Nobody can establish historicity for the gospel Jesus, of whatever type it's proposers dream up. A case can be made for "political fiction" - that the gospel story has a political component. Carrier has already made the point that a "political fiction" approach to the gospel story "suits the gospels well'.Peter Kirby wrote:But the best possible case could put the critics on their heels. It could show that Tacitus wrote about Jesus and that this is more likely if Jesus were historical. It could revive the Josephus argument. It could pull the rug on attempts to find Christians without a belief in a historical Christ crucified under Pilate. Most importantly, it could show that the Gospels make the most sense if they are about a historical person. But somebody needs to do the hard work to make that best possible case.
McGrath has given some space for a celestial crucifixion theory - perhaps Carrier could give more attention to what "suits the gospels well".
Richard Carrier:
If 'Jesus Christ' began as a celestial deity' is false, it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars have indeed argued - the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney). But as will become clear in following chapters....such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and this is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence) and a very low consequent probability (though it suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence of the Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard to explain.) Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume it's prior probability is too small even to show up in our maths. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must assign it a higher prior or consequent, but I leave to anyone who thinks it's possible. Page 53/54
If 'Jesus Christ' began as a celestial deity' is false, it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars have indeed argued - the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney). But as will become clear in following chapters....such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and this is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence) and a very low consequent probability (though it suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence of the Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard to explain.) Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume it's prior probability is too small even to show up in our maths. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must assign it a higher prior or consequent, but I leave to anyone who thinks it's possible. Page 53/54
