Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Richard Carrier, a historian with a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University (2008), is best known for his advocacy of the “Christ myth theory”—the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a purely mythical figure, not a historical person. While he has credentials and has published peer-reviewed work on unrelated topics (e.g., ancient science), his mythicist arguments, especially in books like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) and Jesus from Outer Space (2020), are widely regarded as fringe and flawed by mainstream scholars.

Rejection by Consensus: Virtually no tenured experts in biblical studies, classics, or ancient history endorse his views. As ancient historian Marko Marina notes, Carrier’s mythicism “has not won any supporters from critical scholars” due to a “lack of positive evidences from primary sources.” Similarly, Wikipedia’s entry on Carrier (updated November 2025) states that his interpretations “have not been accepted within academic scholarship” and are “considered fringe.” Scholars across ideologies (Christian, Jewish, atheist) affirm a historical Jesus based on cumulative evidence like Paul’s letters and Josephus; Carrier’s position is often compared to pseudohistory, akin to young-earth creationism in biology.

Flawed Methodology: Carrier relies heavily on Bayesian probability to estimate Jesus’ non-existence at odds of 1-in-3 to 1-in-12,000, but critics call this “unnecessarily complicated and uninviting,” “tenuous,” and “problematic and unpersuasive.” For instance, in a 2017 review in Relegere, Daniel N. Gullotta praises the book’s rigor but faults its “lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions,” including cherry-picking data and ignoring counter-evidence like Paul’s references to Jesus’ earthly family (e.g., brother James in Galatians 1:19). Simon Gathercole (Cambridge) argues in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2018) that Carrier’s reading of Paul as describing a “cosmic” rather than historical Jesus is contradicted by the texts’ details of Jesus’ human life and death.

Ideological Bias Over Evidence: Marina accuses Carrier of being “guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work,” prioritizing atheism-fueled skepticism over balanced analysis. Bart Ehrman (agnostic scholar) has called Carrier’s work “full of errors,” “sloppy,” and “irresponsible” in a 2022 blog response, noting it misinforms the public by dismissing standard sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus) as forgeries without sufficient proof. In Reddit’s r/AcademicBiblical (2023 thread), experts like those reviewing On the Historicity emphasize that Carrier misrepresents scholarly support for mythicism, inflating a handful of fringe voices (e.g., Robert M. Price) into a “growing trend.”

Cherry-Picking and Ignoring Broader Scholarship: Carrier often relies on outdated or amateur sources (e.g., 19th-century mythicists) while dismissing recent work on oral traditions or the “criterion of embarrassment” (e.g., Jesus’ baptism implying sinfulness, unlikely to be invented). A 2024 analysis on The Secular Frontier critiques his denial of the Q source (early sayings of Jesus) as essential to his theory, arguing it fails “verse by verse” against evidence like 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 (Jews killing Jesus, presupposing historicity). Tim O’Neill, a history blogger, notes in r/samharris (2023) that mythicism persists not due to evidence but because “it’s a bad idea backed by weak arguments,” with Carrier having “wasted his life” defending it.

Beyond academics, Carrier faces widespread criticism for his behavior, which has alienated peers and damaged mythicism’s credibility:

Combative and Abusive Online Presence: Described as “combative, petty, and vindictive,” Carrier’s blogs and social media (e.g., Freethought Blogs) feature personal attacks, calling critics “incompetent,” “hack,” or “arrogantly dogmatic.” A 2017 Vridar blog post calls him an “embarrassment to mythicism,” arguing his “unseemly behavior… negates anything else he might bring to the table” and wastes “limited bandwidth” in debates. In r/DebateReligion (2018), users note his theories are “laughed at in academia” partly due to this toxicity.

Controversies and Isolation: In 2016–2017, Carrier was accused of sexual harassment by multiple women in atheist/skeptic circles, leading to his resignation from the Atheist Community of Austin and bans from conferences. While he denies wrongdoing and claims defamation, it contributed to his status as a “persona non grata.” Recent X posts (e.g., November 2025) mock him as a “pathetic excuse of a scholar” or tie his views to unrelated rants (e.g., on immigration in a debate clip). Even fellow mythicists distance themselves; in a 2022 review of Varieties of Jesus Mythicism, Carrier critiques the anthology for including “amateur contributions employing dubious claims,” highlighting internal divisions.

Lack of Institutional Support: Despite his PhD, Carrier is an independent scholar without a tenure-track position, partly attributed to his reputation. r/AcademicBiblical (2022) threads question if he’s made mythicism “more seriously” taken—consensus: no, it just became “dead air” for dismissal as “bonkers.”

Carrier exemplifies the mythicist side’s weaknesses: innovative but evidentially thin arguments, propped up by polemic rather than peer acceptance.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics