secret.  

  John: What do you mean, not tell people? He told everyone who would sit still that he was eternally one with the Father. That’s why those devilish Jews wanted to kill him. 

SQ: Jesus said that we in this generation wouldn’t get a sign, but if he had given people signs, wouldn’t more people have believed and gotten saved? Wouldn’t mighty signs have brought more people to your church? 

  Q, Matthew, Luke: You know what, that’s exactly what the Devil said to Jesus in the desert. Satan tempted Jesus with the easy route of proving his divinity by mighty signs. So no he didn’t just win people over with special effects. That would have been giving in to Satan. 

  John: What do you mean, no sign? Jesus’ ministry is basically six miraculous signs proving his divinity, with his resurrection as the mystical seventh sign.

SQ: What did Jesus mean when he said that the hungry were the ones with God’s blessing? Going without food is a curse, not a blessing. And how can the poor be blessed? Wealth is a blessing, not poverty. Was he crazy, like his family thought? (Jesus says that the hungry and the poor are blessed in Q, Luke, and Thomas. Jesus’ family thinks he’s out of his mind in Mark.)

  Matthew: What he said was, blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. Also, blessed are the poor in spirit. He wasn’t talking about physical hunger or poverty. 

SQ: I talked with some other disciples, and they never said anything about Moses and Elijah showing up to give Jesus their endorsement. 

  Mark, Matthew, Luke: Actually, only Peter, James, and John saw that. 

SQ: While Jesus was alive, even Peter, James, and John didn’t say anything about Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah. 

  Mark, Matthew, Luke: Jesus swore the three of them to secrecy.

SQ: If Jesus was the anointed king of the Jews and their savior, why did they reject him? If the Jews didn’t accept him, why should gentiles? 

  Mark: The Jews only rejected Jesus because he intentionally hid his message from them. He taught in obscure parables so that the Jews would lose their opportunity to repent and thus be destroyed.

  Luke: Jesus came for all people, not just the Jews. Jews in his hometown tried to kill him at the start of his ministry when he told them that his saving message was for gentiles, too. 

  John: The Jews are basically in league with Satan. 

SQ: If Jesus was God’s Son and everything, why were the Romans able to nail him up on a cross like a runaway slave? 

  Paul: Being “hung on a tree” allowed Jesus to suffer a curse of guilt, which otherwise would never afflict a perfect being. It was all part of God’s plan.

  Mark, Matthew, Luke: That was all part of Jesus’ plan. He even taught the disciples about how he was going to be killed and resurrected. 

SQ: If Jesus taught the disciples that he was going to die and then rise from the dead, why were they surprised when he was killed and when he rose from the dead? 

  Mark: They didn’t understand his teaching.

  Luke: They didn’t understand his teaching because Jesus used veiled language.

SQ: If the crucifixion was all in God’s plan, why did Jesus cry out in despair as he was dying on the cross? (Reported in Mark and Matthew.)

  Luke, John: What do you mean? He took his crucifixion in stride, with no show of fear, pain, or weakness. The crucifixion didn’t even kill him. He willed his own death when the time was right, in accordance with scripture.

SQ: So if the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified, does that mean Jesus was an enemy of Rome? (In the late 60s, Jews across the empire were in revolt, making this question particularly salient.)

  Mark: It was really the Jews who were behind it. Pilate couldn’t even figure out why they wanted Jesus dead and offered to release him. 

  Matthew: Pilate’s wife told him Jesus was innocent based on a dream she had, and Pilate washed his hands to symbolize that he did not participate in the judgment. The Jews called for his death, accepting the guilt of their act on themselves and their children. 

  Luke: Pilate found Jesus innocent, but the Jews called for his death.

  John: Pilate tried twice to release Jesus, and he even placed Jesus in his own judgment seat. But the Jews screamed that he should be crucified.

SQ: Bodies of crucified criminals are thrown to the dogs. How was there a tomb for Mary Magdalene to visit? 

  Mark, Matthew, Luke, John: A respected member of the Jewish council took Jesus’ body for burial. 

SQ: You say Jesus supposedly “appeared” to a couple followers after his death. So what? Sometimes people see things.

  Paul: He appeared to 500 people at once. Five hundred people can’t just be “seeing things”.

  Luke: Is that right? Well, the disciples didn’t believe the women at first, either, but then they learned the truth. Don’t be like them.

  John: Actually, there was a disciple who doubted, too, but once he put his fingers in Jesus’ wounds, he believed. Don’t be like him. 

SQ: Now that Jesus is dead, you Christians are claiming that he taught stuff that no one has heard before.

  Mark: He taught the disciples secret knowledge. That’s why you haven’t heard this stuff before.

  John: Jesus told us disciples that he would send us messages in prayer, so some of this teaching is new to us, too. But it’s still Jesus saying it.

SQ: The disciples don’t have any authority. They’re just a bunch of guys that tagged along after Jesus.

  Mark, Matthew, Luke: Actually, Jesus hand-picked his disciples and even knew their names before talking to them. 

SQ: Jesus never said that the disciples had any of his authority or set any of them up as a leader.

  Matthew: During a private meeting, Jesus gave authority to Peter and to the disciples. 

  John: When he came back from the dead, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit over the disciples, giving them the authority to forgive sins, or not. And another time when he was back from the dead, he told Peter to feed his sheep, meaning lead the church.

SQ: Jesus never baptized anyone. Why are you Christians baptizing people? That was John the Baptist’s thing.

  Matthew: When Jesus came back from the dead, he told the disciples to baptize people.

  John: Jesus did too baptize people. In fact, his disciples led a bigger baptism campaign than John did. 

SQ: I get having a meal in Jesus’ honor, but where does all this sacrificial blood imagery come from? (A once-lost document called the Didache reveals an early Christian community with a memorial meal but without a blood covenant.)

  Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John: Jesus privately established a new covenant in his blood. 

SQ: When Jesus was alive and for the following 20 years, his sect was strictly Jewish. Now this guy Paul is founding gentile congregations, and gentiles no longer have to convert to Judaism to become Christian. That can't be right.

  Matthew: Once when Jesus appeared to the disciples after his death, he told them to make converts in all nations. The Jews used to be God’s Chosen, but now it’s the Christians. 

  Luke: Jesus said right from the start that he had come for all people, which is why his wicked Jewish neighbors tried to throw him off a cliff.

All these cover stories point back to a historical Jesus. Christopher Hitchens said that the amount of fabrication in the gospels is impressive evidence that the stories are based on a historical figure. (Here’s a link to the video.) If there hadn’t been a historical Jesus doing things like getting baptized, the reasoning goes, then there would be no need for these layers of justification. Mainstream historians reach much the same conclusion.