Carrier claims that "Luke shows no awareness of conflicting stories (like the nativity or empty tomb narratives of Matthew)" -- but what he has assumed, again, is that conflict exists in the first place. As we and others have shown, what exists is not properly labelled "conflict" but differences in point of view. Carrier's entire setup is a case of weak reeds leaning on weak reeds.

Ancient historians generally felt no obligation to reveal their sources. (Dudley [Dud.Tac, 28] writes in this regard: "...an ancient historian was under no obligation to give his sources in detail, nor even to mention them at all," and Grant [Gran.Tac, 20] adds that "systematic, careful references are a modern invention.")

Carrier further complains, It is also notable that all ancient historians, again unlike Luke, told us who they were, which alone tells the reader something of their qualifications. And in a few cases (as with Josephus and Appian, for example), ancient historians even listed their specific qualifications as an expert on the events they relate. But the footnote link gives no such examples (it links to a discussion about whether ancient writers signed their work, which has errors we addressed elsewhere); apparently Carrier wishes to imply that Luke was unknown to anyone.

Since many took it in hand to bring together a narrative of the events assured among us, according to what they handed down to us who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the story, it is also my pleasure to write to you, most excellent Theophilus, in an organized way, so you may assess the truth of the stories you were told about in person, since I have closely followed everything accurately from the start.

It is said that Luke "does not say he spoke with any eyewitnesses, or even knew them" and "does not say he did any kind of critical research, but quite the opposite." It might not occur to Carrier that at this time of writing, most or all possible eyewitnesses were dead (if Luke wrote around AD 65, this would indeed be the case); once again he faults Luke with the assumption that he did not do something he could have done. It is furthermore bare assumption that Luke's collection of data was not "critical" (and we still do not know what Carrier thinks it means to be "critical" beyond "you don't believe in miracles) and that what he collected required any critical analysis. Were there indeed any eyewitnesses for Luke to check with with respect to whether Jesus really told the Good Samartian parable? Not likely. For these events handing down is about all that is available (short of an aged apostle like Peter or John; and then Carrier would complain about them having dim memories or being too biased -- but what of that Mark had Peter as his source?). Carrier's objection is of no proven merit lacking as it does in its own critical evaluation. Let us add that if Luke consulted only those to whom it was "handed down" then why is this not critical, to compare that which was said to be "handed down" to group A in Rome, and that "handed down" to group B in Corinth, and that "handed down" to group C in Jerusalem? In another field, a process much like this is called textual criticism.

It is then said, Luke says he followed some unnamed and unidentified sources closely and accurately, in other words all but slavishly. There is no connotation here of exercising any sort of critical judgment in our sense, much less trying to reconstruct the true story himself by sifting and analyzing conflicting documents and accounts. Once again, the same bigoted assumption rears its ugly head: That conflict would have certainly been revealed had Luke done his homework! And thus Luke must have "slavishly" followed single sources, as opposed to checking multiple sources and, finding them essentially unified in testimony, gave credence to those of most antiquity and closest to eyewitness testimony (Mark via Peter; and in our view, the Aramaic Matthew). Never considered is that Luke's "unwavering commitment to a prior tradition" came as a direct result of prior critical scrutiny.

Therefore, all the elements that lead us to trust an ancient historian are missing from Tacitus. Therefore, Tacitus cannot be elevated to their level. He may well be an accurate historian. But that does not make him a critical historian. Only content like that of Suetonius above can identify a critical historian from a merely accurate one. Still, the quality of Tacitus as an historian need not be denied here--on matters that could be publicly checked, he may well have been impeccable. That does not mean his information on private matters transmitted solely by hearsay through an unknown number of intermediaries was as good, or that he did not import his own assumptions when describing details or crafting speeches. Yet all the evidence pertaining to the charcater of Agricoola was private, not public, and was the central focus of familial disputes--and therefore, of all things, the one detail most prone to distortion by importing the biased assumptions of the author.

It is telling that in the end, Carrier resorts to the same sorrowful tactic of poisoning the well with speculations and charges of bias ("dogmatism"), for it is a signal that the evidence as it stands is contrary to his own position.

