Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

[Chris OConnor]

Ch. 2: The Hypothesis of Historicity (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

[DB Roy]

Carrier is correct that the default position of Jesus being historical is maintained through methodology that is shoddy and poor. Under the heading "The Basic Problem," he points out that many apologists and other opponents of mythicism will pick out the weakest mythicist arguments and use that to dismiss all other mythicist arguments (pardon me while I sneeze--ah-ahh-ahhh-ah-ahhh-TURKEL!! Gesundheit). Another method is to make specious claims as "We have more evidence that Jesus existed than we do that Alexander the Great (or Julius Caesar) existed." This is simply false. Cynically false. We have statues of Alexander made in his lifetime, for example. While biographers came some centuries later (how many were there likely to be in the 4th century BCE?), they were not worshipers of Alexander but dispassionate historians with no agenda other than to document the great man's life. No miraculous claims, no deification. In fact, they based their work on true eyewitnesses of Alexander. So this kind of apologist rubbish doesn't fly. And it angers me because they either know what they are saying is BS or, at the very least, they should know it. We all have the internet today, folks, it's a simple matter of looking up a few entries. When you don't even do that, you're either too lazy to research or you're too stupid. No excuse either way.

Then you have people like Flann who can disprove any and all mythicist claims because Paul said this and Mark said that and John said something else. As though that cinches it. These people said it and there is no possibility that they were wrong or were lying. The standard of evidence is extremely poor in these cases. According to the Flannites, Paul said 500 brethren saw the risen Christ so it had to have happened. Paul couldn't have made it up or be exaggerating or be repeating something he heard from some other professional bullshitter, Paul said so it cannot be argued with and anybody who argues with it is engaging in a faulty method. Never mind that Paul doesn't name a single one of these 500 or where they were when they saw this or what they even saw. We know Paul wasn't there when it happened because he names his own encounter as happening later. Yet we are to believe it without question because Paul said it. Never mind that we know little about who Paul was to the point where we can't even be truly sure he existed (not mentioned outside church literature and not even mentioned by Justin Martyr who wrote about 1st century Christianity).

The gospels are even worse. They are anonymous accounts written by no one who saw or met Jesus and not based on accounts by anyone who saw or met Jesus. These accounts are painfully contradictory to the point where it is impossible to construct a coherent biography of Jesus based on them. For example, only one gospel says he was from Bethlehem, only two say he was born there, two contain entirely different paternal lineages of Jesus and neither can get him into the same timeframe, They give few historical details or even attempt to sequence events but rather recount incidents with introductory phrases as "One time...," "Another time...," "And when he was alone with them...," "Soon afterward...," "About this time...." But these are unassailable accounts, folks.

But Flann is a layman and he can be forgiven these indiscretions. The professional historians are a much bigger problem. I wouldn't allow these guys to testify at a trial or sit on a jury because they are incompetent and display a complete lack of critical faculties. I would expect a true historian to know how to weigh evidence. Anonymous accounts have to sit at the bottom of the barrel of historical accuracy. How can you possibly give an account even the tiniest amount of credence when you don't know who wrote it?? Especially when it is clear it was copied from an earlier writing?? When I hear some guy with a college degree who stands out in his field of expertise say something like, "An examination of the New Testament writings indicates that there was a real man at the center of it all, this man called Jesus," I can only roll may eyes and shake my head. He has NO RIGHT to come to that conclusion because the available evidence does NOT suggest any such thing and he, of all people, should damn well know it.

Some defenses of the historical Jesus written by scholars with impressive credentials are so poor and so ill-conceived that I have to wonder if this person is the great mind he is touted to be. Usually he has great credentials in a field as ancient manuscripts and is fluent is several ancient languages and he is an authority in that area but when he gets out of that area and starts dabbling in opinions about Jesus, he is clearly out of his element. When this happens, I lose a bit of respect for him. How can someone with such a good mind use it for so ill a purpose, to not even be capable to using it any better? But the fact that the historical Jesus is the default position among these scholars is truly mind-boggling. Not one of them can think outside the box? And it's a TINY box!!!

