The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[Kishkumen]

Why is that important, as if more so than other questions in history? If Jesus never existed, then the resurrection, like previous storied resurrections of whatever sort, isn’t all that interesting other than a tale with in a myth. But that’s the case even if marks story had some person who had lived in mind. Mark is being very memetic in his approach, at least according to macDonald. So the question did Jesus really resurrect may not, depending on perspective, be all that important at all. It’s merely part of the mythologizing.

Because his life is not what makes him matter to Christians. His resurrection is what makes him matter to Christians. Presumably we are on a forum for discussing Mormonism, where the critical question of the resurrection is the point. Atheists pay Carrier to say Jesus may not have lived and so his resurrection is even less likely to have happened. I think that’s a backward strategy unlikely to do much more than stoke shortcut thinking among atheists who find it exciting.

To the contrary Jesus like other people of his age was credited with miracles. Some of these other people are just as poorly attested (or more poorly) as Jesus, and others are much better documented. The miracle stories are not the criterion that makes them more or less likely to have lived. The evidence for their lives is. Honi the Circle Drawer is less well attested than Jesus. Very few people question his existence. Motivated reasoning is what makes people question the existence of Jesus.

[Philo Sofee]

Why is that important, as if more so than other questions in history? If Jesus never existed, then the resurrection, like previous storied resurrections of whatever sort, isn’t all that interesting other than a tale with in a myth. But that’s the case even if marks story had some person who had lived in mind. Mark is being very memetic in his approach, at least according to macDonald. So the question did Jesus really resurrect may not, depending on perspective, be all that important at all. It’s merely part of the mythologizing.

Because his life is not what makes him matter to Christians. His resurrection is what makes him matter to Christians. Presumably we are on a forum for discussing Mormonism, where the critical question of the resurrection is the point. Atheists pay Carrier to say Jesus may not have lived and so his resurrection is even less likely to have happened. I think that’s a backward strategy unlikely to do much more than stoke shortcut thinking among atheists who find it exciting.

To the contrary Jesus like other people of his age was credited with miracles. Some of these other people are just as poorly attested (or more poorly) as Jesus, and others are much better documented. The miracle stories are not the criterion that makes them more or less likely to have lived. The evidence for their lives is. Honi the Circle Drawer is less well attested than Jesus. Very few people question his existence. Motivated reasoning is what makes people question the existence of Jesus.

Interesting......

[DrStakhanovite]

Above all, I believe that the principal goal ought to be making people better thinkers, not strategizing to win at all costs. I was not impressed with Richard Carrier’s arguments because they lacked sensitivity to narrative and genre. It was as though he treated the gospels like 20th century history textbooks. He would subjectively judge that a sequence of events was plausible or not and conclude that no historical person would have experienced events in that way. I did not see his method really helping his readers understand the text on its own terms any better. We are better served learning about the thought world of antiquity to grapple with interpreting its texts than simply asking whether something is likely to have happened or not. I’ll walk you through Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and point out lots of things that probably did not happen as reported. That has no bearing on whether he existed or not. We know he did.

The guy’s work across the board is some of the lowest quality stuff I’ve seen from someone with his credentials. He wrote this book called ‘Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism’ that he had to self publish because the things he writes are so indefensible that no properly refereed publisher would ever let it see the light of day under their imprimatur.

Which is also why I think ‘Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’ was published under Prometheus, because that isn’t refereed at all and just seen by an editor.

When he finished up ‘On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ he got it through the Sheffield Phoenix Press review because: (i) they were relatively new and were interested in provocative submissions and (ii) they didn’t have the time nor staff to track down someone who actually comprehends probability theory that also had an inclination to read the submission.

There is a very good reason why Carrier has never sought to publish anything in the glut of Bayesian themed journals out there.

Atheists pay Carrier to say Jesus may not have lived and so his resurrection is even less likely to have happened. I think that’s a backward strategy unlikely to do much more than stoke shortcut thinking among atheists who find it exciting.

Honestly, I’m glad they do and it was enough to lure him away from teaching at public institutions. I’d much rather have some middle aged Redditor become enamored with Carrier because he wants to win arguments as opposed to some teenager taking a class from Carrier and thinking that employing Bayes means you are a critical thinker.

[dastardly stem]

I don't want to continue with Carrier. I didn't want to discuss him. This thread wasn't about him at all. It's about something else. How I let it get down that rabbit hole is not important and not what I've been trying to talk about here. But, I do appreciate the comments in the past few responses. i'm glad there is plenty more for me to consider here. Nobody's buying Carrier hook, line and sinker, as they say. He has some interesting points that appear to be unresolved. And, as it turns out, its not just him. But, with that said. Who cares? This is turning into an academic exercise that has nothing to do with me, this thread, my points, or anything of the sort. One thing is sure, though. He brings out the vitriol. I have no desire to defend his work, at least not as a whole. If some of you have something to say to him, I say do it. Who wouldn't be up for a little drama among scholars? But I'm not him, nor am I his disciple as some might think or wish to treat me as.

As I said, I'm quite close to around 50/50 on the issue under discussion. He may have persuaded me to his side somewhat. But so? I have many other ideas to consider here. And a few other works of scholarship. I don't see anyone really addressing much more than a very generalized view of why they don't think he's credible. And yet his points, that largely enjoy majority opinion in scholarship, the ones that remain untouched by criticism, basically, are still there. There's not a lot of explanation that makes much sense regarding the data under examination. It seems to me. And yet, I'd be happy to be shown otherwise on any of it. Its not really all that important to me to wonder whether Jesus lived. What is important to me is learning, trying to grasp reality, and other such things.

Go read Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ life on Capri and then tell me what you think the facts are.

I'll be happy to. Thanks.

Because his life is not what makes him matter to Christians. His resurrection is what makes him matter to Christians.

They both matter. Both his life and resurrection matter to Christians, from my observations. This isn't an either/or thing. Some might say, and I believe many Christians have told me this, his resurrection would be absolutely meaningless without his life. Talk to a Christian about their beliefs and they are bound to quote the teachings of his life. His life largely matters. I don't understand this attempted dichotomy. Oddly many scholars seem to treat the recordings of his life as mythology anyway. So in the sense of history, what was his life? It was something other than Mark tells us, apparently, if it ever was. He could have been a million miles away from the character that was written about by diaspora Jewish writers. If that were the case, why would we be left with a dogmatic assumption telling everyone, "he lived...he really lived"? It has to come down to a level of probability if you ask me.

o the contrary Jesus like other people of his age was credited with miracles. Some of these other people are just as poorly attested (or more poorly) as Jesus, and others are much better documented. The miracle stories are not the criterion that makes them more or less likely to have lived. The evidence for their lives is. Honi the Circle Drawer is less well attested than Jesus. Very few people question his existence. Motivated reasoning is what makes people question the existence of Jesus.

This is a good point, kish. I agree. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference if miracle stories are attached to some person. I'd say theres far more to consider. When we think about past characters, the thing that drives people to want to know if that person in question existed is motivated. Tons believe in Jesus. There is little doubt the reason why anyone would take such a scrutinizing view of whether Jesus lived is because many dogmatically claim it's all Him or your done for. Why not spend some energy researching him with such skepticism? I'll continue to catch myself up on scholarship as a past time regarding Jesus' studies for the time being. I like it. I find it fascinating...and obviously not just Carrier. And I think there are plenty of interesting points to consider in the threads I've brought up on this issue. And I've enjoyed the discussion, outside the vitriol.

It's been interesting to be alone on some points of contention. I'm normally an agreeable person as I walk my daily walk. I find myself agreeing to some degree with responses people have given me, but I also find myself disagreeing on quite a few things. As an agreeable person I'd normally just zip the lip and let others discuss things. But, on this board, I'm happy to discuss ideas a little more freely. i suppose on this it's causing my credibility to take a hit for some reason. I can't see why. I'm dopey, perhaps. But I'm trying and I'm trying to be honest. That matters to me.

[dastardly stem]

Above all, I believe that the principal goal ought to be making people better thinkers, not strategizing to win at all costs. I was not impressed with Richard Carrier’s arguments because they lacked sensitivity to narrative and genre. It was as though he treated the gospels like 20th century history textbooks. He would subjectively judge that a sequence of events was plausible or not and conclude that no historical person would have experienced events in that way. I did not see his method really helping his readers understand the text on its own terms any better. We are better served learning about the thought world of antiquity to grapple with interpreting its texts than simply asking whether something is likely to have happened or not. I’ll walk you through Suetonius’ biography of Augustus and point out lots of things that probably did not happen as reported. That has no bearing on whether he existed or not. We know he did.

The guy’s work across the board is some of the lowest quality stuff I’ve seen from someone with his credentials. He wrote this book called ‘Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism’ that he had to self publish because the things he writes are so indefensible that no properly refereed publisher would ever let it see the light of day under their imprimatur.

Which is also why I think ‘Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’ was published under Prometheus, because that isn’t refereed at all and just seen by an editor.

