The Real Jesus: A Brief Portrait.
A critique of Richard Carrier's Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay

Amy Sayers 

Introduction

I am participating in the web discussion of Christianity in part because the God I worship, know and love does not seem to be the same god skeptics critique, and I want to aid in disabusing these skeptics of the false gods.  If a person chooses not to believe in God, let it be a choice against the real God, not a misrepresentation of Him. 

I have found a small wad of such misrepresentations in Richard Carrier’s Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html.  In this article, Carrier provides a gloss of the life and teachings of Musonius Rufus, a Roman teacher and moralist of the first century. Carrier compares this ancient’s teachings—superficially, at least—to those of Jesus Christ.  At the end of his essay, Carrier concludes:           

“If a mortal can be better-spoken and advocate better ideals than Jesus, then Jesus can be neither a God nor the greatest moral teacher.  We would do better to look to others.” 

Now, the most charitable reading of this Carrier essay will note the word “Brief” in its title and not ask for more from the author.  Carrier makes the dramatic charge that Musonius was the moral superior to Jesus, qualifies that charge with the phrase, “in my opinion,” and then footnotes several Biblical references as examples of the various deficiencies of Jesus’ teachings. Obviously, if Carrier were to make the argument instead of only stating it, he would not have a “brief” essay to post.  His qualification, “in my opinion,” saves him from being obligated to the work, anyway.  Certainly, Mr. Carrier, you are entitled to your opinion.[1] 

This phrase, “in my opinion” also saves the apologist from doing the work of arguing that Jesus was at least as well spoken as any other.  It’s pointless to debate the aesthetic question of who was a better speaker. That recognition is in the eye of the beholder.[2] And given that neither the deity of Jesus nor the inerrancy of the Bible is predicated on the quality of His speaking, it is no interest of mine to see that others find Jesus to be the better-spoken of the two.  

As to whether Jesus’ moral ideas were superior to those of all others, let alone Musonius, the  way I would choose to make that case would be to argue for His deity.[3]  But this is not an essay for that argument. 

Why am I writing?  To correct or answer several of the charges Carrier makes in his essay regarding Jesus and His teachings.[4]  These are charges that other skeptics have made in various forms and venues, at various times.  So even readers not interested in the specific essay I am responding to may yet be interested to see how various mis-characterizations of Jesus and His teachings can be corrected. 

1. Jesus is hard to relate to. 

Carrier writes, “Musonius; like Socrates, Epicurus and even Confucius and Lao Tzu, has more in common with us, is more down to earth.” 

Jesus was “down to earth.” This is part of what the Pharisees found so objectionable about Him, that He would hang out with regular, unclean, sinners.[5]  Jesus was liked well enough to be invited to a wedding, a party that was far better off for it.[6]  He taught in parables and metaphors that used the ordinary elements of life people could relate to: farming,[7] vineyards,[8] weddings,[9] common animals.[10]  Jesus welcomed children into His arms,[11] He even seemed to. . .doodle.[12]  Jesus, even though He was, well, God, was a man who related with and through ordinary life.  Whether He was more “down to earth” than Musonius Rufus, I don’t care to say.  What I want to make clear is that Jesus was Himself “down to earth,” regardless of comparisons to others. 

A similar objection comes when Carrier writes, “Jesus is never recorded as smiling or laughing or telling a joke, and a man with no sense of humor is no kin of mine.  Indeed, such a man is disturbing and inhuman.” 

The key word is “recorded.”  This suggests that Carrier’s beef might be with the writers who failed to capture some of the lighter moments of Jesus’ ministry.  As I read the Gospels, I have an easy time picturing Jesus laughing,[13] but I’ll freely admit that this is an argument from silence.  

What is recorded is that Jesus was filled with compassion,[14] that He wept when a dear friend died,[15] that He loved and honored His mama,[16] that He used the word “Daddy” to refer to His Father in heaven when He was most distressed.[17]  If Carrier is honestly looking for the humanity of Jesus, he will not make evidence of humor the only test for it.  And he will also allow that the picture of Jesus the Gospel writers compose is one of a guy who truly pitched His tent among people and shared in the human experience. 

2. Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple, and His emotion while doing so, were in some sense unrighteous. 

Carrier writes, “Jesus employs violence and arrogance to remove the sellers of sacrificial animals (and those changing money, no doubt to aid in paying the temple tax) from the temple.”[18] 

The “violence” in this cleansing consisted of pouring out coins, over-turning tables and using a scourge to drive the money-changers, animal merchants and their animals out of this place of worship. It is not quite accurate to describe these actions as “violent.”  In comparison to the Musonius example Carrier gives in which the ancient “uses peaceful persuasion” to accomplish his goal, Jesus’ method was certainly more physical.  But “violent” connotes an intention to physically harm, or the use of extreme force.  In the cleansing, Jesus uses physical action to disrupt the physical presence of what He deemed wrong, and He does so with great emotion. There is nothing inherently unrighteous about such zeal and action.  

Furthermore, there are indications that those witnessing the event might have thought Jesus was making a good point.  The Jews did not object to His actions.  They simply challenged His authority to take them by asking, “What sign do you show to us, seeing that you do these things?”  In other words, “What gives you the moral authority to be teaching a lesson to the immoral here in the Temple?”   

Another indication is that Jesus singled out those who were selling the doves.[19] This was the poor man’s offering as provided for in Levitical law.[20]  Merchants, therefore, were not just making money off of the wealthy people who had come to worship.  They were profiting from the poor as well.  Was it arrogant of Jesus to be so indignant at this offence?  To see poor people coming to sacrifice an offering to the One True God, only to have to sacrifice money as well to pay an animal merchant?  No wonder no official objection was made!  What could the authorities say?  “You really should allow men to profit from people’s religious devotion, even that of the poor”?[21]   

If Jesus had not so cleansed the Temple, skeptics would be free to bring Him up on two different charges: The first, He would not have fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah 56:7, so how could He be the Messiah?  The second, Jesus would be at moral fault for not chastening the wicked when He met them.  What kind of moral leader would fail to clean the house of His own people before suggesting that His teachings apply to all peoples?  Could He have “cleaned house” by less physical means?  It is possible. That Jesus chose one method over another does not indict Him, as the method He did choose was not an immoral one.   

3. Jesus was morally wrong to teach that Hell exists and that some people will spend eternity there. 

Carrier writes, “Jesus is also not very sophisticated or clear in his discourses, his parables are often brutish, his lessons simplistic.”  After each clause, he cites several portions of Jesus teachings, as though it is evident that each portion is unsophisticated, or unclear, or simplistic.   

If Carrier truly wants to hold this position, he does so in the face of an enormous library of Bible commentaries, sermon notes, devotional books and personal Bible studies that testify to the nature of Jesus’ teachings.  That testimony finds them to be wonderfully rich, expertly stated, and either simple for good cause, or just deceptively simple. 

The part of Carrier’s statement on which I will comment is the word “brutish.”  He is commenting on the parables that include the teaching of Hell.  It must be the actual teaching that Carrier finds “brutish,” because he certainly wouldn’t expect Jesus to describe Hell as somehow pleasant.  There is a longer essay to write on the teaching of Hell.  The short answer to consider is this: Telling His listeners that Hell exists, and that some people will go there upon dying, and that there is no relief for a person once there[22] is only “brutish” if it is untrue.  If it is true, then Jesus was morally obligated to warn people, and to do so emphatically.   

Conclusion

Richard Carrier’s essay may be a fair and accurate presentation of the life and teachings of Musonius Rufus, but it offers an inaccurate rendering of Jesus Christ. Carrier’s comments on Jesus merely construct a straw man. Such a figure is easy to knock down.  But thinkers who are seriously evaluating Jesus Christ and the role, if any, He should have in their lives would do well to evaluate the real man, not the one made of straw.