Again, applying Bayes Theorem to the question of the historical Jesus what evidence should we expect to find if we posit that he is historical? What evidence would we expect to see if he is not? Well, for starters, we have enough writings from the time in which he lived that he himself should have written something. If he did, nothing of it survives. There should be people outside of Church literature referencing him. Other than a forged passage in Josephus there is nothing. Other references, which are very scant, merely reference the Jesus legend and don't tell us anything about a historical Jesus. We don't see what we expect to see of an historical Jesus. What would advocate of a non-historic Jesus see today? No writings from this Jesus--check. No credible references to him in his time or the generation after--check. Earlier personages that are similar to Jesus who would have lived in the same general region such as Joshua ben Pandira and the Teacher of Righteousness--check. Some of the earliest artwork depicting Jesus were actually of Hermes the Good Shepard--check. The earliest known image of the crucifix depicts a man with an ass's head splayed on a cross. The standard bearded, silken-headed Jesus didn't come about until the 6th century. That's checkmate, mate.

Now I must get back to my reading of this truly fascinating book.

[youkrst]

[Robert Tulip]

specious claims as "We have more evidence that Jesus existed than we do that Alexander the Great (or Julius Caesar) existed." This is simply false. Cynically false.

Carrier’s analysis of this amazing line is a superb demolition of the type of idiocy that faith can produce, giving religion such an appalling reputation for mendacity and corruption.

Carrier systematically summarises the vast, abundant, incontrovertible, various, obvious, major evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, and then asks where this alleged “more evidence” for Jesus Christ is to be found. There is none. None.

So the amazing thing is the bare-faced impudence of this Big Lie, with this typical Christian apologist line applying Hitler’s dictum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie that

“in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

The appalling thing here is that there are many people, notably the 42% of Americans who believe in Young Earth Creationism, who want to believe there is more evidence for Jesus than for Alexander, and so will be willingly sucked in by this and similar Christian Big Lies.

We all have the internet today, folks, it's a simple matter of looking up a few entries. When you don't even do that, you're either too lazy to research or you're too stupid. No excuse either way.

I loved Carrier’s use of the internet to check on the existence of Betty Crocker http://www.walkerart.org/minnesotabydes ... ty-crocker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Crocker and Colonel Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders. Checking the evidence for Jesus is almost as easy.

I would expect a true historian to know how to weigh evidence. Anonymous accounts have to sit at the bottom of the barrel of historical accuracy. How can you possibly give an account even the tiniest amount of credence when you don't know who wrote it?? Especially when it is clear it was copied from an earlier writing?? When I hear some guy with a college degree who stands out in his field of expertise say something like, "An examination of the New Testament writings indicates that there was a real man at the center of it all, this man called Jesus," I can only roll may eyes and shake my head. He has NO RIGHT to come to that conclusion because the available evidence does NOT suggest any such thing and he, of all people, should damn well know it.

This pervasive delusion of religious scholarship illustrates the power of emotional sentiment in governing people’s beliefs, as well as the corrupt desire for personal advancement. Bart Ehrman’s apostasy from scholarship to craven apologetics got him onto the cover of Newsweek, although some might say he sold his soul. Preferment in religious institutions and endorsement from mass media is based on toeing the line, in a syndrome that creates genuine belief in the Historical Jesus, with an ability to suppress the cognitive dissonance between this false belief and all legitimate methods of scholarship.

applying Bayes Theorem to the question of the historical Jesus what evidence should we expect to find if we posit that he is historical? What evidence would we expect to see if he is not?

This summarises the key principle of method in Carrier’s book, and presents an amazingly powerful logical and evidence based argument that the whole idea of a historical Jesus is an absurd forgery. The simple case, which Carrier assembles like a skilled attorney, is that at every point, the real data fits with the hypothesis that Jesus was invented and does not fit with the hypothesis that Jesus was real. That is such an important basic finding that I am going to say it again. The simple case, which Carrier assembles like a skilled attorney, is that at every point, the real data fits with the hypothesis that Jesus was invented and does not fit with the hypothesis that Jesus was real.