Doing the Homework

We finally do get to my actual examples, and here Carrier yet again engages in special pleading, and vague professions of doubt, with no supporting argument. That public accuracy adds credibility to private accuracy is dismissed as a "non sequitur," though this is accomplished by arbitrarily using the categories of "public" and "private" and pretending (without explaining why) there is some difference between the two that affects reliability of reportage. A true non sequitur is Carrier's complaint that I don't have witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, this was never the point of my argument in the first place; the point is rather that (as even Skeptics say every five minutes), "If you can't trust them on some point, you have reason to suspect them on others." Logically the opposite must be true: Accuracy on some point does lend credibility on others. Presumably when Carrier needs a plumber, he is willing to check with, i.e., the Better Business Bureau to see if the plumber has a good record; he does not say that he needs more specific proof in his own home before making the hire. And this extends no matter what the nature of the claim: If one of his friends claims to have won a million smackers, I am sure, though this claim is outrageous, that Carrier will at once take into consideration how truthful his friend has been in the past. Other than this, I did not mention the resurrection, so this is Carrier's red herring, not mine. No one has ever argued that the resurrection was "public and checkable", and I did not either. Rather it is always argued as a matter of finding the best explanation, based on what evidence we have, and that is part of the real point of this section, not what Carrier claims it to be. Despite him, I make no "implication" that Acts 26:26 is "Paul is referring to the resurrection"; that is Carrier's inventiveness and desire to score cheap points at work. (Though I would say that Acts 26:26 embodies the resurrection, having to be among "these things" Paul talked about earlier in his speech, including 26:23, which specifically mentions the resurrection.) The further points that "we can't be sure Luke or his sources are giving us a totally honest or accurate account" are nothing but paranoia and again, arbitrary setting of the bar as high as possible to avoid a conclusion.

The next few lines are spent fishing for the same red herring Carrier threw into the pond, supposing that I did have the resurrection in mind here, when I did not. I would suggest that Johnny ask for a refund for this section; incompetence like this hardly deserves a reward.

A brief point on what Carrier says: Agrippa may have been joking when he said "you are quickly persuading me to become a Christian" (26:28), or more likely he never said it (it is the sort of thing historians of that day fabricated to make a good story), or most likely Agrippa thought what Paul had defended in the trial was Christianity--for there was no blasphemy in agreeing that "Moses and the Prophets predicted the suffering and resurrection of the messiah, and therefore repent." Witherington notes in his commentary on Acts [751] that the "rhetorical context suggests that what is meant is, 'With so few (or brief) arguments, do you persuade me...' " Carrier's suggestion of a jest is closest to this; and this is a proper response from Agrippa after Paul presents his narratio. I would also suggest that Agrippa remained in the "I don't care to check" portion of the population where Christianity was concerned -- and let it be added that I do not reject the existence of those who did check and were still not "convinced" because they preferred to make excuses (and they need not be "loony" or "stupid," just stubborn or indifferent). I am sure Carrier knows of such people today and insults them regularly (like those who deny the "irrefutable" proofs of evolution). Paul perhaps would have been of this category before conversion, though it is just as well to see him as one who had been indifferent and just assumed Christianity was false on its face. Where Carrier gets the idea that I endorse such a black and white view, I cannot fathom, though I suspect he finds it easier to burn the straw man and gut the red herring than to slay the dragon.

Carrier says absurdly, "At most, Festus could have inquired as to why Paul's unnamed companions fell, or indeed who they even were." Perhaps he could have; but since it is doubtful Festus as much as gave Paul serious consideration, the point is moot. Let it be stressed here that my thesis has been that 99%+ of all persons presented with the Christian message, simply rejected it out of hand without any further looking. It is absurd to demand that someone like Festus ask questions like this; no more would Carrier ask someone who claimed to have seen a Bigfoot such things, save perhaps in mockery or to shame them. Is Carrier going to tell us that he really would, as a Skeptic, ask to interrogate those who had seen (with the one he speaks to) a mouse pick up a battleship? No, he would not; and nor would the majority-typical Skeptic, either. The reaction would be rather that of "skepticbud" in my latest debate with him: "I wouldn't look into it, because anyone who claimed to have seen such a thing belongs in a psychiatric ward." And in this regard at least, someone like Festus would be no different. (Carrier briefly notes contradiction among the accounts of Paul's conversion; on that see here.)