When he finished up ‘On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ he got it through the Sheffield Phoenix Press review because: (i) they were relatively new and were interested in provocative submissions and (ii) they didn’t have the time nor staff to track down someone who actually comprehends probability theory that also had an inclination to read the submission.

There is a very good reason why Carrier has never sought to publish anything in the glut of Bayesian themed journals out there.

Atheists pay Carrier to say Jesus may not have lived and so his resurrection is even less likely to have happened. I think that’s a backward strategy unlikely to do much more than stoke shortcut thinking among atheists who find it exciting.

Honestly, I’m glad they do and it was enough to lure him away from teaching at public institutions. I’d much rather have some middle aged Redditor become enamored with Carrier because he wants to win arguments as opposed to some teenager taking a class from Carrier and thinking that employing Bayes means you are a critical thinker.

I don't know if its because or solely because people have attempted to append bad motives to him and Sheffield, but I hear he's working on a new edition. It happens though...so who knows?

Just looked on his website:

My academic study On the Historicity of Jesus was published in 2014, by respected biblical studies press Sheffield-Phoenix. It was the first complete study of the historicity of Jesus to pass peer review in over a hundred years. Since then only one other has been published, Raphael Lataster’s Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, published by Brill in 2019. Both studies found doubt more credible than confidence. There has yet to be a countermanding study.

The last ever before ours, finding instead in the affirmative, was Shirley Case’s The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1912 (with a second edition in 1928). Everything else published since (pro or con) has either not completed anything like a full study of the question, or has not been subject to any reliable kind of peer review (or both). Ever since Case, peer reviewed books on the historical Jesus simply assume historicity, with maybe (if rarely) a few pages on why that’s being assumed, but hardly anything like a real case for it. The field is awaiting—and greatly needs—a serious update of Case, to articulate well-examined (and not merely apologetical) reasons why historicity should continue to be assumed despite all the latest studies finding it shouldn’t. Especially since many of the assumptions Case relies on have been overthrown in mainstream scholarship since. We need a proper response to Carrier 2014 and Lataster 2019; at least, the best possible, so anyone can compare the best case to be made for each side.

Next year will mark the 10th anniversary of OHJ’s publication. In preparation for a possible second edition for that I have already completed a 2023 Revised Edition, and that has now replaced the original in print (the audio edition will not be updated; digital editions might be someday but currently have not been). It has the same pagination (more or less) and merely corrects a plethora of typos and minor errors (pretty much everything listed at Typos List for On the Historicity of Jesus). I am in contract to produce a new volume with Sheffield, and that was first imagined as just a more substantively updated edition of OHJ (not a mere Revised Edition but a full Second Edition). But in consultation with their editorial team we are considering the possibility of instead producing a second volume rather than a second edition, which would address the top controversies launched by On the Historicity of Jesus in the past decade, possibly even in dialogue with other fully-credentialed scholars.

This makes sense, as I am finding that the sorts of things I would change in a second edition are not very substantive: updating the references to cover publications since 2014 (none of which change any conclusions but only reinforce them); updating the wording in some passages to head off the kinds of disingenuous misreadings of the original that critics have undertaken (none of which is necessary for a sincere reader); and adding responses to, at least, those critics who attempted anything like a proper academic review (as in, published in a real academic journal). But that last can be accomplished in more fitting ways: with a dedicated chapter (or chapters) on that point in a new volume (rather than adding pages to the already overlong current volume, which would be necessary even if I could find material safe to subtract), or by publishing in the new volume actual debates or dialogues with other scholars on the point; or both.

If we do settle on this decision (nothing has yet been finalized), that would leave one thing still needed: a useful index to my blog articles updating (or defending against criticism) any argument in On the Historicity of Jesus. This will serve. Below I have organized those articles by subject or purpose. And I intend to keep this updated (so even if the date of this article remains 2023, it will include entries after that year, as they are produced). So readers who want to know if anything has changed, or how I’d respond to anything, since the 2014 edition, in any matter substantially affecting its thesis, can now bookmark and consult this annotated article index

https://www.richardcarrier.information/archives/24341

So maybe a second edition is coming or a whole new volume.

[huckelberry]

(Kishkumen) : Because his life is not what makes him matter to Christians. His resurrection is what makes him matter to Christians.

They both matter. Both his life and resurrection matter to Christians, from my observations. This isn't an either/or thing. Some might say, and I believe many Christians have told me this, his resurrection would be absolutely meaningless without his life. Talk to a Christian about their beliefs and they are bound to quote the teachings of his life. His life largely matters. ..........
It doesn't make a whole lot of difference if miracle stories are attached to some person. I'd say theres far more to consider. When we think about past characters, the thing that drives people to want to know if that person in question existed is motivated. Tons believe in Jesus. There is little doubt the reason why anyone would take such a scrutinizing view of whether Jesus lived is because many dogmatically claim it's all Him or your done for. Why not spend some energy researching him with such skepticism? .....

