Intolerable Canards

Oddly enough, Carrier begins this point by admitting that I am "basically correct," then referring people to a later point for more on why he thinks conversions happened. That said, he claims that "some tempering" is needed, and it takes a form I readily anticipated, that "large number" (how many?) Gentiles converted to intolerant Judaism; though how many of those adopted the "whole package" as opposed to selected elements that were favorable is open to question. Indeed, Carrier is obviously oblivious to the most recent scholarship which makes it clear that Jewish "monotheism" was in fact monolatry; for a pagan, a nominal conversion to Judaism could well mean demoting, not denying, the traditional gods, and thus Carrier's point is of considerably reduced force, for in this respect, Judaism could indeed be more "tolerant" than Christianity (or else, what the pagan converted to was not Judaism, or Christianity, at all, but some syncretized mutation of either). Furthermore, his comment that Gentiles off-put by Jewish demands would find Christianity more appealing, requires the thesis that there were a set of persons "waiting in the wings," as it were, deciding that they'd be glad to be Jews if it were not for the demands; but thereafter making no decision at all about Judaism, hovering in some sort of religious limbo. But if such people existed in this syncretistic world, their first and only needed inclination would be to adopt Jewish monotheism and "the heck with the rest of that". And thus they also had no reason to convert to Christianity, for they would already have their satisfaction. The group Carrier needs would simply not exist.

Carrier then retorts that "Christianity's largest gains in its first hundred years came from Jews and their sympathizers, hence the stigma of monotheism had already been overcome within their largest target audience before the Christians even came along." But I never made such a claim; I clearly indicated that intolerance from Jewish quarters came from a different quarter, and to this Carrier therefore has no answer, for he addresses the wrong argument, one not actually made. That said, the claim itself comes mainly from the seat of Carrier's pants; we have no numbers or data to speak of that verify this point, anywhere. Indeed, I do not even mention monotheism as an issue in this point; Carrier, contrarily, goes on and on about it as though it were my point. It isn't. My point is that Christianity allowed for no syncretism, period. Not just in the number or rank of gods, but in the very seat of its doctrines about salvation, eschatology, and the identity of Jesus.

Then again Carrier repeats his same canard from Points 1, 2, etc. about how subversion was actually an asset for Christianity; this despite Wilken's expert testimony suggesting that it was not and could not be: It is enough, Carrier thinks, to invent wholesale groups of people he needs to suit his thesis. Of this no more need be said; it has already been exposed as ad hoc and against the evidence of this sort of society.

God Bless You!

Curious in what follows is Carrier's argument that Christianity proved superior to paganism in terms of "divine responsiveness." The curiosity is that Carrier, as a Skeptic, certainly does not believe that YHWH was any more responsive to prayer than Zeus, since neither existed; and thus Carrier yet again speaks from both sides of his mouth with a forked tongue. Christianity was no different in this regard: "Be loyal to YHWH and his broker Jesus, and he will answer your prayers." Though as we have noted, the effects of this promise should not be exaggerated -- indeed, by this account, Christianity could be regarded as less responsive, inasmuch as it required much greater holiness for a "positive" response to prayer -- it is nevertheless clear that as a whole, for Christians God was still expected to be remote. And there is no resolution to the point, in Christianity, that God could be "perceived as capricious and unfair" -- may I recommend that Carrier take a close look at the book of Job! And thus Carrier's entire diatribe that sounds like a critique of a Benny Hinn crusade sinks into obscurity. There would be no need to "explain" failure because the expectations were not as high as Carrier supposes to begin with. And the further attempt to confuse the issue, by noting that "the Christian system had actual human mechanisms for effecting and distributing benefits fairly," (which has not a thing to do with tolerance, or with answer to prayer, and in any event still imitates the community held among social ingroups of the period), is not an answer.

Carrier is apparently oblivious as well to the point that Christianity expressed itself in terms of the same system of patronage that he alleges his undocumented, unsubstantiated, justice-starved pagans found so unjust. Paul calls himself a slave of Christ; clearly the hierarchy that Carrier thinks these unnamed multitudes were so unhappy with, was just as much replicated within the Christian system. To throw his own words back at him, in a spin as topsy-turvy as his own: A large element of Christian religion was communal and served the explicit aim of supporting the power structure -- meaning here, church officials, apostles, and missionaries. To participate in the Christian cult was often to engage your devoted effort toward winning YHWH's favor for those in power -- pray for your leaders and submit to them (Rom. 13!). The idea was that as long as YHWH granted good fortune to your apostles, your wealthy church members, and your teachers, as well as those in power, your community would benefit, enjoying peace, justice, and prosperity. So by Carrier's own fractured and inventive scenario, Christianity was no more "cutting it," would make just as many "frustrated," and had more promise to do so than anyone else.

Of course Carrier will say that the difference was that Christianity didn't become exploitative like the pagans did (and will at the same time deny that this has anything to do with that it was this way because of the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, giving people impetus to serve sincerely), but during the critical early period, Christianity had no record of non-exploitative behavior to go on, and so the foundation Carrier thinks there was for conversion had so much as yet to be built. Beyond this he is quite imaginative to say that Christianity "explained" exploitation by saying that "the powers-that-be were unknowingly enjoying the benefits of demonic forces." I know of no NT text that offers such a wholesale explanation, much less one that connects it to everyday exploitation of the poor and oppressed. Without knowing what text he does mean, further comment is impossible, but it is certainly imaginative to suppose that the NT teaches that demonic forces compelled the wealthy to draw tight their purse strings, if that is indeed the point. And it is sheer ignorance to say that Christianity was needed to say, "if those in power acted like these Christians, we would be a lot better off." On the contrary: All that had to be said was, "if those in power acted more like honorable patrons, we would be a lot better off." Honor strictures already in place would solve such a problem without Christianity being in the picture.

Update 5/05: Carrier, as noted, was not clear on what the exact outworkings of this claim were, so it is no surprise now that he is "not sure what [Holding] means to challenge" (even though I gave specific examples of what I wanted to know). He asks, am I "denying the Christians preached that all pagans worshipped demons?" No. Am I "denying the Christians expressed disgust with the moral failures of their society?" No, again. "So [Holding] must be denying that the Christians blamed social evils on the deceptive influence of demons." No, not that either, sorry, Charlie, though I am asking to what extent Carrier thinks that they believed demons exercised this influence. Was it to the level where they were whispering in the ear of the rich, "Don't give that beggar any money"? Did they smack Nero every time he thought to give to build an aqueduct for a thirsty village? Carrier is no more forthcoming here than Calvinists, never answering my questions with anything more the NT texts which are also not specific. Nor do they blame demons every time they turn around; passage like 1 Tim. 6:10 say, "for the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil," not, "for demons are always making you love money." Certainly Carrier would not be so foolish (or maybe he would) to deny a real belief in the NT in evil of strictly human origin. But who can tell, as he still doesn't provide any real answer.

Even more ironically, Carrier refutes himself aptly with a point that "the blessings of the gods was supposed to be evident in a blessed leadership" -- yet Jesus, the very leader of the movement, was "blessed" with the shameful death of crucifixion, and by a life that ended in a humiliating status degradation ritual! He was also poor, dependent on the largesse of others for sustenance (and women at that -- Luke 8:2-3); and was born into a despised race. How does Carrier suppose (without the proof of the resurrection) any potential convert would see Jesus as "blessed"?

Aloof Goof

Carrier finally becomes even more confused, declaring in error my note that "Jews and Christians held themselves aloof from public life" by pointing out that "Christians actively engaged the public and were conspicuous in being open to all comers, much more than the Jews." Carrier is once again addressing the wrong point. I do not speak of dining with Gentiles as Paul did (though note that there were all Christian converts, not pagans!), nor of mixed marriages (which would occur AFTER one spouse converted, and would also therefore be of no relevance). I speak rather of, for example, Christian aloofness from the public festivals to the gods that were considered essential to the survival of the Empire. Whether Carrier wants to believe so or not, this would do nothing to win over and everything to offend pagan neighbors -- and his appeals to mixed marriages and dining are thorough irrelevancies in context, as these were strictly "internal" affairs.

Finally Carrier argues that there would be an easy trade-off for widows, slaves and "migrants" without family connections, and that these three groups "comprised a major portion of Christianity's early success." He has, in fact, no evidence -- either from the NT or elsewhere -- that this is the case; there is not a shred of evidence that any or all of these groups were a "major portion" of the Church, and Carrier can not and will not back up such a wild assertion with evidence. I do, however, remind readers of the quote of Judge, which Carrier (we will see) did avoid dealing with:

...the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of big cities. Beyond that they seem to have drawn on a broad constituency, probably representing the household dependents of leading members.

Final points worth note about Carrier's footnotes. In note 5 it is said that "Christians exploited statements by Jesus that lent comfort and rationale to converts who had to give up their family to be saved." Carrier is misguided here; none of the citations he offers says any such thing as that one must give up family to be saved. Matthew 10:"32-39 predicts family reactions to conversion, but does not make abandonment of family a soteriological issue. Matthew 12:47-50 also makes no such statement; Carrier is "mirror reading" the account of what happened to Jesus with his family and arbitrarily deciding that it reflected some purpose in terms of believer comfort. That is cheap psychology, and eisegesis. Matthew 19:29 comes closest to what Carrier says, though it deals in rewards, not salvation. (The passages cited in Mark and Luke are parallels.) That said, Carrier puts the cart before the horse yet again, as he claims that "Christians were appealing to people in this very predicament" oblivious to the point that the matter is that it was Christianity that put people in the "predicament" in the first place!

In note 6 it is said that "Jews and Christians alike were accused of atheism," and Carrier mutters, "I am not aware of any evidence of that, despite having searched hard to find some" and then, from the other side of his mouth, admits that he does know of such things from Christian sources. In other words, Carrier tries to have it both ways by intimating that Christian writers simply lied or were ignorant about the insults being thrown at them. Since otherwise reputable scholarly sources seem to have no problem doubting Christian reports on this account (see Catholic Encyclopedia entry here), and not even some of Carrier's fellow Skeptics have a problem with it (see here as well as here, with the very position applied to Robin Lane Fox), let Carrier's obnoxious insults to both ancient Christians and modern scholarship speak for themselves. (Note as well the parallel reported by Glenn Miller here, using the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philiosophy: In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods.

The Shameless Mercenary

In case you're wondering....

Carrier's response to my sixth point had 2264 words. From his rate sheet here we find that he charges "6 cents per word written" for this type of work. Assuming that Johnny didn't ask for a rush job, that means that Richie was paid $135.84 for his response to this section. More on why we make a note of this later.