And speaking of straw men, it is another to say that since Paul was convinced by "seeing God" this must be how all Christians were converted. I suppose Carrier would tolerate me insulting his integrity by pointing to those who converted to atheism because of a bad experience in church. In close for this portion, Carrier appeals yet again to the Objection Based on Refusal to Pursue to Paranoid Exhaustion, saying for example, "...when Pliny the Younger heard that Curtius Rufus had seen a vision of a goddess, he asks only whether it was an hallucination or a real encounter with the divine. The possibility that the story was made up never even enters his mind, nor does he engage any effort at all to check." Of course that Pliny DID do this, but just didn't see a need to report it, and refused to waste his and his readers' time explaining all of this, does not enter Carrier's snobby mind for even a moment. For the likes of Carrier, calling people names is really all that is necessary as a superior Skeptic.

Carrier repeats much of the same argumentation regarding Agrippa's death, but claims further that "how Herod Agrippa the Elder died was not so open to investigation." Here again Carrier is oblivious to the presence of the "gossip network" among oral socities -- information passed down from Herod's retainers, on to others, is more than sufficient; of couse we expect the usual retort of insults to the uncritical, but that is a matter not of ability to transmit in the first place. Nor is it the point that "worms" was just an inference; if it was an inference that was the "official" account, that is all my point really requires. Once again it is Carrier who releases the red herring into the ceremonial waters, not me.

It ought to be noted that while Carrier cites Josephus' mention of Agrippa I having stomach pains, there is more to Josephus' account than that -- which he dubiously neglects to mention. As our guest writer W. R. Miller noted in his essay on the Truthfulness of the Bible:

F.F. Bruce writes: “The sudden death of Herod Agrippa I, narrated by Luke in Acts 12:19-23, is recorded also by Josephus (Ant. xix. 8. 2) in a form agreeing with Luke’s general Outline, though the two accounts are quite independent of each other. This is the story as told by Josephus: [9]

“‘When Agrippa had reigned three full years over all Judaea, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower. There he exhibited shows in honour of Caesar, inaugurating this as a festival for the emperor’s welfare. And there came together to it a multitude of the provincial officials and of those who had been promoted to a distinguished position. On the second day of the shows he put on a robe all made of diver, of altogether wonderful weaving, and arrived in the theatre at break of day. Then the silver shone as the sun’s first rays fell upon it and glittered wonderfully, its resplendence inspiring a sort of fear and trembling in those who gazed upon it. Immediately his flatterers called out from various quarters, in words which in truth were not for his good, addressing him as a god, and invoking him with the cry, “Be propitious! if hitherto we have revered thee as a human being, yet henceforth we confess thee to be superior to mortal nature.”

“‘The king did not rebuke them, nor did he repudiate their impious flattery. But looking up soon afterwards he saw the owl sitting on a rope above his head, and immediately recognized it as a messenger of evil as it had formerly been a messenger of good,’ and a pang of grief pierced his heart. There came also a severe pain in his belly, beginning with a violent attack.... So he was carried quickly into the palace, and the news sped abroad among all that he would certainly die before long.... And when he had suffered continuously for five days from the pain in his belly, he departed this life in the fifty fourth year of his age and the seventh of his reign.’

“The parallels between the two accounts are obvious, as is also the absence of collusion between them. Luke describes the king’s sudden stroke by saying, in biblical language, that ‘the angel of the Lord smote him’; it is unnecessary to think that there is any significance in the fact that the Greek word for ‘angel’ in Luke’s account (angelos) is the same as the word for ‘messenger’ applied to the owl by Josephus, though some early Christian Fathers seem to have thought so. The Tyrians may well have taken advantage of this festival to be publicly reconciled to the king.

“In general, we may sum up the comparison of the two accounts in the words of an unbiased historian, Eduard Meyer: ‘In outline, in data, and in the general conception, both accounts are in full agreement. By its very interesting details, which are by no means to be explained as due to a “tendency” or a popular tradition, Luke’s account affords a guarantee that it is at least just as reliable as that of Josephus.” [10]

Therefore Carrier's claim that "how Herod Agrippa the Elder died was not so open to investigation" is bogus. Obviously this was not the case for Josephus, and it hardly need have been the case for Luke.

At the same time, Carrier's claim that "Agrippa did not convert" is unsubstantiable. We do not know whether he did, at least openly, or did not. What we do know is that he accepted Paul's testimony as true (or at least, could not deny it) and that he declared that Paul was not guilty of the charges alleged by the Jews: "This man is doing nothing deserving of death or chains." That said, Luke could have said Agrippa converted, but he didn't -- which is evidence that he did NOT fabricate his report, because he knew the consequences if he did! (See the "Moral Imperative" section in the Truthfulness essay linked above, plus the fact of potential retribution by the authorities.)

Beyond this Carrier simply denies, arbitrarily, that Acts circulated at this time, and refers readers to a date of 93 for the text, and our answers to his claims are found in the link above on Gospel dates and authorship (so much for that excuse that Acts would be "unsigned" -- it was part 2 of Luke's "signed" Gospel), as well as here. The "blind" one here is Carrier, who didn't "see" that I've already done this work elsewhere. As for further naivete, Carrier supposes that I need for Luke to make his claims in the presence of Herod's sons; once again, as though information stopped at Luke's lips or pen and did not circulate, and a network of communication didn't exist at all. Indeed, what better way to accrue honor and favor from Herod's son than to report to him a liar like Luke, who dishonored Agrippa (there's the reason for his sons to be incensed, incidentally, if it is false) by falsely reporting the reason and means of his death.

After more argument that assumes a late date for Acts (with bogus appeal to other truly late documents), and a repeat of the red herring on the resurrection not being proven by any of this, and yet more claims that those stupid people would gladly overlook "trivial" problems (as if dishonoring a sovereign would be thought "trivial" -- try it in Hussein's Iraq), we get to the not-unexpected suggestion that maybe Acts would be filled with "public facts that were demonstrably true" as a way of fooling the gullible into thinking the rest was true; in other words, Carrier again freely uses both sides of his mouth when arguing, so that no matter what way you argue, he has a ready speculation of conspiracy for why you're still going to be wrong.

An appeal further plays the "silence" card about, i.e., the quake not being in John; that we deal with here, and we again have the red herrings we have already gutted above. Needing correction is the claim that "Matthew never claims to be writing history anyway" though in fact he writes what is recognizable as an ancient biography, and thus implicitly "claims" to be writing what is true anyway. It again runs down to Carrier arguing that all or enough people concerned must have been stupid, forgetful, and/or gullible, because if that were not the case, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Let it speak for Carrier's desperation to date that he actually suggests that Luke could have implied that Jesus healed a man's ear in the Garden of Gethsemane, just to the effect of simply stopping the bleeding and pain -- as if Jesus walked around carrying bandages and pain relievers; and anyway, that would be an odd way of saying he healed an ear lying on the ground. More on silences and late dates, again answered by links prior, and more resurrection red herrings.

So dumb does Carrier believe all were, that he thinks it no problem to say:

An aspiring Christian could ask a hundred Diaspora Jews in a dozen different cities, but all these Jews could tell them is that they had not heard any such stories--and that would not prove such things didn't happen. That is a far cry from having "built in fact checkers."

Isn't it? I know that Carrier has lately fallen headfirst for the theories of Earl Doherty, perhaps not believing them fully but buying into his claims that a "significant silence" matters; perhaps he might have the imagination to suppose that the aspiring Christian (or I would say, the one aspiring to debunk the movement) would draw a conclusion from this significant silence? Or would they just be too dumb, unlike Carrier, to do so?

Apparently due to basic comprehension problems, Carrier gets the idea that I say that certain miracles "took place" before crowds of millions; I say no such thing, the point is rather that millions would be there to hear about and ask about what happened, from what number did see (not that each one of these would personally investigate). Carrier is thus causing his own confusion; and causes it further by thinking that when I speak of this as a "small" community I mean population (when I really mean, geographically -- the city of Jerusalem and environs, by square mileage). It is, fuethermore, that families and social groups would continue to pass down information that was relevant, even in the years that passed, so that it would not be, as Carrier claims, "impossible" to check up on things. To take the example of the midday darkness: Is there no way for someone to check into this in 90 AD? Hardly! The chain of orality would either continue to pass down the story of the odd darkness: For Christians, as a reminder of the Lord's death if it did happen; for non-Christians, as a way to suppress the social deviants that Christians were, if it did not happen. "Yes, my grandfather told of such things. He said that Christians fabricated that story of darkness; it was light all day." Let it be remembered that Matthew counters rumors of the theft of the body that persisted "to this day". This is a signal (verified by what we know of the handing down of traditions within ingroups in the ancient world) of the perpetuation of critical information -- with and without the help of living eyewitnesses. And would it be a "chore" to find such people, as Carrier alleges? Again, hardly! Those who are repositories of oral lore in a community are highly respected and recognized. It is like claiming it would be a "chore" to find the local tanner or butcher.

Sure, rumor and misinformation travel fast -- so would denial by the establishment, who would have their own ways to spread the word, particularly a loyal Temple staff. It is appropriate that this mass confusion closes this section by Carrier, within which the red herrings have swum by in a school that would inspire Nena to sing a new version of her balloon song. It remains the most important point that Carrier errs in thinking that desire to check things was limited to the elite and scholarly. Not so, for this was again a time when everyone minded everyone else's business, and talked about it -- and we will get to that more in Point 13. But the narrowness of Carrier's vision is seen in this statement:

That leaves only one more miracle on Holding's list: the torn veil (Mk. 15:38; Mt. 27:51; Lk. 23:45; John makes no mention of it). That is, again, of no relevance to whether Jesus rose. It was also highly symbolic, so a Christian need not have regarded it as history. But even if one did, it would be impossible to check. Only the high priest and another priest sitting the Office of the Veil attended that veil at any given time, which was replaced due to wear at least twice a year.Therefore, there could only have been at most two witnesses to the veil suddenly tearing in two at Passover, both of whom would have been long dead by the time the claim was circulated. Of course, had it actually happened, we might expect the whole priesthood to hear about it, and thence the rumor might spread and be passed down to subsequent generations. But a Christian could just as easily expect the two witnesses to cover it up, just as Matthew claims the Jews tried to cover up the resurrection of Jesus--which means even if a Christian found a living witness, he could dismiss their denial of this miracle as coming from yet another lying Jew.

The reader will notice how readily Carrier provides a stream of excuses to cover any eventuality, such that it may be wondered how he expects any such thing could actually have happened and be acceptably reported by a source. But to answer the matters in order. First, I never said it had an "relevance to whether Jesus rose"; that is again Carrier missing the point of my material. Second, what is "highly symbolic" about the record is not explained, nor what it allegedly symbolizes; if this is all there is to it, we may as well concede to the Roman Piso theory and turn Acts into a guidebook to Roman brothels. Third: It is telling that Carrier takes as valid traditions from the Mishnah, which far post-date the time of the Temple; yet he readily disposes of the Gospel records, which even by his account are much closer. But give him that tradition as accurate: Has he forgotten the rest of the story? Did those two priests simply wave their wands and make the torn veil disappear? What? It does not have to be taken out of the Holy of Holies? Does he think they hid it under their robes? It is said, "had it actually happened, we might expect the whole priesthood to hear about it, and thence the rumor might spread and be passed down to subsequent generations." And so that is what seems to have happened: "And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7) If there was indeed a coverup, Carrier must imagine it, since there is no evidence of such a thing, or of a Christian response. The data supports our view if it is left unmanipulated by rampant conspiracy-mongering of the sort Carrier provides.

Notes worth comment are as follows. In note 8, Carrier despairs that I "might resort to a known slander among Christian intellectuals today and claim that, then as now, all unbelievers (including Jews) are moral reprobates who willfully ignore evidence that they really know is sufficient, in order to avoid the 'moral' consequences of belief." Actually, since Skeptics say this themselves after their own fashion ("you refuse to accept evolution because you want the comfort of an afterlife"), Carrier can get his own house in order; I will say this after a manner of speaking, though within the premise that -- as Carrier can hardly deny -- there are people who refuse to be convinced even by overwhelming evidence, and there must be some reason for this, and a moral reason can hardly be denied as an option. I will however not speculate on "motives" for given individuals, unless it can be determined, as when some may admit openly the reason (as on ex-Christian.net, when in a survey some small number did admit that a desire to sin was behind their deconversion). Ironic enough that Carrier says that such "bigotry has no place in a serious historical inquiry" even as he repeatedly calls people gullible, stupid, and so on as the reason why they fell for Christianity. Apparently you can only be a bigot if you follow the right brand of bigotry.

In note 10 Carrier tries to pawn off the Gospels as mere kerygma, and despite referencing Talbert, whose work is a primary one showing that the Gospels fit the genre of biography, manages not to mention this conclusion at all and resorts to the diversion that since the Gospels never mention that they did things like check facts, they must have been stupid and not done it.

In note 21 Carrier makes issue of there being two versions of Acts. He makes the brazen claim that the existence of these two versions makes it "possible that some historical details (including precise terminology), as well as material of crucial dogmatic importance (e.g. data pertaining to the nature of Christ's resurrection), were added by someone other than the original author." Please note that this is nothing but conspiracy-mongering; textual criticism itself, done without conspiracy-mongering, offers no such conclusion. The "problems" this creates are of Carrier's own paranoid invention.

Carrier in this note also briefly makes light of issues of authorship of Acts, but clearly wishes to avoid detailed and critical analysis pf what alternatives there are to the meaning of the "we" passages. Theories such as Haenchen's "the 'we'...has been inserted in order to lend the narrative of the voyage the appearance of a fellow traveler's account" (as I know from my own critical comparison) are offered not based on evidence, but as a form of conspiracy-mongering, and the claim that it "ws in fact used here as a stylistic device" has been proven false -- as Carrier ought to know, since he does possess Witherington's Acts commentary, which offers up debunkings of these claims, but which he naturally withholds any comment about, per his usual tactic of remaining silent about critical information. That he goers as far as quoting Barrett's point that "Luke's use of technical vocabulary suggests, if anything, that he was not a doctor but a sailor," shows that he is lost: Luke hardly needed to be a sailor to occupy a space on a boat next to Paul!

In note 23 it is said, Paul says ei pathêtos ho Christos ei prôtos ex anastaseôs nekrôn phôs mellei kataggellein (26:23) in indirect discourse, as what Moses and the prophets "said" was "going to happen" (elalêsan mellontôn ginesthai, literally "they said was destined to happen," 26:22), i.e. "whether the Messiah was subject to suffering, whether first from a resurrection from the dead he was going to proclaim a light..." That Paul is deliberately shy about asserting anything beyond what scripture says is clear from the carefully chosen words here: the particle ei is "used...to express a wish...usually either in conditions, if, or in indirect questions, whether" (cf. ei) and mellei means "about to happen," "going to happen," "is intended to happen," or "is destined to happen," always looking forward to a future time, even if only the immediate future (cf. mellô). Thus, Paul expresses the resurrection of Christ to Agrippa as a wish for the future attested in scripture, not as an actual event of the recent past. Carrier deliberately divorces this part of 26:23 from the context of v. 22: Hving therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Carrier wishes to leave the implication that Paul knows of no historical resurrection; in fact, as the context of v. 22 makes clear, the "present" issue Paul refers to is his own proclamation activity. Paul is saying that the prophets figured these things to be about to happen, not that he himself figured it to be in the future!

In note 25 Carrier argues that the silence of later documents about Joseph of Arimathea being active somehow problematic, though why this is so is not explained. What does Carrier suppose Joseph did worthy of note? My argument would be that he would be available for checking in terms of whether Jesus was buried in his tomb (though not whether he was resurrected, which I have argued nowhere, other than by Carrier's own confusion as above); but in that regard, I would hold that this wasn't even a disputed issue, and thus Joseph did have literally nothing to do but sit on the sidelines and watch matters unfold.

The Shameless Mercenary

In case you're wondering....

Carrier's response to my 7th point had 18666 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 $1119.96 for his response to this section. More on why we make a note of this later.