Richard Carrier on the attack

Atheist scholar Richard Carrier (whom we met before - see my review of J. W. Loftus' "The End of Christianity") is unleashed all by himself in this book, "Not the Impossible Faith", a somewhat weird work which looks like a cross between a scholarly tome and a self-published freak work. This attack dog of atheism is out to get one J.P. Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkel), who is otherwise quite unknown (and self-published).

I don't deny that Carrier's book is extremely interesting, and it's a real pity that it's written in the form of an extended response to a single web apologist. This gives the book the previously mentioned "self-published" air, especially since Carrier admits that he got thousands of dollars from a pseudonymous donor to write it (a certain Johnny Skeptic). Also, a previous version of the work has already appeared on Carrier's website. The reason why Carrier nevertheless singles out J.P. Holding for special attention, is that many ex-Christians have told Carrier that they converted to some extent because of Holding's arguments, and later felt cheated and disillusioned.

I never read Holding's books, but judging by Carrier's critique, his main argument is an over-exaggerated version of the common apologetic claim that Christianity is unique. Usually, the argument goes something like this: "The idea of a crucified God-man being physically resurrected was absurd to both Jews and pagans. Yet, the tradition that the crucified Jesus was a resurrected God-man formed very early after the purported events. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that the events recorded in the Gospels really happened. Nobody would willingly make up such absurd notions and start a brand new religion based on them." Holding seems to take this one step further, arguing that the resurrection of Jesus was seen as so bizarre, that everyone who converted surely had access to "irrefutable evidence" proving the resurrection to be true. As I said, I never read Holding's works, but if *this* is his argument, it's remarkably silly, since by "irrefutable evidence" Holding seems to mean something like being shown an empty grave, cross-examining the eye-witnesses, talking to (hostile?) people who were in Jerusalem at the time, etc. However, even the New Testament confirms that Paul didn't convert in this manner - he converted after a supernatural vision, and met Jesus' disciples only later. (Ironically, some Christian apologists use *this* as an argument for the supernatural character of Christianity - what else than a true miracle can account for the conversion of a persecutor like Paul?)

Carrier responds to Holding point by point, and his main thesis is that Christianity wasn't "unique" in the sense postulated by Holding. Nor, incidentally, was it unique in the manner often held by standard apologists. Who would want to believe in a crucified god? Carrier believes that the Sumerian goddess Innana was humiliated and crucified, but then miraculously brought back to life. He also sees similarities between the Gospel stories and the legend of Isis and Osiris. More provocatively, Carrier also points to Isaiah as evidence that some Jews expected the Messiah to suffer. Who would want to believe in a god from the rural backwater of Galilee? Carrier points out that Galilee wasn't universally despised. There was a faction of Pharisees based in Galilee, some Messianic prophecies mention Galilee, and Josephus - who was governor of Galilee for a period - never seems to think this would look bad in his CV. Galilee was given preferential treatment by some Jewish and pagan rulers. Carrier believes that Nazareth wasn't a rural backwater, but a prosperous (though small) town. Ironically, Carrier actually agrees with some Christian apologists, who argue that Nazareth was rich enough to have a synagogue (the one mentioned in the Gospels).

The most important part of "Not the impossible faith" deals with the incarnation and the resurrection. Carrier argues that neither would strike Jews or pagans as bizarre (or rather that some Jews or pagans wouldn't be struck in this manner). The pagans certainly believed that gods could take the form of men. According to Acts, Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for gods by a pagan crowd in Lystra. Some pagans believed in a physical resurrection - the very idea comes from the "pagan" Zoroastrians in Persia (who were also a kind of monotheists). Pagans who didn't believe in a literal resurrection in the Jewish or Zoroastrian sense, still believed that sorcerers or miracle-workers could restore dead people to life. While this isn't identical to the Christian claims about Jesus, it is sufficiently close for pagans to at least pay attention. Pagans also believed in a kind of "heavenly bodies", perhaps similar to those mentioned by Paul in his epistles. As for the Jews, Carrier once again provocatively uses the Bible to show that at least some Jews believed that the Messiah would be resurrected before everyone else: according to the Gospels, some people mistook Jesus for John the Baptist, assuming that God had resurrected the latter. (Personally, I would add that the early Christians expected the speedy return of Jesus, so the fact that he was resurrected before everyone else didn't necessarily pose a problem until a few generations later.) Carrier also points out that while Jews didn't believe in the Trinity, neither did the Christians during the earliest period. Conversely, some Jews believed that the Spirit of God would somehow incarnate in the Messiah. Carrier also points out the frequently overlooked fact that "Judaism" wasn't a homogenous or monolithic religion during the first half of the first century AD. Many Christian ideas which look unique or absurd from a post-Temple/Rabbinic/Talmudic perspective might have been just another version of Judaism during the Second Temple period.

