My review of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"

[outhouse]

Reality is the current state of historicity is so strong its like 12,000 to 1 he has historicity at the core level.

If you have read OHJ and feel the Bayesian approach has any merits to it at all,

I do not.

It has gained no traction anywhere.

I wonder which of the probabilities Carrier assigns to the historical evidence you feel most strongly should be changed?

His Paul viewing Jesus in the heavens, not ever of an earthly origin. Basically what he plagiarized and expanded on, from Doherty.


Also math has no place in this manner of determining plausibility due to the weight of interpretation of the evidence changing values.


It draws attention away from the reality of the hypothesis being so weak.

[Adam]

I have not read Carrier enough to independently critique his case, but nevertheless I would have to second John outhouse about the weakness of the hypothesis. Earl Doherty is widely recognized as making the best Mythicist case, but merely mathematizing it does not make it truer. Everything lies within the same initial assumptins Doherty makes.

[MrMacSon]

Everything lies within the same initial assumptions Doherty makes.

Maybe most mythicist ideas or proposals do, but not necessarily every one of them or all of them.

And new ideas or mechanisms are being considered. eg. the inter-testamentary and the apocryphal literature.

merely mathematizing it [they mythicist case] does not make it truer.

No, but it helps to quantify it, or to quantify components of either case. After all, we are talking probabilities within a continuum from 0.00 (ie. 0%) to 1.00 (ie. 100%).

[Adam]

0.00 to 1.00 out of 100?

[MrMacSon]

lol. No.

• 0.00 to 1.00 = 0.00% to 100%

0.00 to 1.00 out of 100?

Those polarized on either side of the debate may like to say that about each other's position.

• (I initially typed 'poisition' - would that be someone poisoning another's position? or trying to hold their own with poise??)

[GakuseiDon]

I have not read Carrier enough to independently critique his case, but nevertheless I would have to second John outhouse about the weakness of the hypothesis. Earl Doherty is widely recognized as making the best Mythicist case, but merely mathematizing it does not make it truer. Everything lies within the same initial assumptins Doherty makes.

As a self-proclaimed expert on both Doherty's and Carrier's theories, I disagree. While Dr Carrier adopted Doherty's "celestial Jesus" argument (and credits Doherty for it), the rest of Carrier's ahistorical argument plus the way he presents it is very different to Doherty's. Doherty's books are very speculative, while Carrier builds an argument that is nearly always backed up by primary sources. Carrier's is a complete theory: from a pre-Christian Jewish angel called Jesus, to Paul's celestial crucified Jesus, on to the Gospels as a euhemerized tale about the celestial Christ. Carrier uses Bayes Theorem to break his argument down into debatable items, which means it is much easier to discuss his theory than it is Doherty's speculative nonsense.

So it would be doing Carrier's work a disservice to say that everything lies within the same initial assumptions made by Doherty. Carrier's theory is much more comprehensive and more rigorous than Doherty's.

[outhouse]

No, but it helps to quantify it, or to quantify components of either case. After all, we are talking probabilities within a continuum from 0.00 (ie. 0%) to 1.00 (ie. 100%).

I see scholars doing this now in vague terms but it gets the point across. They will use terms like heavily debated which means 50/50 or even 60/40 and some times 70/30

Or consensus which means 90$ to 95%

Or a few have found such and such which means 20% and not yet credible.


On any given topic. The problem with this funky math is all depends on how one interprets the evidence. It renders a number useless.


And it speaks volumes when one firmly makes stand and states the math is something no one else agree that it is.

[outhouse]

I have not read Carrier enough to independently critique his case, but nevertheless I would have to second John outhouse about the weakness of the hypothesis. Earl Doherty is widely recognized as making the best Mythicist case, but merely mathematizing it does not make it truer. Everything lies within the same initial assumptins Doherty makes.

As a self-proclaimed expert on both Doherty's and Carrier's theories, I disagree. While Dr Carrier adopted Doherty's "celestial Jesus" argument (and credits Doherty for it), the rest of Carrier's ahistorical argument plus the way he presents it is very different to Doherty's. Doherty's books are very speculative, while Carrier builds an argument that is nearly always backed up by primary sources. Carrier's is a complete theory: from a pre-Christian Jewish angel called Jesus, to Paul's celestial crucified Jesus, on to the Gospels as a euhemerized tale about the celestial Christ. Carrier uses Bayes Theorem to break his argument down into debatable items, which means it is much easier to discuss his theory than it is Doherty's speculative nonsense.

So it would be doing Carrier's work a disservice to say that everything lies within the same initial assumptions made by Doherty. Carrier's theory is much more comprehensive and more rigorous than Doherty's.

You correct Don. But if Earls hypothesis fails, So does Richards.


Is it not safe to say Richard polished Earls work which furthered it? Richard gave it the historians academic touch to evolve it forward.

I do remember you debating with Earl personally about these things as many of us did. Sad he is not online anymore. Wonder how he is doing.

[GakuseiDon]

So it would be doing Carrier's work a disservice to say that everything lies within the same initial assumptions made by Doherty. Carrier's theory is much more comprehensive and more rigorous than Doherty's.

You correct Don. But if Earls hypothesis fails, So does Richards.

Yes, but only because Dr Carrier's defined his minimal mythicist theory as containing a plank from Doherty's. From page 53 of OHJ:

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5. Subsequent communities of worshippers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

Carrier writes that if any one of those planks above fail, then the theory fails. I argue in my review of OHJ that there is no evidence for Item 3; in fact, the evidence goes against it. Thus his theory fails IMHO. But his introduction of BT into historical studies may provide him a lasting legacy.

Is it not safe to say Richard polished Earls work which furthered it? Richard gave it the historians academic touch to evolve it forward.

Carrier seems to have collected ideas from a number of sources. Ideas like the Rank-Raglan score, Philo implying that there was a Logos figure called 'Jesus', have been proposed before him. He's added many of his own ideas into the mix, like Acts of the Apostles perhaps using sources for description of the real (celestial Jesus believing) Paul's trials. Outside of the celestial crucified Jesus, Doherty's ideas are not much represented in Carrier's OHJ.

I do remember you debating with Earl personally about these things as many of us did. Sad he is not online anymore. Wonder how he is doing.

I've seen him post on Vridar in the last year or so. Hopefully he's enjoying his retirement, and happy seeing Carrier take his theory (the celestial part anyway!) onwards.

[MrMacSon]

Yes, but only because Dr Carrier's defined his minimal mythicist theory as containing a plank from Doherty's.

'minimal mythicist'?

From page 53 of OHJ:

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5. Subsequent communities of worshippers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

Carrier writes that if any one of those planks above fail, then the theory fails. I argue in my review of OHJ that there is no evidence for Item 3; in fact, the evidence goes against it. Thus his theory fails IMHO. But his introduction of BT into historical studies may provide him a lasting legacy.

It would be interesting to know what Carrier's argument is for such a 'proto-Jesus' in item 3 ... gnostic/docetic tales? (+/- Paul?)