Since doing more research I have returned to Richard Carrier’s ‘Not the Impossible Faith,’ to begin a much more in-depth look at his argument. What I found has startled me even more than I previous thought or suspected.
In Carrier’s first paragraph and indeed his initial point; he suggests that J.P. Holding’s question, ‘Who on earth would believe a religion centred on a crucified man?’ can be answered simply by looking and the so-called Babylonian Queen God, Inanna. Who, according to Carrier, was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover.[1]
Whilst this sounds strong and powerful a quick reference check to Carrier’s sources demonstrates that Carrier is not getting the information from a primary source, at all. Rather a work about histories first events? This should immediately raise some suspicion. What’s more when I looked at the The Sumerian "Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld" or the Akkadian parallel "Ishtar's Descent." I found Carriers little summary to be completely false. Here is a summary of the Descent of Inanna myth from the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Mircea Eliade: cited by Phil Vaz [2]
"Inanna, the queen of heaven, sought to extend her power over the underworld, ruled by her sister, Ereshkigal. As in the Akkadian text, Inanna descends through seven gates, at each removing an article of clothing or royal regalia until, after passing through the seventh gate, she is naked and powerless. She is killed and her corpse hung on a hook. Through a strategem planned before her descent, she is revived, but she may not return above unless she can find a substitute to take her place. She re-ascends, accompanied by a force of demons who will return her to the land of the dead if she fails. After allowing two possible candidates to escape, she comes to Erech, where Dumuzi, the shepherd king who is her consort, appears to be rejoicing over her fate. She sets the demons on him, and after he escapes several times, he is captured, killed, and carried off to the underworld to replace Inanna." ("Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, page 525-6, emphasis mine).
As Phil Vaz points out with his bold emphasis Carrier has got the story completely wrong. Inanna is not stripped naked and crucified, rather she descended to the underworld slowly removing her clothing piece by piece and at which point she was killed! Carrier even acknowledges that Holding knows that Inanna was not crucified and simply restates his point, ‘Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being stripped naked, killed, and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer.[3]
What should be made of Carrier’s first rebuttal against Holding? Was he aware of his sources but chose to ignore them or was he unaware and choose not to follow through on Holding’s original protest?
Carrier then moves onto a direct discussion the cult of Attis in support of people following a disgraced king, a eunuch in this case, but we can leave this aside as shown Carrier original point has not refuted Holdings.
Page 24 marks a continuation of the disgraced King worship in which Carreir argues that. ‘the early Christian appear to have come from disgruntled poor or middle class, who had grown disgusted with the fundamental injustices in their society and government.’ Carrier cites the desire of the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts to support this point. Interestingly enough however, Paul himself did not fit this mould. Him being a upper class Jew with impeccable credentials and at the fore front of justice to his people with specific reference to Christians. Furthermore Luke, the physician, a doctor clearly not poor and upper middle class at worst does not fit this model either. How can one argue possible desires trump actual accounts? Again what are we to make of Carrier’s point here? Its as if some major details escape his methodology?
Whilst I must admit here that Carrier does make some accurate claims that Christianity did find strength in the poor and oppressed and Holding does have some oversimplifications to address, clearly it cannot be as Carrier attempts to suggests the case is. To illustrate this point completely on page 34 Carrier argues that many people expected a humiliated Savior.[4] Carrier feels confident to make this point because the scripture, the Old Testament, says plainly that. This point Carrier thinks is a reasonable claim to assume that at best, ‘ a large number of people had been prepared by Jewish scriptures to expect that someone would suffer a most humiliation execution at the hands of the wicked elite, despite his complete innocence and that this person would be the Chosen One of God, a Son of God.[5]
Not only is this the only piece of evidence that Carrier gives to state his point but he fails to consider a whole range of counter evidence against this possibility. Firstly, for Carrier point to hold water he must show that these texts he refers to was in line with what was actually taught in the first century Jewish synagogue, something a trained historian should be able to accomplish. Secondly, if Carrier cannot present data to confirm this then he must show teaching in line with that text as presenting texts as evidence is nothing to show adherence for an illiterate culture. Thirdly, Carrier must give evidence as to why ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M.A.Oxon., D.D. Ph.D. who wrote, ‘THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH,’ is wrong when he argues…
It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, to regard the difference between Judaism and Christianity as confined to the question of the fulfillment of certain prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. These predictions could only outline individual features in the Person and history of the Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recognised, but rather by the combination of the various features into a unity, and by the expression which gives it meaning. So far as we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to the fulfillment of individual prophecies in Jesus. But the general conception which the Rabbis had formed of the Messiah, differed totally from what was presented by the Prophet of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamental divergence between the two may be said to have existed long before the events which finally divided them. It is the combination of letters which constitute words, and the same letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both Rabbinism and - what, by anticipation, we designate - Christianity might regard the same predictions as Messianic, and look for their fulfillment; while at the same time the Messianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite other than that, to which the faith and hope of the Church have clung.
Carrier continually makes points of showing Holdings research to be faulty and disingenuous however I cannot see Carrier performing any better myself. This chapter is not a careful rebuttal of Holding; it is a one sided, ill thought out rhetorical snap at Holding points and casts long shadows over the rest of this work and the money paid to produce it.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment