Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Threads in this series

Thread titleLink
1Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 1 of 17: Sections 1 thru 3, What I liked and didn't likeviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10555
2Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 2 of 17: Section 4.1 Epiphanius's Nazoriansviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10557
3Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 17: Section 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixionviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10562
4Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 17: Section 4.3 Plutarch's Osirisviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10565
4Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theoryviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10669
5Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 17: Section 5 Carrier's Rank-Raglan Ref setviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10603
6Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 7 of 17: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCEviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10568
7Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 8 of 17: Section 6.2 1 Clement
8Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 9 of 17: Section 6.3 Ignatius
9Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 10 of 17: Section 6.4 Hegesippus
10Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 11 of 17: Section 7.1 Acts Vanishing family
10Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 12 of 17: Section 7.2 Acts Paul's trials
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 13 of 17: Section 8.1 Epistles non-Paul
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 14 of 17: Section 8.2 Epistles Gospels in Paul etc
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 15 of 17: Section 8.3 Epistles Things Jesus did
12Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 16 of 17: Section 9 Miscellaneous
12Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 17 of 17: Section 10 Conclusion

I've reordered my list of review items and added a few more. I wasn't planning on including the Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory but since I've seen it popping up on some anti-apologetics websites I thought I'd add it in.

Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

"Apologetics" is defined as the "systematic argumentative discours in defense of a doctrine, usually religious". There is good apologetics, and there is bad apologetics. Good apologetics is a defence that is grounded in principles that have already been established. Bad apologetics is a defence that uses an adhoc principle and usually a belief that "God can do anything". Good apologetics is rare, bad apologetics can be found anywhere.

An example of bad apologetics is trying to explain the implications of Joseph being called "son of David" in the Gospels (Matt 1:20). In the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, genealogies show how the line of generations went from Abraham (Matthew) or Adam (Luke), through to David and then generation by generation onto Joseph. Matthew lists Joseph's father Jacob. Luke lists Joseph's father as Heli. Both Gospels trace the descent from David through to Joseph. And Jesus, son of Joseph, is naturally also a descendant of David... and then someone decides to create a Virgin Birth doctrine! The genealogies in Matthew and Luke became irrelevant. Why trace the generations from David to Joseph to show that Joseph was the descendant of David, if Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father?

Obviously the best explanation is that there was an earlier layer to the Gospels where Jesus was regarded as the natural son of Joseph. We know from Justin Martyr that there were early Christians who believed that Jesus was natural product of a man and a woman, beliefs that are reflected in the early heretical groups like the Ebionites. Apologists provide a selection of solutions, so that if one doesn't work they can jump to another. That's bad apologetics. But the most obvious answer is the least acceptable to the orthodox since it runs against their orthodox narrative.

Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory is bad apologetics. I'm not surprised that Carrier uses bad apologetics given his poor reading of sources and his poor arguments. But I am surprised that there are bloggers online and on Youtube who are correctly critical of bad Christian apologetics but then interview Carrier and give his Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory a free pass. Carrier uses so many bad arguments in presenting his Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory that I'm surprised that there is little to no pushback from bloggers.

Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory is his controversial idea that God took sperm from David and used it to build a body for Jesus. Thus, when Romans 1:3-4 describes Jesus as "seed of David according to the flesh", Carrier proposes Paul means that God took sperm directly from David and later built a human body for the celestial Christ. Carrier explains that mythicism itself doesn't stand or fall on the Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory, since, as I show below, he has an alternate solution that he can jump to: "seed of David according to the flesh" as allegory.

Arguing a fortiori in favour of historicity, Carrier gives odds of 2/1 as best odds for historicity for "born of a woman" and "seed of David". But his own judgement is that minimal mythicism entails that God using the sperm of David to create a body of flesh for Jesus is close to 100% probability:

The notion of a cosmic sperm bank is so easily read out of this scripture, and is all but required by the outcome of subsequent history, that it is not an improbable assumption. And since scripture required the messiah to be Davidic, anyone who started with the cosmic doctrine inherent in minimal mythicism would have had to imagine something of this kind. (page 577)

Minimal mythicism practically entails that the celestial Christ would be understood to have been formed from the 'sperm of David', even literally (God having saved some for the purpose, then using it as the seed from which he formed Jesus' body of flesh, just as he had done Adam's). I do not deem this to be absolutely certain. Yet I could have deduced it even without knowing any Christian literature, simply by combining minimal mythicism with a reading of the scriptures and the established background facts of previous history. And that I could do that entails it has a very high probability on minimal mythicism. It is very much expected. So my personal judgment is that its probability is as near to 100% as makes all odds. (page 581)

Carrier uses three passages to build his argument:
  1. 2 Samual 7:12-14 God's promise to use David's seed
  2. Romans 1:3-4 "Seed of David according to the flesh"
  3. Gal 4:4 "Made of a woman"
I'll look at Carrier's arguments for each of these passages. But first let's note that, outside of some Youtube bloggers, there is very little online support for Carrier's view, even amongst those critical of the idea that there was a historical Jesus. Dr Robert M Price describes Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory as "crazy talk". In an interview with Edouard Tahmizian on the Freethinker Podcast on Youtube in Oct 2022, he and Tahmizian express their skepticism of the idea.

From Freethinker Podcast "Legendary Interview With Edouard Tahmizian & Dr. Robert M. Price (4th Interview)!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj4ar3-iws

54:10 [Dr Robert M Price:] "That's crazy talk. There's a Heavenly sperm bank and David was a donor? What on Earth??? But he's got to get out of Romans 1:3-4, because he holds the pre-critical view that all the Epistles are written by Paul, at least the big seven. Or this thing that the Ascension of Isaiah speaks of a Celestial crucifixion of Jesus - I have looked through that again and again, he must have a different translation than I do. I don't know where he finds that. I mean, he's a brilliant guy but I just... these are serious errors in my opinion"

Later:

55:25 [Edouard Tahmizian] "Dennis R McDonnell brought up a good point: "It's not that Paul couldn't have meant what you said about the cosmic sperm bank and all that, and then you know, getting the astral Jesus a physical nature" -- it's not that Paul couldn't have meant that, but the thing is, how do you think Paul would think that the the readers of his work would have interpreted his references? That's where the killer is. Because no one's going to know -- First Century Jews or even the Gentiles -- is going to be reading that letter of Paul and think what Carrier's saying: "Oh it means a cosmic sperm bank" stuff. They're going to think he came from, like, an actual physical descendant of David"

Tahmizian's point is a good one, and one I will return to. If Carrier himself doesn't know whether Roms 1:3-4 is literal (via a Cosmic Sperm Bank) or allegorical (via Gal 4), how would Paul's readers know?

First, let's look at 2 Samuel's prophecy about the seed of David:

1. 2 Samuel 7:12-14:

When your days are done, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build for me a house in my name. and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son

2 Samuel 7:12-14 is clearly referring to David's son Solomon. Solomon built the First Temple, "a house in God's name". Obviously the sperm is being passed on from David in the 'traditional' way. There is no collecting of sperm and storing it somewhere. Curiously Carrier never informs his readers in OHJ that 2 Sam 7 is talking about Solomon, nor that "I will raise up your sperm after you, which shall come from your belly" in context refers to David having sex with a woman who gives birth to Solomon.

To be clear: no-one outside Carrier has proposed that 2 Sam 7 can be read that way. There is no indication that Paul used 2 Sam 7 at all in developing his theology. There is no evidence that anyone else in ancient times viewed 2 Sam 7 this way. Yet in an amazing feat of mind-reading, Carrier has reached back 2000 years and determined that Paul not only used the passage but viewed it exactly as Carrier requires him to have read it. This is bad apologetics.

Carrier continues:

If this passage were read like a pesher (Element 8), one could easily con­clude that God was saying he extracted semen from David and held it in reserve until the time he would make good this promise of David's prog­eny sitting on an eternal throne. For otherwise God's promise was broken : the throne of David's progeny was not eternal (Element 23). Moreover, the original poetic intent was certainly to speak of an unending royal line (and not just biologically, but politically: it is the throne that would be eternal, yet history proves it was not); yet God can be read to say here that he would raise up a single son for David who will rule eternally, rather than a royal line, and that 'his' will be the kingdom God establishes, and 'he' will build God's house (the Christian church: Element 18), and thus he will be the one to sit upon a throne forever-and this man will be the Son of God. In other words, Jesus Christ (the same kind of inference Paul makes in Gal. 3.1 3-4.29, where he infers Jesus is also the 'seed of Abraham' also spoken of in scripture). (page 576)

And yet the rulers descended from David failed after generations, and Jews give various reasons why. This raises the question: descendants of David ruled for hundreds of years, but what happened after that stopped? How likely would it be that someone in the First Century CE would have known whether they were a descendent of David? Might a jump from David directly to Jesus via a Cosmic Sperm Bank be more 'plausible'?

However, it does seem that Jews kept track of their genealogies (though how accurate these were is a different question). Simeon ben Gamliel, a Jewish leader who died around 70 CE, was considered a descendent of David. From Wiki:

Simeon ben Gamliel... (c. 10 BCE – 70 CE) was a Tanna sage and leader of the Jewish people. He served as nasi of the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem during the outbreak of the First Jewish–Roman War, succeeding his father in the same office after his father's death in 52 CE and just before the destruction of the Second Temple.

The great-grandson of Hillel the Elder, he was considered to be a direct descendant of King David.

He is one of the Ten Martyrs mentioned in Jewish liturgy. According to the Iggeret of Rabbi Sherira Gaon he was beheaded, along with Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, prior to the Temple's destruction...

Another example: Hegesippus relates a fanciful story about the grandchildren of Jude, "brother of Jesus according to the flesh", who appeared before the Emperor Domitian around 90 CE. Domitian asked them if they were descendants of David, and they said 'yes'. Not via a Cosmic Sperm Bank presumably, since they were descendants of Jude, brother of Jesus according to the flesh, and not descendants of Jesus himself; but through natural means.

So the claim to be a descendant of someone who lived hundreds of years earlier wasn't unusual, and these were represented using the terms "son of" and "seed of". Both Joseph and Jesus are called "son of David" in the Gospels. Jesus was called "seed of David" (Jhn 7:42) and the Jews called themselves "seed of Abraham" (Jhn 8:33)

As Carrier notes, God was believed to have been able to do anything, and so that might have included maintaining a cosmic sperm bank:

It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank. After all, God's power was absolute; and all sorts of things could be stored up in heaven (Element 38), even our own future bodies (2 Cor. 5.1-5). Later Jewish legend imagined demons running their own cosmic sperm bank, even stealing David's sperm for it, to beget his enemies with. So surely God could be imagined doing the same.

Those later Jewish legends, if relevant at all, are from about 1000 years later. Yet a Cosmic Sperm Bank would have been very useful to early 'historicist' Christian apologists to resolve issues around both Joseph and Jesus being "sons of David" without them being related:
  1. The Cosmic Sperm Bank would have been a useful concept for early Christians. Think of the long genealogies in Luke and Matthew which I discussed earlier, tracing Jesus via Joseph, generation by generation, from Abraham (Matthew) or from Adam (Luke) up to Joseph. How much easier to invoke the Cosmic Sperm Bank and jump from David straight to Jesus, leaving the problem of ending the line at Joseph? But if early Christians didn't know about a Cosmic Sperm Bank, then those long genealogies in the Gospels are explained.
  2. The Cosmic Sperm Bank would have been a useful concept for later Christians who got stuck with the Virgin Birth narrative. In the end some decided that it was actually Mary who was the seed the David, at odds with the idea of patriarchal succession. How much easier to declare the seed of David implanted by the Holy Spirit from a Cosmic Sperm Bank? But if later Christians didn't know about a Cosmic Sperm Bank, then the confusion over the Virgin Birth and the descent from David via Joseph (even though Mary was a virgin) is explained.
Invoking Occam's Razor: The usefulness of the Cosmic Sperm Bank concept to early Christians, and their lack of application of that concept, as well as the lack of any latter Christian to cite Paul on it, suggests that no-one in ancient times thought in terms of a Cosmic Sperm Bank.

2. Romans 1:2-4 "Seed of David according to the flesh"

I've quoted Dr Price earlier as saying that Carrier has "got to get out of Romans 1:3-4". Price's own suggestion is that "seed of David" might be a later interpolation to combat heresies, or that Paul is quoting a hymn that doesn't match Paul's own pre-existent Christology. Dr Price believes those options are "much more likely than this crazy thing [Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory]".

Carrier provides the following translation for Romans 1:2-4:

[T]he gospel of God, which he announced in advance through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
concerns his Son, who was born from the sperm of David according to the flesh,
who was appointed to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (page 532)

He gives two possible readings of "sperm of David according to the flesh" that are consistent with minimal mythicism:
  1. A literal meaning: God took David's sperm from a Cosmic Sperm Bank to construct a human body (page 533)
  2. An allegorical meaning: "every Christian comes from 'the sperm of Abraham' by spiritual adoption; Jesus could have been understood to come from 'the sperm of David' in a similar way." (page 575)
It's always good to have a choice!

I've already looked at the literal meaning and how there is no support for a Cosmic Sperm Bank. Taken literally, Paul seems to be suggesting that Jesus is the descendent of David, at least according to the flesh.

For the allegorical reading: Carrier is right that Paul saw the Gentiles as the adopted "seeds of Abraham", so descendants "according to the promise" (Gal 3:29). But Paul's use of "seed of David according to the flesh" seems unambiguous.

Carrier does suggest that the allegory Paul uses in Gal 4 might carry over to Rom 1, so let's look at that now.

(continued)
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Apr 23, 2023 11:12 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Continuing on from last page:

3. Gal 4:4 "Made of a woman"

One well-known passage much discussed in debates over mythicism is Gal 4:4's "made of a woman". It's is a continuation of ideas expressed in Gal 3, so I'll start from there:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Christ is Abraham's seed and therefore the natural heir. The believer in Christ -- whether that believer is Jew or Greek -- also becomes Abraham's seed, and therefore heirs "according to the promise".

The rhetoric in Gal 4 seems to be in the form of a chiasm:

A. The heir is the same as a servant until the time appointed by God
B. At the time appointed by God, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman
C. Made under the law
C. To redeem those under the law
B. That we might receive the adoption of sons
A. Therefore the servant is the same as an heir

I'll look at Carrier's view of this in a moment, but under historicism the meaning is clear: Paul is continuing his theme of Christ being relevant to Gentiles as well as Jews. Paul ends Gal 4 with a warning to those believers who want to keep to Jewish laws, by using an allegory from the story of Abraham:

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Let's look at how Carrier deals with these passages in OHJ, in the chapter "Women and sperm", starting from page 575.

In Rom. 1.3 (just as in Gal. 4.4) Paul uses the word genomenos (from ginomai), meaning 'to hap­pen, become'. Paul never uses that word of a human birth, despite using it hundreds of times (typically to mean 'being' or 'becoming'); rather, his preferred word for being born is gennao. Notably, in 1 Cor. 15.45, Paul says Adam 'was made', using the same word as he uses for Jesus; yet this is obviously not a reference to being born but to being constructed directly by God. If so for Adam, then so it could be for Jesus (whom Paul equated with Adam in that same verse). (page 575)

This is a most disengenious argument by Carrier, and he should know better. 'Ginomai' is a common utility word that is used in many different ways. Think of the English equivalent "make". Someone could write "make a baby", "make a decision", "make lunch", "make a mistake". They could use it hundreds of times without referring to the idea of birth. Does that make it unusual when using it for "make a baby"? No. Nearly every time that "make" is paired with "baby", it means birth. Similarly with 'gimonai'.

I can't emphasise how much I want to use a word stronger than 'disengenious' for what Carrier is arguing there. Even in English we use a variety of words to indicate birth: "have a child", "make a baby", "produce an heir", "reproduce". I've studied Japanese and it is the same there: there is a specific Japanese word for giving birth, but they will often use "kodomo dekita" ("created a child"), "kodomo tsukiramashita" ("made a child"). If you are proficient in a language other than English, you will probably be able to give similar examples.

While I've never studied ancient Greek, scholars will tell you the same is true for ancient Greek. Here are some examples in Josephus, a near contemporary to Paul:

Antiquities. 1.303 "she expected she should be better esteemed if she bare [from 'ginomai'] him children: so she entreated God perpetually",

Antiquities 7.154 "God sent a dangerous distemper upon the child that was born [from ginomai] to David of the wife of Uriah".

It's simply not controversial and Carrier should know. That he should try to view "ginomai woman" through the lens of "ginomai" or "ginomai Adam" is like trying to understand the term "had a child" through the lens of "had lunch".

Carrier continues, discussing the allegorical passages at the end of Gal 4:

It's clear that Paul is speaking from beginning to end [i.e. Gal 3:29 through to Gal 4:31] about being born to allegorical women, not literal ones. The theme throughout is that Christians are heirs of 'the promise' (to Abraham), and as such have been born to the allegorical Sarah, the free woman, which is the 'Jerusalem above', mean­ing the heavenly city of God. Jesus was momentarily born to the allegorical Hagar, the slave woman, which is the Torah law (the old testament), which holds sway in the earthly Jerusalem, so that he could kill off that law with his own death, making it possible for us to be born of the free woman at last. This is what Paul means when he says Jesus was made 'under the law' and 'from a woman'; he means Hagar, representing the old law; but we now (like Jesus now) have a new mother: God's heavenly kingdom. (page 578)

I would argue that the allegory clearly starts from Gal 4:22, and not from Gal 3:29. "Made of a woman" would then not be allegory. But I'll leave that for scholars more knowledgeable than myself to argue.

Carrier continues:

It's obvious to me that by 'born of a woman, born under the law' Paul means no more than that Jesus was, by being incarnated, placed under the sway of the old covenant, so that he could die to it (and rise free, as shall we). So the 'woman' here is simply the old covenant, not an actual person. Paul does not mean a biological birth to Mary or any other Jewess. Indeed, that would make little sense here. Other than to reflect his upcoming alle­gorical point, why would Paul mention Jesus having a mother here at all? What purpose does that fact serve in his argument? (page 579)

I don't know why Carrier is confused. It's clear Paul is using a common phrase "made of a woman" as a rhetorical point in comparing "heirs according to the flesh" which come from a woman, with "heirs according to the promise" which come from adoption. In fact, if Carrier is following his Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory, shouldn't he come to the same conclusion?

The problem here is that Carrier is having a bet both ways. He is happy to take things literally via his Cosmic Sperm Bank, but if that doesn't work, he moves over to "oh, it's allegorical". That's just bad apologetics. How does the onus fall on here? Does the responder need to address both literal and allegorical meanings?

I just don't see how 'born of a woman, born under the law' as "allegorical" works within the context of the rest of Gal 4. I come back to the point made by Tahmizian: what would contemporary readers of Paul make of all this? Carrier believes that Jesus had to take on a body of flesh in order to die (page 547). Paul described Jesus as a man (anthropos), seed of David according to the flesh, seed of Abraham, made of a woman. But like with a cryptic crossword, Paul wants to make it difficult for his readers to known which ones are literal and which are allegorical.

Carrier continues:

Even if we just assume he means a human, that is already a rather odd thing to say of a historical man-aren't all men born to a woman? What woman does Paul mean? Why mention her? And why mention her only in such an abstract way-as simply a generic 'woman'? The only plausible answer is the answer Paul himself gives us in the completion of his argument: he is talking about allegorical women. (page 580)

"Born of a woman" was a common expression that means "mortal". That's true whether it is being used allegorically or not. So it's not an odd thing to say at all, and Carrier should be aware of examples of this in ancient literature.

Carrier continues:

So Paul's reference to Jesus being 'made' (genomenos) of the 'seed' (sperma) of David and being 'made' (genomenos) from a woman are essen­tially expected on minimal mythicism and thus do not argue against it. In fact, that Christians were aware of the distinction between Paul saying 'made' rather than 'born' is proved by orthodox attempts to change what he said from one to the other. (page 580)

That might be a good point if Carrier provided examples pertinent to his argument. Certainly in the centuries following Paul there were arguments over the nuances of words used in the Gospels and the Epistles. But I'll note that at the end of the day, the orthodox kept with "ginomai" even though they could have changed it.

Conclusion

I originally wasn't intending to include Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory in this review, other than perhaps a note in the Conclusion. But when I saw bloggers and Youtube podcasters interviewing Carrier and giving his Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory a "free pass", I thought I'd add this in. The lack of pushback by bloggers devoted to critically examining bad Christian apologist claims is quite noticeable.

But how can anyone look at Carrier's Theory and not raise some obvious red flags, even if you believe Carrier's mythicist theory overall? Some things they could have followed up on:
  • Is 'made' (gimonai) really unusual for birth? We even do something similar in English, for goodness sake! "Make a baby", "have a child", "reproduce".
  • Does counting all the ways that 'ginomai' is used in non-birth scenarios have an impact on the meaning of 'ginomai woman'? A bit of thought shows it doesn't make sense.
Carrier makes a lot of bad arguments in OHJ. I'm not surprised at his "crazy talk" Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory. I am surprised by those anti-apologist bloggers and Youtube podcasters who swallow Carrier's bad apologetics without pushback. So I'm dedicating this part of the review to them.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Your discussion of the point seems pretty good to me, my main reservation is whether the pseudo-argument actually deserves this much attention.

It shares with Rank-Raglan the curious attribute of being at best tangential to any serious analysis of the prospects of a historical Jesus. You point out Carrier's attempt to make it discriminate between his two competing hypotheses. However, the evidence on offer is that some early Christian wrote something that somebody centuries later (Carrier) interprets in a novel and as yet rarely appreciated way.

How does Jesus having been or else not having been earthside during the 1st Century change the odds of making that observation-cum-later-interpretation? And if the answer is "it doesn't," then the teaching of Bayes (really LaPlace) is clear: it's irrelevant to HJ v. MJ.

It is almost as if (perish the thought that I would claim this as the simple fact of the matter) Carrier wished to recycle some old blog posts and so he made them fit into his book's topic. The same as with Rank-Raglan. The same as with the supposed Epiphanius testimony to a pre-common era Jesus cult, so many times debunked by now that Carrier surely must know that that dog won't hunt. But he's got inventory to move, so maybe into the book it goes.

And just a note. The term a fortiori, as I think most English-speaking people who decorate their prose with Latin phrases use this expression, refers to a particular sort of sound form of argument where one premise is obvious but omitted. For example:

If the dog collar is too big for a St Bernard, then it's too big for a beagle.

This formulation omits the well-known truth about the relative sizes of the two breeds. All Carrier actually seems to mean is that he claims to be "bending over backward," to be generous to his opponents, when setting his upper bounds when he makes interval probability estimates.

Interval estimates are a routine feature of Bayesian and other probabilistic estmation methods. It is simply logically necessary that such intervals have both an upper and a lower bound. Full stop. There is no special term for this, there is nothing distinctive about it except the decision to use intervals rather than other kinds of set-valued estimates (or singletons). There is nothing "a fortiori" about the upper bound defining the most favorable tenable value: that's what upper bounds define.

And of course whether or not Carrier actually displays any generosity in setting his upper bounds is debatable. It surely is not for him to say (= he does not claim it is as high as he would be comfortable with; it is his claim about what other people should settle for). I recommend some caution about echoing his personal terminology here, both because it is nonstandard and also because it is ideologically loaded.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Let's talk about Sperm, Seriously

Post by billd89 »

https://falocristo.blogspot.com/2016/12 ... sus-2.html

Someone got busy!

I think most here know something about the Egyptian backstory:
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history ... adb08cd0ff
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 4:53 pm Threads in this series

Thread titleLink
1Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 1 of 17: Sections 1 thru 3, What I liked and didn't likeviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10555
2Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 2 of 17: Section 4.1 Epiphanius's Nazoriansviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10557
3Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 3 of 17: Section 4.2 Ascension of Isaiah's Celestial Crucifixionviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10562
4Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 4 of 17: Section 4.3 Plutarch's Osirisviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10565
4Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theoryviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10669
5Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 6 of 17: Section 5 Carrier's Rank-Raglan Ref setviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10603
6Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 7 of 17: Section 6.1 Talmud Jesus 70 BCEviewtopic.php?f=3&t=10568
7Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 8 of 17: Section 6.2 1 Clement
8Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 9 of 17: Section 6.3 Ignatius
9Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 10 of 17: Section 6.4 Hegesippus
10Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 11 of 17: Section 7.1 Acts Vanishing family
10Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 12 of 17: Section 7.2 Acts Paul's trials
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 13 of 17: Section 8.1 Epistles non-Paul
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 14 of 17: Section 8.2 Epistles Gospels in Paul etc
11Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 15 of 17: Section 8.3 Epistles Things Jesus did
12Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 16 of 17: Section 9 Miscellaneous
12Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 17 of 17: Section 10 Conclusion

I would like to say that I appreciate this series. The book is still the most influential and extensive exploration of "mythicism" since Wells and Doherty, and there are many people who will benefit from your review. I'm wondering, would you like it to reach a wider audience? I could, for example, share it on my blog.

