My review of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:00 am
I published a fairly extensive review of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" on my website, and welcome any feedback. The review can be found here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... eview.html
I first uploaded it in early June this year, and have been updating it occasionally as I get feedback or think of something to add.
Briefly: I regard Carrier's 'heavenly crucified Jesus' myth theory as refuted, since Carrier's evidence for the idea of an incarnated celestial being does not exist in Christian or pagan thought. That's not to say that Jesus is then necessarily historical. But I think GA Wells' myth theory stands up much better, since it would have the strengths of Carrier's other views while avoiding the problem of an incarnated celestial Jesus (which Wells himself rejects as unlikely due to his own reading of Paul.)
There are five Sections in my review:
Section 1 is the 'review' proper, where I give my opinion of OHJ. I find the book has a few good things (esp the Elements section, which is very useful) but my opinion overall is not good. I find the book sloppily written and Carrier himself struggling to communicate ideas clearly.
Section 2 looks at Carrier's use of Bayes's Theorem (BT), from his use in his earlier book 'Proving History' as well as on-line. I look at reviews by mathematicians and other BT experts, and these reviews are overwhelmingly negative towards Carrier's usage. (I don't write this in my review, but I suspect that Carrier has a very poor understanding of BT's usage in practical situations.) I'd love to balance the negative reviews with positive ones, so if anyone knows of any positive reviews of the use of BT in questions of history (especially by Carrier but also by anyone else), can you please PM me so I can add it to my review?
Section 3 looks at the silence in early Christian literature. Carrier says that Paul is unusual and bizarre in that respect, but I show that there are plenty of examples in the first couple of centuries CE where writers are silent on details of a historical Jesus.
Section 4 looks at the texts used by Carrier as precedents for his 'death in outer space' theory: 'Ascension of Isaiah', Book of Hebrews, Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' and Paul's 'Rulers of this Age'. I explain why he is patently incorrect in how he reads those texts, and the implications for his theory.
Section 5 looks at the primary sources that Carrier uses in calculating his final BT result. These primary sources are: Extrabiblical Sources, Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels and the Epistles in the NT. I provide the BT odds that Carrier uses, and comment on those odds.
If anyone has any questions, criticisms or suggestions on how I can improve the review, please let me know. There has been some discussion on my review on reddit, in a thread flatteringly called 'The first convincing rebuttal I've read to Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus'.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseid ... eview.html
I first uploaded it in early June this year, and have been updating it occasionally as I get feedback or think of something to add.
Briefly: I regard Carrier's 'heavenly crucified Jesus' myth theory as refuted, since Carrier's evidence for the idea of an incarnated celestial being does not exist in Christian or pagan thought. That's not to say that Jesus is then necessarily historical. But I think GA Wells' myth theory stands up much better, since it would have the strengths of Carrier's other views while avoiding the problem of an incarnated celestial Jesus (which Wells himself rejects as unlikely due to his own reading of Paul.)
There are five Sections in my review:
Section 1 is the 'review' proper, where I give my opinion of OHJ. I find the book has a few good things (esp the Elements section, which is very useful) but my opinion overall is not good. I find the book sloppily written and Carrier himself struggling to communicate ideas clearly.
Section 2 looks at Carrier's use of Bayes's Theorem (BT), from his use in his earlier book 'Proving History' as well as on-line. I look at reviews by mathematicians and other BT experts, and these reviews are overwhelmingly negative towards Carrier's usage. (I don't write this in my review, but I suspect that Carrier has a very poor understanding of BT's usage in practical situations.) I'd love to balance the negative reviews with positive ones, so if anyone knows of any positive reviews of the use of BT in questions of history (especially by Carrier but also by anyone else), can you please PM me so I can add it to my review?
Section 3 looks at the silence in early Christian literature. Carrier says that Paul is unusual and bizarre in that respect, but I show that there are plenty of examples in the first couple of centuries CE where writers are silent on details of a historical Jesus.
Section 4 looks at the texts used by Carrier as precedents for his 'death in outer space' theory: 'Ascension of Isaiah', Book of Hebrews, Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' and Paul's 'Rulers of this Age'. I explain why he is patently incorrect in how he reads those texts, and the implications for his theory.
Section 5 looks at the primary sources that Carrier uses in calculating his final BT result. These primary sources are: Extrabiblical Sources, Acts of the Apostles, the Gospels and the Epistles in the NT. I provide the BT odds that Carrier uses, and comment on those odds.
If anyone has any questions, criticisms or suggestions on how I can improve the review, please let me know. There has been some discussion on my review on reddit, in a thread flatteringly called 'The first convincing rebuttal I've read to Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus'.