Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[Athée]

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I do not know the work, but the Christ myth hypothesis is not the majority view of historians. There are independant references to his existence in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Bar Sabba and perhaps Suetonius which are all non-Christian sources.
Also no opponent of the early church doubted Jesus' existence, the peripheral facts are too clear in the gospel accounts (a mythic account would be more vague) and from a historical perspective, a Galilean prophet killed by the Romans is not at all far fetched.

The Christ myth theory requires many leaps of logic and refutations of accepted historians of the era and the plausibility of such a figure is high. For these reasons, most historians, atheist or not, accept the Historicity of Jesus. The myth group is a very small minority, not taken seriously since the early 20th century.
I shall look for your book and peruse it when I have the chance though.

 

[Athée]

I do not know the work, but the Christ myth hypothesis is not the majority view of historians. There are independant references to his existence in Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Bar Sabba and perhaps Suetonius which are all non-Christian sources.
Also no opponent of the early church doubted Jesus' existence, the peripheral facts are too clear in the gospel accounts (a mythic account would be more vague) and from a historical perspective, a Galilean prophet killed by the Romans is not at all far fetched.

The Christ myth theory requires many leaps of logic and refutations of accepted historians of the era and the plausibility of such a figure is high. For these reasons, most historians, atheist or not, accept the Historicity of Jesus. The myth group is a very small minority, not taken seriously since the early 20th century.
I shall look for your book and peruse it when I have the chance though.

Thanks for your thoughts!
I agree that it is a minority position and also that any myth hypothesis would need to deal with the evidence from the sources you mentioned. I will look through Carrier again to see what he says about those particular examples.
I would recommend reading Carrier's work, as he himself says in the preface (humility is not his thing) it is the strongest case for mythicism so far and so of it can be shown to be definitely false then perhaps we can finally put this myth hypothesis to bed.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've been through his book once, and there's just too much content to not read again at some point. His scholarship on the subject is the best I've ever seen in regard to the Jesus figure.

What was most poignant for me, was the absolute lack of contemporary and credible evidence for a literal, historical, Jesus character. And that using accepted, literary, and historical scholarship methods, a great case can be made for the acceptance of Jesus as mythotypal.

 

[civilwarbuff]

His scholarship on the subject is the best I've ever seen in regard to the Jesus figure.

The bar is set that low?

 

[Athée]

The bar is set that low?

Perfect thank you! This is what I was hoping for. I take it that you think the scholarship in OTHJ is severely lacking. Could you point me towards the places I the book where you find evidence of this.
Thanks for joining in

 

[Athée]

I've been through his book once, and there's just too much content to not read again at some point. His scholarship on the subject is the best I've ever seen in regard to the Jesus figure.

What was most poignant for me, was the absolute lack of contemporary and credible evidence for a literal, historical, Jesus character. And that using accepted, literary, and historical scholarship methods, a great case can be made for the acceptance of Jesus as mythotypal.

I absolutely agree about the amount of material and in truth I didn't even bother to read and check through the math at the end, nor did I follow up on all his citations.
I think I might have different feelings about the evidence and lack thereof but I was surprised by how little there is for a historical Jesus. I don't know why I find it surprising, perhaps because of the massive amount of discussions and debate that surrounds Jesus today... But there is very little that makes the case only for a historical Jesus, that can not also be show to be compatible with a mythicist position.

 

[HitchSlap]

The bar is set that low?

Did you not find OTHJ to be a scholarly work?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Perfect thank you! This is what I was hoping for. I take it that you think the scholarship in OTHJ is severely lacking. Could you point me towards the places I the book where you find evidence of this.
Thanks for joining in

Nope, I can't....have not read it....won't ever read it. It is just that the myth hypothosis of Jesus is the mormonism of atheism....it is a cult belief and rejected by every serious scholar of Christian history. You want to waste your time reading and promoting it, it is your time to waste.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope, I can't....have not read it....won't ever read it. It is just that the myth hypothosis of Jesus is the mormonism of atheism....it is a cult belief and rejected by every serious scholar of Christian history. You want to waste your time reading and promoting it, it is your time to waste.

Personally, I've never considered it a waste of time to educate myself on different subjects. To each his own, I guess.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You like studying cult ideas, have at it.....

 

[HitchSlap]

You like studying cult ideas, have at it.....

Carrier simply takes a look at the evidence, and then applies scholarly methods to it. Not much cultish at all.

 

[Athée]

Nope, I can't....have not read it....won't ever read it. It is just that the myth hypothosis of Jesus is the mormonism of atheism....it is a cult belief and rejected by every serious scholar of Christian history. You want to waste your time reading and promoting it, it is your time to waste.

It would seem that this position is not incredibly helpful on a thread specifically dedicated to discussing Carrier's book. If you haven't read Carrier's book, then your criticism must be intended for other mythicist works. It might surprise you to learn that in Carrier's OTHJ he specifically calls mythicist authors to take for making sloppy, poorly researched attempts to defend the theory. His book is very intentionally not written in that vein. However, if you never intend to read it or engage with the argument as it appears in a relevant and reputable peer reviewed journal, this is certainly your prerogative. I invite you to lurk around the thread and hopefully you will engage with the ideas in it

 

[civilwarbuff]

It would seem that this position is not incredibly helpful on a thread specifically dedicated to discussing Carrier's book. If you haven't read Carrier's book, then your criticism must be intended for other mythicist works. It might surprise you to learn that in Carrier's OTHJ he specifically calls mythicist authors to take for making sloppy, poorly researched attempts to defend the theory. His book is very intentionally not written in that vein. However, if you never intend to read it or engage with the argument as it appears in a relevant and reputable peer reviewed journal, this is certainly your prerogative. I invite you to lurk around the thread and hopefully you will engage with the ideas in it

This is from the SoP of Christian Apologetics:
As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue.
I don't see where you have made this argument; instead you have done an elementary school level book report. Would you like to try and conform to the forums guidelines or just stick to the book report?

 

[Athée]

This is from the SoP of Christian Apologetics:
As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue.
I don't see where you have made this argument; instead you have done an elementary school level book report. Would you like to try and conform to the forums guidelines or just stick to the book report?

I am going to charitably assume that your intent was not to be needlessly snarky
To your first point, I would suggest that an actual historical Jesus is pretty central to the Cristian faith. As such the subject of Carrier's book certainly stands in opposition and could be construed as an argument against Christianity.
To be clear though I am not simply asserting that Carrier is correct, I am inviting the community here, which I have found to be intelligent and thoughtful in both tone and content of thier posts, to join me in conversation about Carrier's book and it's relative merits (Or lack thereof) . As I have stated before you are welcome to participate (although it would be helpful if you could address the topic at hand), and I look forward to hearing what specific elements of Carrier's book you disagree with (Or agree with, there are a lot of background facts presented in the book as well) and why you feel his scholarship is lacking, if that is indeed your position.
Thanks again

 

[civilwarbuff]

So, you don't believe you need to follow the guidelines of the forum, is that correct?...you know the part about offering an argument about why Christian beliefs are not true or correct?.....From your perspective a book report.... sorry, I will be charitable, a book review is sufficient in your opinion?
OBTW, I don't need any charity.....

 

[redleghunter]

When discussing the historicity of Jesus there seem to be three main camps. In one, believers assert that Jesus existed as a historical figure and was indeed the divine son of God. In another agnostics or atheists claim that Jesus existed in history as a man but was not in fact divine. Then we have the myth hypothesis, where the claim is that Jesus never existed as a historical person at all.

My interest in this thread is the latter, specifically I would like to discuss the relative merits of On the Historicity of Jesus, by Dr. Richard Carrier. To the best of my knowledge no peer reviewed response (that is no critical response), has appeared anywhere in any journal. Yet given that Carrier's OTHJ was published in a relevant peer reviewed journal it seems to me that at the very least it merits discussion.

I myself have read through the book once (I think it would take a few readings to really be comfortable with all the information packed in this long long book) and found it to be compelling, although perhaps not conclusive. To be fair though, I am an atheist and I recognize that I really want Carrier to be right. I have a bias to agree with him because it would validate my lack of belief if it turns out Jesus was not historical but a myth. To this end I would love to talk through Carrier's work with believers, assuming that you don't agree with Carrier! I have heard a number of claims about the lack of reliable scholarship in the book but no one has ever given me a specific example. Regardless of your reasons for agreeing with or disagreeing with Carrier, I would welcome the discussion. I anticipate that any discussion on this topic will lead us down the rabbit trails of early sources and writings which is fine as long as the intent is always to relate them to OTHJ and to eventually return to that focus.

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

Just for reference I know Dr. Carrier is a well respected professor of Greek and Roman antiquity. Do you know if he has any NT studies doctorates or theological training?

 

[Athée]

So, you don't believe you need to follow the guidelines of the forum, is that correct?...you know the part about offering an argument about why Christian beliefs are not true or correct?.....From your perspective a book report.... sorry, I will be charitable, a book review is sufficient in your opinion?
OBTW, I don't need any charity.....

In response to your question about the thread, I have said that I find Carrier's book compelling and also that I acknowledge my bias in this matter. I further clarified that if the myth hypothesis is true, then Christianity is false. Thus a discussion on the subject of the historical Jesus seems to fall in line with the guidelines. Perhaps you are asking me to be more dogmatic in my position? Did you want me to say that I strongly agree with Carrier's position in the book and that he has definitively demonstrated that no historical Jesus existed? In truth I am not a qualified biblical historian and so I don't think my I notice reading of OTHJ justifies such a strong position on my part. This is why I am opening it up for discussion.
On your closing remarks I confess I am confused. You demonstrate that you understand the concept of discursive charity only to claim that my OP was intended to be a book review (which it clearly was not - else you might have seen analysis, quotations and other features common to a review). Then you end apparently by equivocation discursive charity with economic charity. If you intended to inform me that you are financially stable and don't need fiscal charity then I am glad for you and yours. If you are saying that participants in discussion should not feel obligated to treat each other respectfully and to do thier best to look on others comments with the most leeway possible, then I simply disagree.
If you would like to make a post that is relevant to the topic at hand please do so, I welcome good discussion (which is why I started the thread) who knows maybe by the end of this we will collectively generate enough content to make an actual review of the book!

 

[Athée]

Just for reference I know Dr. Carrier is a well respected professor of Greek and Roman antiquity. Do you know if he has any NT studies doctorates or theological training?

I'm not certain and don't want to guess, I will go check... And I'm back
From his website :
With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire.

 

[ChetSinger]

What do you make of OTHJ, do you agree with Carrier, why or why not?

Thanks

I disagree with him, of course. On a personal level it's because I've been a Christian for years and have seen the name of Jesus do wonderful things in my life and in the lives of others. Outside of that, my understanding is that he's such an outlier in his field that I won't take his idea seriously until other historians jump on the bandwagon.