P.S. It should be noted that I am probably the foremost expert on the historicity debate specifically now, being the only one to have completed a six year post-doc research study of it—but that is a highly specific debate involving a highly particular array of evidence, crossing many sub-fields, and its examination, not usually undertaken by anyone else because of the widespread presumption of historicity has led to a paucity of anyone actually focusing on it as a problem.
That’s why there has not been a single peer reviewed monograph on historicity published in almost a hundred years. Except mine. Still to this day, astonishingly. Which often sets the standard for who is foremost in a subject: the only person on earth who has published a peer reviewed study of it.
If you think of it in another way: Who is more likely to know every viable argument ever made for and against historicity and the evidence bearing on either side of it? As in, if you needed to call someone, anyone on earth, to ask about a specific argument you heard, right now, who would you call? I cannot honestly think of anyone who’d top that list but me; even other qualified mythicists (who would certainly be on that call list) haven’t taken it to the same degree of being thorough as I have.
For example Price, who has much more knowledge of the historiography of Jesus mythicism for example, I have found does not have as complete a knowledge of the entire historicity debate (else he’d not have failed so badly in his debate with Ehrman; although there were additional reasons for that, it was partly because of that). And yet overall Price is vastly more erudite than me; just mostly on subjects I haven’t needed to study (e.g. early 20th century mythicism), or already rely on other experts for (e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic).
This is why so many renowned experts get wildly tripped up in this debate, as they falsely assume being “an expert on Jesus” makes them an expert on the specific problem of his historicity. Mistaking presumption for demonstration.
That’s why there has not been a single peer reviewed monograph on historicity published in almost a hundred years. Except mine. Still to this day, astonishingly. Which often sets the standard for who is foremost in a subject: the only person on earth who has published a peer reviewed study of it.
If you think of it in another way: Who is more likely to know every viable argument ever made for and against historicity and the evidence bearing on either side of it? As in, if you needed to call someone, anyone on earth, to ask about a specific argument you heard, right now, who would you call? I cannot honestly think of anyone who’d top that list but me; even other qualified mythicists (who would certainly be on that call list) haven’t taken it to the same degree of being thorough as I have.
For example Price, who has much more knowledge of the historiography of Jesus mythicism for example, I have found does not have as complete a knowledge of the entire historicity debate (else he’d not have failed so badly in his debate with Ehrman; although there were additional reasons for that, it was partly because of that). And yet overall Price is vastly more erudite than me; just mostly on subjects I haven’t needed to study (e.g. early 20th century mythicism), or already rely on other experts for (e.g. Hebrew and Aramaic).
This is why so many renowned experts get wildly tripped up in this debate, as they falsely assume being “an expert on Jesus” makes them an expert on the specific problem of his historicity. Mistaking presumption for demonstration.
(original cursive)
What I would like point out here is the comparison between Carrier and Price about the specific feature recognized by Carrier about Price: i.e. the fact that Price is effectively an expert «about the historiography of Jesus mythicism».
The point is interesting since also I has tried to read the principal books of the old mythicists. I think that I am enough expert about historiography of Jesus mythicism, too. Differently from Price, I am not interested to read the Atwill's or Acharya's versions of mythicism. Apart Vermeiren and Einhorn, I am not interested in the various form of mythico-historical versions (an for a good reason). Hence I don't think now that prof Price is so much more expert than me about the specific question of historiography. This position allows me to judge the Carrier's point. He is correct, surely, to claim that the best minimal mythicism version assumes a Jesus crucified by demons in the lower heavens and not on earth, pace Wells. But I has found at least a point where Carrier is victim of the his ignorance of mythicism's historiography.
Another error made by Carrier is the his too much rapid rejection of Revelation 13:8 as evidence of a pre-creation crucifixion (ignore the successive posts). Carrier thinks that the passage doesn't prove that the Lamb was killed before the creation of the world, but he ignores 1 Peter 1:19-20, where the Lamb was chosen (presumably: to be killed immediately as sacrifice) «before the creation of the world»
...Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake
In addition to this, another error made by Carrier (always from the prospective of who knows the old mythicist authors who argued for a celestial crucifixion) is the his ignorance about the cosmic feature of the celestial crucifixion of Jesus. A cosmic importance of the event that is lost when you reduces the lower heavens to simply the mere celestial copy of the earth.
I am omitting here the differences of views about the dating and paternity of the Gospels, since a lot of mythicists of the past gave more credit than Carrier does to the thesis of Marcionite priority.