In another important section, the author discusses why Jews or pagans converted to Christianity. Was it because the apostles had "irrefutable evidence" of the resurrection? Carrier thinks the reasons were very different. The strong community feeling of the early Christian congregations, the large number of (purported) miracles made by the apostles, and the lower-to-middle class appeal of the new religion would have been important reasons. Also, the Christians initially targeted the God-Fearers (righteous Gentiles) for conversion. Since these were already sympathetic to Judaism, a new form of Judaism which was easier to join would have suited them perfectly. The Christians also made frequent appeals to "the scriptures", attempting to prove their stories about Jesus by pointing to various prophecies in the *Old* Testament (the New Testament didn't yet exist!). Since the Jewish Bible was widely admired due to its old age, this kind of argument from authority would have worked with some Jews, God-Fearers and pagans. Even in Acts, people aren't convinced by empirical investigations of some empty grave or interviews with Joseph of Arimathea. They either trust the testimony of the apostles, check out the scriptures, or get supernatural visitations of various sorts.

I haven't "cross-examined" every one of Carrier's claims, but I strongly suspect that the author will turn out to be right on most of his claims. While Christianity may have been "unique" in some sense of that term, it did emerge in a religious milieu in which many of its ideas would be seen as another version of ideas already popular, albeit a very peculiar version. My favourite example is Justin Martyr, who was impressed by the similarity between the passion narrative and Plato's idea about the righteous man being hung on a pole, and the Son of God laying stretched out, cross-wise, across the universe. (I don't remember Carrier mentioning this detail, though.)

The main weakness of the book is that it never explains the empty tomb. Of course, this was never Carrier's intention. "Not the impossible faith" deals with the claim that the success and spread of Christianity was somehow a miracle. Apparently, he has written extensively on the empty tomb on his website and in another book, dutifully titled "The Empty Tomb". The reason why the tomb question is important, is that the conviction of the original disciples (and purported eye-witnesses) has to be explained somehow. Those who heard Peter speak might have been convinced by a vision á la Cornelius, but where did Peter's own convictions about the resurrection come from? Carrier at least hints at three possible (atheist) answers: the Christians were being somewhat liberal with the truth, Jesus never existed and the empty tomb is therefore an allegory, or the Christians didn't believe in a physical resurrection in the first place. The latter scenario seems to be the author's favoured one: if the Christian conception of the resurrection was "spiritual" rather than physical, the question of an empty tomb would never arise. The tomb *wouldn't be* empty. Yet, Jesus would have arisen anyway, presumably with a spirit-body of some sort. Of course, apparitions of the dead could be given a naturalist explanation (hallucinations, etc).

How will Christians react to "Not the impossible faith"? As usual in American works, the book is really a polemic against evangelicalism. Presumably, evangelicals would be scandalized by a crucified goddess. Other kinds of Christians might not. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. He would probably be impressed by the myriad parallels between Christianity, Judaism and paganism unearthed by Carrier, and buy him a pint of beer! Many Catholics, Orthodox and Pentecostals would probably see the combination of miracles, visions, scriptural verses and Peter's personal testimony as sufficient proof for the resurrection (or perhaps even better proof than a forensic investigation á la CSI). They would wonder what more evidence Mr. Carrier would possibly want? DNA from the scene of the crime?

However, as John W. Loftus pointed out in a little polemic against me this Christmas, it's virtually impossible to cover all 1000+ versions of Christianity in one single volume. ;-)

All Christians, non-Christians and seekers should read this book, or at least come to terms with the kind of arguments it presents. Even apart from the fact, that Richard Carrier's book is something of a guilty pleasure...