No data contradicts the mythicist hypothesis, and no data supports the historicist hypothesis. This is an amazing massive historical scandal, illustrating that human psychology is vastly more fallible and irrational than is generally assumed. This is an important discovery for what it says about the propensity for mass delusion, and the dangers of similar delusions occurring again where they are politically convenient. This is why Hitler’s Big Lie comment presents such a cautionary comparison.

Well, for starters, we have enough writings from the time in which he lived that he himself should have written something. If he did, nothing of it survives. There should be people outside of Church literature referencing him. Other than a forged passage in Josephus there is nothing. Other references, which are very scant, merely reference the Jesus legend and don't tell us anything about a historical Jesus. We don't see what we expect to see of an historical Jesus. What would advocate of a non-historic Jesus see today? No writings from this Jesus--check. No credible references to him in his time or the generation after--check. Earlier personages that are similar to Jesus who would have lived in the same general region such as Joshua ben Pandira and the Teacher of Righteousness--check. Some of the earliest artwork depicting Jesus were actually of Hermes the Good Shepard--check. The earliest known image of the crucifix depicts a man with an ass's head splayed on a cross. The standard bearded, silken-headed Jesus didn't come about until the 6th century. That's checkmate, mate.

Excellent and incontrovertible summary of the application of this simple powerful logical tool of Bayes Theorem to the Bible. The only way to rebut your arguments here is to depend on blind faith. Alas that is an all too common expedient.

Now I must get back to my reading of this truly fascinating book.

Me too.

[DB Roy]

Combine Hitler's big lie with Goebbel's rule of good propagandizing: "Repeat a lie enough times and people will come to believe it." Christianity has also done this quite well. So tell the big lie and tell it often. That's basically it. After that, as Hitler points out, it doesn't matter what evidence you introduce to prove the lie; it will not be accepted or believed. That old standard of Christian intelligence confirms it: "I believe it precisely because it is impossible." I can't believe people want to make themselves look this foolish. They may as well believe in Cold Fusion and the Cardiff Giant which is certainly less ridiculous than creationism.

[DB Roy]

After whittling away the many "facts" about the gospelic/historic Jesus--none of which are supported in the epistles, Carrier presents his version of the historic Jesus--this is the Jesus that can be supported by both the gospels and the epistles and so have some hope of being historical, what Carrier calls his "minimal theory of history":

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

If even one of these can be proven wrong, it proves the historic Jesus to be non-existent. In other words, when we speak of a historic Jesus, we must mention a man who gained followers, was executed and was regarded as a living god. If any of these three points are absent from the picture then we are not talking about that particular Jesus but another (and there were plenty of people named Jesus back then as Carrier also points out--just read Josephus).

The prior probability for this minimally historic Jesus could be fairly high, let's say as high as the mythicist Jesus. But if it proves unsustainable (and it will, Carrier assures us) then it could only be salvaged by a more elaborate theory that is sufficient to overcome the probability of mythicism. But even if this happens, the prior probability of the historicist theory would then drop far below that of the mythicist's. In fact, it effectively becomes zero. How? Because this theory would have to be something we are not currently aware of and so there is no prior probability of it, that is, it is not something we could know before the gathering of evidence to prove it. Without that prior probability, we have no reason then to even advance a theory of the historic Jesus. So to get it off the ground, we must have prior probability.

So, basically, this is the historic argument we currently have, there are no others (well, there are, actually, but they are not minimalist in nature). And now we must look at a minimally mythicist theory.

[DWill]

Just to note, in both of these longer posts asserting lack of any historicity regarding Jesus, two views that used to be kept separate are conflated. The one view is that of the Christian faithful, which in general would attest to the occurrence of acts and events in the Gospels. The other is that of the majority of academic historians of Christianity, in which judgment of the reality of those events is suspended, but the assumption that Jesus lived is retained. These historians see a milieu in which belief in Jesus arose from the ground up, somehow organically. That is what they study. Scholars such as Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Aslan, and, indeed, Elaine Pagels, have conventionally been placed in opposition to theologians and historians with direct affiliation to Christianity, i.e., apologists. Under the mythicist view, the two groups have become one, apologists all.

Historicity can be a little tricky to define. It's intended primarily to indicate things that really happened, but in another sense it can refer to things believed to have happened that became an influence in subsequent history. So the notion of Jesus has obvious historicity, which mythicists wouldn't deny, I'm sure. What they deny is that the belief originated in the way it was said to have done throughout the ages. They are saying there is a different historicity surrounding the origin of Jesus that was buried intentionally or simply obscured because of the manner in which Jesus needed to be translated from heaven to earth. That's the mythicist's task, to demonstrate that other historicity. It parallels the task of the from-Jesus-to-Christ historians who have been rashly labeled apologists.

Which side owns the weight of evidence will never be answered objectively. The assessment required doesn't depend only on bits of discrete, claimed evidence, but on judgments that must often appeal to the audience's sense of appropriateness, likelihood, compatibility with the culture of origin. and impartiality. Each side sees each of these matters in different light. The mainstream now holds that Jesus, if not actually historical, arose as if from a human being. If there truly is a paradigm shift underway, as Robert believes, the balance will shift and the from-Christ-to-Jesus side will gather force.

[Robert Tulip]

Just to note, in both of these longer posts asserting lack of any historicity regarding Jesus, two views that used to be kept separate are conflated. The one view is that of the Christian faithful, which in general would attest to the occurrence of acts and events in the Gospels. The other is that of the majority of academic historians of Christianity, in which judgment of the reality of those events is suspended, but the assumption that Jesus lived is retained.

The distinction you describe here between faith and scholarship should be the case, but unfortunately it is not. The historicity of Jesus Christ is a unique problem, at the centre of western civilization, framing the dominant cultural theory of meaning, and this immense immense influence bleeds over into scholarship, with interest in these questions often driven by confessional motives. If we look at academic historians of Christianity like Michael Grant in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, we find an assertion that “The author looks at the gospels with an historian's eye, in search of the authentic Jesus. He seeks to separate those portions of the gospels that refer to the true career and teachings of Jesus, from the subsequent additions or inventions by the evangelists. The gospels are studied in the same way as other ancient historical sources, endeavouring to reconstruct what really happened and to uncover the truth of the historical Jesus.”

Is this assertion of sound method borne out in Grant's text? No. There are massive problems about the reliability of the gospels which Grant simply ignores, taking on face value claims that should be understood as purely parabolic. You cannot work with the assumption that Jesus lived and suspend judgement on the gospels. The two are mutually incompatible. The assumption that Jesus lived involves a failure to suspend judgement.

These historians see a milieu in which belief in Jesus arose from the ground up, somehow organically. That is what they study. Scholars such as Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Aslan, and, indeed, Elaine Pagels, have conventionally been placed in opposition to theologians and historians with direct affiliation to Christianity, i.e., apologists. Under the mythicist view, the two groups have become one, apologists all.

That critique applies to Ehrman and Aslan, but not in my view to Crossan, Borg and Pagels, whom I respect despite their acceptance of historicity.

If we go back a bit in time to the high point of Protestant intellectual theology in the middle of the twentieth century, it still remains useful to read the works of towering figures such as Tillich, Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Cullman and perhaps Bultmann. Their power of intellect means that despite the dark glass of historicity that they look through, to paraphrase Paul, they find an ethical meaning in the text which remains valid regardless of the historicity assumption. The fact that they are sincere apologists for Christian faith only marginally detracts from the value of their work.

Pagels, Borg and Crossan are similar in my opinion, as writers who are primarily interested in deriving ethical lessons. I have read quite a bit of their work, and with Pagels especially, my sense is that there is a careful avoidance of sensitive questions of historicity which could get her in trouble with the pious. Her work on Gnosticism is controversial enough without buying into the mythicism debate. Unlike Ehrman, Pagels does not make untrue assertions.

As for Ehrman, his political tract Did Jesus Exist? is worthless rubbish, reflecting an intent that he thought would be easy but once he got going found impossible, since his historicist assumptions are controverted by the evidence. But he had to keep going and publish his tract to save face, since he had staked his reputation in popular terms upon this book which reflects more an emotional outpouring of his subconscious faith than any rigorous academic analysis. His standing is only protected by his excellent other work.

Ehrman’s political attack on mythicism owes more Torquemada and Dominic than to any serious scholarship. The recrudescence of inquisitorial attitudes in this work makes it a disturbing example of apologetic rationalization. It shows how it really is difficult for some people to be aware how severely their assumptions are influenced by ideas that they almost imbibed with their mother’s milk.

Historicity can be a little tricky to define. It's intended primarily to indicate things that really happened, but in another sense it can refer to things believed to have happened that became an influence in subsequent history. So the notion of Jesus has obvious historicity, which mythicists wouldn't deny, I'm sure.

The notion and the man are two completely separate things, as Carrier explains regarding similar examples such as King Arthur. Of course the myth of Arthur was immensely influential in the English construction of cultural identity, but that is a completely separate question from whether Arthur actually lived, which is what historicity asks about.

The Christ Myth is central to the European conquest of the world, providing moral comfort to the Conquistadors as they baptized infants before killing them. But the beliefs held by a Cortez do not pertain to the historicity of Jesus.

What they deny is that the belief originated in the way it was said to have done throughout the ages. They are saying there is a different historicity surrounding the origin of Jesus that was buried intentionally or simply obscured because of the manner in which Jesus needed to be translated from heaven to earth. That's the mythicist's task, to demonstrate that other historicity. It parallels the task of the from-Jesus-to-Christ historians who have been rashly labeled apologists.

No, mythicism contradicts the task of conventional views, by applying the same standards of evidence to the gospels as historians apply in other less culturally fraught topics of study. Your calling this a ‘parallel’ only creates confusion by asserting more validity in apologetic literature than it deserves.

I agree that reconstructing a plausible story of how the non-historicity of Jesus was forgotten remains an immensely difficult problem. For Carrier, the task is to show that it was forgotten, and the problem of why and how this happened is something for further research. [eta - So his focus is more on the method of Christianity than its motive. That is a core theme I will return to.]

For example, in the Carrier article about Ehrman that I recently linked, he attacks Freke and Gandy in florid language that I consider entirely baseless. This to me illustrates that Carrier too labors under the influence of cultural presuppositions, notably his support for secular atheist rationalism, and opposition to mystical new age thinking. That is perfectly understandable, given that mysticism has such a bad reputation in academic circles, and Carrier is already struggling against the immense hostility towards the mythicist hypothesis. He just does not need that extra burden of engaging with dubious social movements.

Providing a rational explanation of how astral ideas could have influenced Christian origins is fraught, since it touches on highly irrational cultural traditions such as magic, theosophy and astrology. Carrier explicitly brackets that agenda as something he does not wish to discuss in OHJ, as does Earl Doherty. To my reading this means both of them only provide a preliminary platform for explanation of how Christianity evolved, a platform that deliberately avoids some of the big questions about how the originators of Christianity actually thought. The whole problem of how a celestial Jesus was imagined is something Carrier and Doherty just don’t discuss in detail, partly because it would steer too close to the shoals of cultural traditions that are broadly regarded with contempt.

Which side owns the weight of evidence will never be answered objectively.

I disagree. In all this debate, I am reminded of Bertold Brecht’s great play The Life of Galileo, in which Galileo mocks the Pope for refusing to look through the telescope. Carrier’s use of Bayes Theorem is like Galileo’s telescope, a technical method that is viewed with fear and ignorance by those who are not familiar with it. But the clarity and elegance of this simple method means that the weight of evidence can be considered objectively.

You might find it surprising, but Carrier is highly charitable towards historicism in assessing the probability of its prior assumptions. Even with charitable reading, he demonstrates that the probability of many core historicist assumptions about Christian origins is minimal to nonexistent.

The assessment required doesn't depend only on bits of discrete, claimed evidence, but on judgments that must often appeal to the audience's sense of appropriateness, likelihood, compatibility with the culture of origin. and impartiality. Each side sees each of these matters in different light.