I am especially interested in your next two parts, on 1 Clement and Ignatius.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:47 pmI would like to say that I appreciate this series. The book is still the most influential and extensive exploration of "mythicism" since Wells and Doherty, and there are many people who will benefit from your review. I'm wondering, would you like it to reach a wider audience? I could, for example, share it on my blog.
Thanks Peter, I appreciate the offer. However, my plan is to create a Youtube channel, where those posts will become separate videos. The ones I've added on this board to date are drafts. Paul the U has provided excellent feedback and his valid criticisms show me that they need to be rewritten. I've been too broad in my approach and need to rewrite them to focus on specific points. Once I've rewritten them and posted them on my Youtube channel, I'll let you know and if they look okay to you, no worries if you want to mention them on your blog.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:47 pmI am especially interested in your next two parts, on 1 Clement and Ignatius.
I hope to get some time in the next few weeks to get those out. Spoiler alert: I find Carrier's arguments about 1 Clement lacking and his arguments about Ignatius simply ridiculous!
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:41 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:47 pmI would like to say that I appreciate this series. The book is still the most influential and extensive exploration of "mythicism" since Wells and Doherty, and there are many people who will benefit from your review. I'm wondering, would you like it to reach a wider audience? I could, for example, share it on my blog.
Thanks Peter, I appreciate the offer. However, my plan is to create a Youtube channel, where those posts will become separate videos. The ones I've added on this board to date are drafts. Paul the U has provided excellent feedback and his valid criticisms show me that they need to be rewritten. I've been too broad in my approach and need to rewrite them to focus on specific points. Once I've rewritten them and posted them on my Youtube channel, I'll let you know and if they look okay to you, no worries if you want to mention them on your blog.
Sounds good.
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:41 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:47 pmI am especially interested in your next two parts, on 1 Clement and Ignatius.
I hope to get some time in the next few weeks to get those out. Spoiler alert: I find Carrier's arguments about 1 Clement lacking and his arguments about Ignatius simply ridiculous!
I might have to go back and see what he wrote about them.
DrSarah
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:44 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by DrSarah »

I know this is an old thread, but I'm reading the series for the first time. Firstly, I want to say how much I'm enjoying it. The posts on Epiphanius and the AoI have been particularly useful. Thank you! And secondly, I wanted to add one small point:

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 4:53 pm

As Carrier notes, God was believed to have been able to do anything, and so that might have included maintaining a cosmic sperm bank:

It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank. After all, God's power was absolute; and all sorts of things could be stored up in heaven (Element 38), even our own future bodies (2 Cor. 5.1-5). Later Jewish legend imagined demons running their own cosmic sperm bank, even stealing David's sperm for it, to beget his enemies with. So surely God could be imagined doing the same.

Those later Jewish legends, if relevant at all, are from about 1000 years later.
You will possibly not be astonished to learn that this later Jewish legend has nothing to do with sperm banks, and that Carrier is - oh, unprecedented event! - being very sloppy in his representation of what he's read.

In a nutshell, Carrier's cite was a legend about the demon Igrat having David's child; however, the source he cited simply says that she had sex with David and gave birth to his child. Carrier's interpretation of this method of baby-making as a 'cosmic sperm bank' is... well, let's call it creative. But it's not based on what the text actually says. So, no, that Jewish legend isn't relevant at all.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Review of Carrier's OHJ, Part 5 of 17: Section 4.4 Bad Apologetics Carrier's Cosmic Sperm Bank Theory

Post by GakuseiDon »

DrSarah wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:30 am I know this is an old thread, but I'm reading the series for the first time. Firstly, I want to say how much I'm enjoying it. The posts on Epiphanius and the AoI have been particularly useful.
Thanks DrSarah! :) I'll note that these are all drafts, so you'll see the numbering changing as the series progresses. My plan is to rewrite them and use them on my Youtube channel (which I haven't created yet). Also I didn't create threads on this forum for the last 3 or so on my list, so those are missing here. Not sure when I'll get around to putting them on Youtube though.
DrSarah wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:30 amYou will possibly not be astonished to learn that this later Jewish legend has nothing to do with sperm banks, and that Carrier is - oh, unprecedented event! - being very sloppy in his representation of what he's read.
:) Very true
Post Reply