And I think there are plenty of interesting points to consider in the threads I've brought up on this issue. And I've enjoyed the discussion, outside the vitriol.

It's been interesting to be alone on some points of contention. I'm normally an agreeable person as I walk my daily walk. I find myself agreeing to some degree with responses people have given me, but I also find myself disagreeing on quite a few things. As an agreeable person I'd normally just zip the lip and let others discuss things. But, on this board, I'm happy to discuss ideas a little more freely. i suppose on this it's causing my credibility to take a hit for some reason. I can't see why. I'm dopey, perhaps. But I'm trying and I'm trying to be honest. That matters to me.

Stem, because we disagree about various things in this subject I wish to say, I like you and have for the most part enjoyed these discussions. I hope vitriol has been avoided even though there are points of emotional tensions. I think the fact that on this board you can explore disagreements which in other contexts are best bypassed is significant positive value for this board.

I think you are correct in your comments about the importance of Jesus's life to people. Kishkumen may be thinking that without the resurrection story Jesus would have been forgotten. Perhaps, perhaps not.

[Kishkumen]

Go read Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ life on Capri and then tell me what you think the facts are.

I'll be happy to. Thanks.

I will be interested to know what you think.

Because his life is not what makes him matter to Christians. His resurrection is what makes him matter to Christians.

They both matter. Both his life and resurrection matter to Christians, from my observations. This isn't an either/or thing. Some might say, and I believe many Christians have told me this, his resurrection would be absolutely meaningless without his life. Talk to a Christian about their beliefs and they are bound to quote the teachings of his life. His life largely matters. I don't understand this attempted dichotomy. Oddly many scholars seem to treat the recordings of his life as mythology anyway. So in the sense of history, what was his life? It was something other than Mark tells us, apparently, if it ever was. He could have been a million miles away from the character that was written about by diaspora Jewish writers. If that were the case, why would we be left with a dogmatic assumption telling everyone, "he lived...he really lived"? It has to come down to a level of probability if you ask me.

Yes, but, historically speaking, if there had been no belief in a resurrection, there would be no religion and no great masses invested in these questions.

To the contrary Jesus like other people of his age was credited with miracles. Some of these other people are just as poorly attested (or more poorly) as Jesus, and others are much better documented. The miracle stories are not the criterion that makes them more or less likely to have lived. The evidence for their lives is. Honi the Circle Drawer is less well attested than Jesus. Very few people question his existence. Motivated reasoning is what makes people question the existence of Jesus.

This is a good point, kish. I agree. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference if miracle stories are attached to some person. I'd say theres far more to consider. When we think about past characters, the thing that drives people to want to know if that person in question existed is motivated. Tons believe in Jesus. There is little doubt the reason why anyone would take such a scrutinizing view of whether Jesus lived is because many dogmatically claim it's all Him or you're done for. Why not spend some energy researching him with such skepticism? I'll continue to catch myself up on scholarship as a past time regarding Jesus' studies for the time being. I like it. I find it fascinating...and obviously not just Carrier. And I think there are plenty of interesting points to consider in the threads I've brought up on this issue. And I've enjoyed the discussion, outside the vitriol.

You will go through your own process, naturally. It is a fun diversion. Don't take the vitriol too seriously. Those of us who disagree or see things differently may get a little frustrated about what appears to us to be the repetitive grind of addressing some of your questions. Sorry to be blunt, but I would say that some of us feel we have done our level best to answer your questions, we agree with each other that we have, and then you will say we have not. There is a disconnect there. It is frustrating to us. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with you going about this in your own time and way.

It's been interesting to be alone on some points of contention. I'm normally an agreeable person as I walk my daily walk. I find myself agreeing to some degree with responses people have given me, but I also find myself disagreeing on quite a few things. As an agreeable person I'd normally just zip the lip and let others discuss things. But, on this board, I'm happy to discuss ideas a little more freely. i suppose on this it's causing my credibility to take a hit for some reason. I can't see why. I'm dopey, perhaps. But I'm trying and I'm trying to be honest. That matters to me.

I am not sure what degree of credibility anybody has online. Credibility may be close to dead. It may be that credible is a quality that is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent here. I think I am somewhat serious or kidding about that . . . .

In any case, please don't sweat it. You are among friends, even if sometimes the conversation may not seem so friendly. It is a passing thing.

[dastardly stem]

Hey Kish, been out a week or two doing other things. My apologies for a delayed response here.

I will be interested to know what you think.

I'd say my initial reaction is it is wildly different from what we'd expect if the gospels were meant as history. I think Dr Miller has a point in regarding the gospels less as any attempt at history and moreso at an attempt at cultic material used to instruct and inspire--not even really biographical. I believe, that's the impression given by Haag in his work on the genre.

Yes, but, historically speaking, if there had been no belief in a resurrection, there would be no religion and no great masses invested in these questions.

The life and teachings are as significant it seems. Without the written up life there'd "be no such religion and no great masses invested in these questions."

You will go through your own process, naturally. It is a fun diversion. Don't take the vitriol too seriously. Those of us who disagree or see things differently may get a little frustrated about what appears to us to be the repetitive grind of addressing some of your questions. Sorry to be blunt, but I would say that some of us feel we have done our level best to answer your questions, we agree with each other that we have, and then you will say we have not. There is a disconnect there. It is frustrating to us. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with you going about this in your own time and way.

Yeahh...no problem. Disagreement is bound to come. I'm enjoying the work of scholars as a pastime. I won't claim expertise. But I'm not sure why the vitriol is thrown at Carrier. Miller recently defended him. I quote:

Richard Carrier deserves a seat at the table (mainstream scholars producing great work. He is a highly trained historian. At two of the stop schools in the country. You got to take him seriously. He needs a seat at the table. You might not agree with him. But, for instance, there's only two options with King Arthur. he either historical or highly legendary. There's only two options with any major sacralized figure from antiquity...and those are the two. And so this idea that we need to indulge in all these other kinda view points in order to be fair and honest and what's the other side of this. There isn't another side! Those are faith-based approaches that really aren't contesting really with a purely secular approach.

Sadly there really is no legitimate scholarly rebuttal (I"ve read them all and they are nonsense on the sum, as I see it) nor other legitimately scholarly contest, as if there is another view put out in scholarship that is credible. There isn't any. That's the difficulty here. I'd agree with Miller and other scholars who are trying to dismiss legitimate scholarship due to personal bias against someone, or due to a hope for something legitimacy to apologetics.

Just as you and others feel I haven't given your comments due consideration, I'd say the same the other way around. Most of what I've said has not been addressed nor dealt with. And it's absolutely fine that that is the case, as i see it. We're going to disagree and some people simply aren't going to be interested in the topics. Certainly not interested enough to dig into it.

that's just it. You might not agree with him. But he's a legitimate scholar, with legitimate work. I know people want to dismiss him. but you can't. And most of what I've seen in these discussions is not some attempt to engage but an attempt to dismiss. And, again, not a big deal. It's expected. There's been a big push to dismiss him, as Ehrman and others have attempted. Internet backyard scholarship tends towards that.

I am not sure what degree of credibility anybody has online.

Excellent. My sentiments exactly. I just don't want to burn any bridges here simply because I ardently disagree on something.

Credibility may be close to dead. It may be that credible is a quality that is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent here. I think I am somewhat serious or kidding about that . . . .

In any case, please don't sweat it. You are among friends, even if sometimes the conversation may not seem so friendly. It is a passing thing.

I appreciate it. Very respectfully coming from you, Kishkumen. Thanks.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, because we disagree about various things in this subject I wish to say, I like you and have for the most part enjoyed these discussions. I hope vitriol has been avoided even though there are points of emotional tensions. I think the fact that on this board you can explore disagreements which in other contexts are best bypassed is significant positive value for this board.

I think you are correct in your comments about the importance of Jesus's life to people. Kishkumen may be thinking that without the resurrection story Jesus would have been forgotten. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Thanks huckelberry. Very nice of you to say. I really enjoy seeing you, reading your comments, and considering your ideas. Always wishing you the best.

[MG 2.0]

Its not really all that important to me to wonder whether Jesus lived.

Honestly? I would have thought differently with all the time you spend talking about it.

Actually, however, it does make ALL the difference as to whether or not he lived and was who the New Testament portrays him to be and millions of followers/believers have looked to Him as being.

After all the dust settles and folks like Carrier, Ehrman, and others do their thing, Jesus has stood the test of time among all of the other ‘greats’. One might ask why this is so. Jesus’ s message travels across time into hearts of the poor, the rich, the educated, the not so educated, etc.

A message for all that has stood the test of time.

And then we have the Book of Mormon…

Anyway, I enjoy reading the views of those that disbelieve but at the end of the day there really isn’t anything there in the way of offering up an alternative that beats the message and hope found in Christianity.

Regards,
MG