“Appropriate” is a highly charged political term. Believers don’t find it “appropriate” for people to prove that their beliefs are false.

The mainstream now holds that Jesus, if not actually historical, arose as if from a human being. If there truly is a paradigm shift underway, as Robert believes, the balance will shift and the from-Christ-to-Jesus side will gather force.

Those two small words “as if” in the middle of your comment here conceal a great mystery. That is the Docetic Heresy, which was a capital crime for more than a thousand years, saying that Jesus only seemed to be real.

As Carrier points out, the winnowing of the data by the highly selective sieve of the church means we don’t have any Docetic writings, only tender instructions from bigots that we must block our ears to such Satanism or face the wrath of the executioner. The great fear instilled by the kings who killed off all these “as if” writers and pulped their books remains a palpable cultural force, pushing this whole debate into the margins, and out of the mainstream. We can talk about it on the internet, but there is nothing in universities or the media about this great “as if”. Like the suffering servant, this whole discussion is despised and rejected.

[Robert Tulip]

Let me give an example of how the church intimidates scholars who present this "as if" approach to the historicity of Christ.

Thomas Brodie's case is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L. ... ontroversy

Brodie is a distinguished Irish Catholic scholar, with an extensive list of books published by Oxford University Press. His 2012 book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery caused controversy when Brodie endorsed the Christ myth theory and expressed the view that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure, a belief he reports he has held since the 1970s. In response, the Roman Church banned him from speaking or teaching and sacked him, or perhaps invited him to consider his position. They reviewed the case and determined his views were "imprudent and dangerous".

Truth being no defence when it comes to religious bigotry, Brodie has been cast into the outer darkness.

This vile act of intimidation of knowledge has been broadly ignored but is a major scandal, sending ripples of fear through scholars in the church, illustrating that the powers of darkness within the church will still act with methods derived by the hounds of God from the Hammer of Witches.

You need the courage of Christ to stand up to bear witness to the truth in such a context. Sadly such courage stands under the interdict of hypocrisy when it comes to courteous scholarly dialogue with organised Chrimestianity.

[DWill]

The distinction you describe here between faith and scholarship should be the case, but unfortunately it is not. The historicity of Jesus Christ is a unique problem, at the centre of western civilization, framing the dominant cultural theory of meaning, and this immense immense influence bleeds over into scholarship, with interest in these questions often driven by confessional motives. If we look at academic historians of Christianity like Michael Grant in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, we find an assertion that “The author looks at the gospels with an historian's eye, in search of the authentic Jesus. He seeks to separate those portions of the gospels that refer to the true career and teachings of Jesus, from the subsequent additions or inventions by the evangelists. The gospels are studied in the same way as other ancient historical sources, endeavouring to reconstruct what really happened and to uncover the truth of the historical Jesus.”

Is this assertion of sound method borne out in Grant's text? No. There are massive problems about the reliability of the gospels which Grant simply ignores, taking on face value claims that should be understood as purely parabolic. You cannot work with the assumption that Jesus lived and suspend judgement on the gospels. The two are mutually incompatible. The assumption that Jesus lived involves a failure to suspend judgement.

Be all that as it may, my point was to question the lumping of two distinct groups with the designation 'apologist.' If we're going to preserve the distinctions that meaning depends on, it seems we need to acknowledge that someone whose one similarity with orthodox believers is that she feels that some Jesus was at the origin of what became Christianity, isn't an apologist. The older word for such a person was apostate or heretic. The conflation of the two hints of the crude sectioning of politics and even of propaganda, as does the allegation that in historicists the power of reason is zapped by unconscious "confessional motives."

Pagels, Borg and Crossan are similar in my opinion, as writers who are primarily interested in deriving ethical lessons. I have read quite a bit of their work, and with Pagels especially, my sense is that there is a careful avoidance of sensitive questions of historicity which could get her in trouble with the pious. Her work on Gnosticism is controversial enough without buying into the mythicism debate. Unlike Ehrman, Pagels does not make untrue assertions.

Surely you have enough respect for Pagels not to believe she would hold back from fear of offending the pious. The pious are not her audience.

The notion and the man are two completely separate things, as Carrier explains regarding similar examples such as King Arthur. Of course the myth of Arthur was immensely influential in the English construction of cultural identity, but that is a completely separate question from whether Arthur actually lived, which is what historicity asks about.

The Christ Myth is central to the European conquest of the world, providing moral comfort to the Conquistadors as they baptized infants before killing them. But the beliefs held by a Cortez do not pertain to the historicity of Jesus.

The idea of Arthur is part of history, just as the idea of Jesus is. Myths that we now see as fiction, without any controversy, are part of history, too, since they were carried forth and arguably influenced events. Of course the belief has no bearing on the historical reality. The aspect that is my only interest in this topic is the historicity of the belief, the description of how the belief in Jesus arose. Historical accuracy regarding any person need have little to do with that question.

No, mythicism contradicts the task of conventional views, by applying the same standards of evidence to the gospels as historians apply in other less culturally fraught topics of study. Your calling this a ‘parallel’ only creates confusion by asserting more validity in apologetic literature than it deserves.

I'm talking about the works of such people as you and I have mentioned, not writers of apologetics. The confusion may be caused by your regarding these writers as apologists, an assessment with which I strongly disagree.

I agree that reconstructing a plausible story of how the non-historicity of Jesus was forgotten remains an immensely difficult problem. For Carrier, the task is to show that it was forgotten, and the problem of why and how this happened is something for further research. [eta - So his focus is more on the method of Christianity than its motive. That is a core theme I will return to.]

It's also difficult to explain how Jesus became Christ, so there are difficulties on both sides, and I'm glad you don't underestimate the distance left to go in your own task.

I disagree. In all this debate, I am reminded of Bertold Brecht’s great play The Life of Galileo, in which Galileo mocks the Pope for refusing to look through the telescope. Carrier’s use of Bayes Theorem is like Galileo’s telescope, a technical method that is viewed with fear and ignorance by those who are not familiar with it. But the clarity and elegance of this simple method means that the weight of evidence can be considered objectively.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bayes Theorem works in here regarding the Jesus Christ story or myth as we find it in the Gospels. If it claims to provide proof that these events could not have been true, that can not extend to the kind of minimal historical reality that historicists of the stripe I am talking about (non-apologists) assume. I also am content to let others believe what their faiths dictate. I don't see the need to prove to them that their belief is impossible.

“Appropriate” is a highly charged political term. Believers don’t find it “appropriate” for people to prove that their beliefs are false.

I would change that word if it makes you think of propriety. I had in mind more of an intellectual appropriateness. And again, believers aren't part of the picture I'm painting.

Those two small words “as if” in the middle of your comment here conceal a great mystery. That is the Docetic Heresy, which was a capital crime for more than a thousand years, saying that Jesus only seemed to be real.

That's not where I was going with the "as if." With Docetism, there was someone there, but he was not really a mortal. That belief would make it easier to believe that he rose as spirit, since he already was one.

As Carrier points out, the winnowing of the data by the highly selective sieve of the church means we don’t have any Docetic writings, only tender instructions from bigots that we must block our ears to such Satanism or face the wrath of the executioner. The great fear instilled by the kings who killed off all these “as if” writers and pulped their books remains a palpable cultural force, pushing this whole debate into the margins, and out of the mainstream. We can talk about it on the internet, but there is nothing in universities or the media about this great “as if”. Like the suffering servant, this whole discussion is despised and rejected.

Seeing that Docetism is not far removed from ideas found in the Gnostic writings, we do have expression of it, though the Church of the time would rather that not to have been the case.

Bigotry is something always to be avoided, and the churches, certainly including the Protestant sects, have been guilty of it often. Bigotry might also sneak up on us in our oppositions, without our knowing it. I like to keep that in mind when thinking about traditional faith. Faith has been called an enemy by Harris and others, but that can easily lead to bigotry.

If the debate between mythicists and historicists is going to be a reasoned one, each side will need to tone down the crusading, attacking statements, as difficult as these may be to suppress.