A review by dean_issov
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard C. Carrier
challenging
informative
slow-paced
5.0
đ Description
On The Historicity Of Jesus is an academic book by Richard Carrier. Compiling all the best evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth, Carrier makes an excellent argument as a historian that can still be debated to this day.
âď¸ What I liked
1. All arguments and claims are given plenty of sources to back it up.
2. Carrier's confidence in his thesis but also in his awareness that he could be wrong. He puts effort in not being biased and invites readers/scholars to correct him.
3. Carrier basically created THE book for mythicism; compiling mostâif not allâof the best academic work that's for mythicism while countering all the arguments againts mythicism. (It would be nice if a scholar wrote a book exactly like this but for the historical Jesus).
4. You don't have to agree with everything Carrier says for the book to be informative. This book not only covers mythicism but also all the facts about the development of the Bible, Christianity, and its political contexts.Â
â What I didn't like
1. Several chapters and pages should've been cut shorter, Carrier writes too much (and although it's good in a lot of parts), sometimes all it does is just makes the reader lose focus.Â
2. The Baye's Theorem. Not that it was wrong (and not that I would know that it's wrong, I'm only a layperson) but it seemed so complicated and unnecessary that I skipped all the bits that had to do with it. I can understand the percentage and fraction of how mythical/historical Jesus is but the process to get that is just not it.Â
3. Some of the parallels Carrier makes are not as convincing as the others.Â
đ Notes/Highlights
1. The historicity of Jesus Christ is currently the default consensus. Several respectable books have defended the thesis against detractors. But they all suffer from two fatal flaws: by soundly debunking weak versions of mythicism, they fallaciously conclude strong ones neednât even be examined; and they defend the historicity of Jesus by defending the historicity of particular claims about Jesus using the very methods I and others have proven to be logically invalid across the board. By using invalid methods to establish their premises, they thereby arrive at an invalid conclusion, which they then use to invalidly reject alternative theories. This is not the way to defend the historicity of Jesus.
2. The name âJesus Christâ literally means âSavior Messiahâ, which actually just means âAnointed Saviorâ. The author of the Gospel of Matthew was well aware of this, and even made a point of it. Jesus is an English derivation from the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Joshua (Yeshua), which means âYahweh savesâ. Christ is from the Greek christos, meaning âanointedâ, which in Hebrew is mÄĹĄĂŽaḼ, âmessiahâ.
3. For any claim about antiquity the evidence we might have can come in many formsâoriginal documents, tombstones, coins, excavated buildings (or indeed anything physically recovered from the past, from dolls to doorknobs), astronomical or geographical facts, graffiti on an ancient wall; in short, all kinds of things. However, in the case of Jesus, there is no directly relevant archaeological evidence. And no indirect evidence is relevant to determining historicity. There is only one kind of evidence left: texts (books, letters, etc.), which are reconstructed (by modern scholars) from a variety of manuscripts (which are copies of copies of copies of even earlier originals now lost).
4. The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction. Nevertheless, its author (traditionally Luke, the author of the Gospel: see Chapter 7, §4) may have derived some of its material or ideas from earlier traditions, written or oral.
5. Several scholars have confirmed that by the standards of myth I just spelled out, the Gospels are primarily and pervasively mythical. In the words of Marcus Borg, we have to admit â(1) that much of the language of the Gospels is metaphorical; (2) that what matters is the more-than-literal meaning and (3) that the more-than-literal meaning does not depend upon the historical factuality of the languageâ. Elsewhere I have already demonstrated that they lack all substantive (as opposed to superficial) markers of being researched histories, even by the lax standards of antiquity. At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they donât even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g., Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark). And unlike many other ancient authors, they do not explain who they are or why they are qualified to relate the accounts they do. Only one Gospel, Luke, employs even the superficial trappings of actual history writing, such as explaining what his purpose in writing is and attempting to date events. But as we already saw (in Chapter 9) that appears to be a ruse.
6. The only Jesus Paul shows any knowledge of is a celestial being, not an earthly man. Paulâs Jesus is only ever in the heavens. Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been, or what people he knew. No memories from those who knew him are ever reported. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed to have displayed . . . or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gospels. Paul never references any event in Jesusâ life as an example to follow (beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never places anything Jesus said in any earthly historical context whatever. So far as these letters tell us, no Christian ever asked Paul about these things, either. Nor did any of these things ever become relevant in any dispute Paul had with anyone. Not one of his opponents, so far as Paul mentions, ever referenced a fact about Jesusâ life in support of their arguments. And no one ever doubted anything claimed about Jesus and asked for witnesses to confirm it or explain it or give more details. The interest Tacitus showed in Plinyâs father is never exhibited by any of them, nor is Plinyâs eagerness to talk about his father ever exhibited by Paul in his eagerness to talk aboutJesusâand yet Paul talks obsessively and repeatedly about Jesus.
7. Itâs worth emphasizing here that we have absolutely no evidence that any ancient Jews (much less all of them) considered the idea of exalting a slain messiah to be blasphemous or illegal or even inconceivableâthatâs a modern myth. To the contrary, the evidence we do have (from the Talmud, for example) shows they had no trouble conceiving and allowing such a thing (Element 5). Nor would such a notion be foolish to pagans, who had their own dying saviors, historical (Element 43) and mythical (Element 31). So the only thing Paul could mean the Jews were stumbling over was the notion that a celestial being could be crucifiedâas that would indeed seem strange, and would indeed be met with requests for evidence (âHow do you know that happened?â).
â Would I recommend this book?
Yes. I recommend this to everyone who has a deep interest in who Jesus Christ actually is, this book may be long but I think it's worth it. For a lighter read on a similar subject, I recommend Dennis R. MacDonald's "Mythologizing Jesus".
On The Historicity Of Jesus is an academic book by Richard Carrier. Compiling all the best evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth, Carrier makes an excellent argument as a historian that can still be debated to this day.
âď¸ What I liked
1. All arguments and claims are given plenty of sources to back it up.
2. Carrier's confidence in his thesis but also in his awareness that he could be wrong. He puts effort in not being biased and invites readers/scholars to correct him.
3. Carrier basically created THE book for mythicism; compiling mostâif not allâof the best academic work that's for mythicism while countering all the arguments againts mythicism. (It would be nice if a scholar wrote a book exactly like this but for the historical Jesus).
4. You don't have to agree with everything Carrier says for the book to be informative. This book not only covers mythicism but also all the facts about the development of the Bible, Christianity, and its political contexts.Â
â What I didn't like
1. Several chapters and pages should've been cut shorter, Carrier writes too much (and although it's good in a lot of parts), sometimes all it does is just makes the reader lose focus.Â
2. The Baye's Theorem. Not that it was wrong (and not that I would know that it's wrong, I'm only a layperson) but it seemed so complicated and unnecessary that I skipped all the bits that had to do with it. I can understand the percentage and fraction of how mythical/historical Jesus is but the process to get that is just not it.Â
3. Some of the parallels Carrier makes are not as convincing as the others.Â
đ Notes/Highlights
1. The historicity of Jesus Christ is currently the default consensus. Several respectable books have defended the thesis against detractors. But they all suffer from two fatal flaws: by soundly debunking weak versions of mythicism, they fallaciously conclude strong ones neednât even be examined; and they defend the historicity of Jesus by defending the historicity of particular claims about Jesus using the very methods I and others have proven to be logically invalid across the board. By using invalid methods to establish their premises, they thereby arrive at an invalid conclusion, which they then use to invalidly reject alternative theories. This is not the way to defend the historicity of Jesus.
2. The name âJesus Christâ literally means âSavior Messiahâ, which actually just means âAnointed Saviorâ. The author of the Gospel of Matthew was well aware of this, and even made a point of it. Jesus is an English derivation from the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Joshua (Yeshua), which means âYahweh savesâ. Christ is from the Greek christos, meaning âanointedâ, which in Hebrew is mÄĹĄĂŽaḼ, âmessiahâ.
3. For any claim about antiquity the evidence we might have can come in many formsâoriginal documents, tombstones, coins, excavated buildings (or indeed anything physically recovered from the past, from dolls to doorknobs), astronomical or geographical facts, graffiti on an ancient wall; in short, all kinds of things. However, in the case of Jesus, there is no directly relevant archaeological evidence. And no indirect evidence is relevant to determining historicity. There is only one kind of evidence left: texts (books, letters, etc.), which are reconstructed (by modern scholars) from a variety of manuscripts (which are copies of copies of copies of even earlier originals now lost).
4. The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction. Nevertheless, its author (traditionally Luke, the author of the Gospel: see Chapter 7, §4) may have derived some of its material or ideas from earlier traditions, written or oral.
5. Several scholars have confirmed that by the standards of myth I just spelled out, the Gospels are primarily and pervasively mythical. In the words of Marcus Borg, we have to admit â(1) that much of the language of the Gospels is metaphorical; (2) that what matters is the more-than-literal meaning and (3) that the more-than-literal meaning does not depend upon the historical factuality of the languageâ. Elsewhere I have already demonstrated that they lack all substantive (as opposed to superficial) markers of being researched histories, even by the lax standards of antiquity. At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they donât even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g., Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark). And unlike many other ancient authors, they do not explain who they are or why they are qualified to relate the accounts they do. Only one Gospel, Luke, employs even the superficial trappings of actual history writing, such as explaining what his purpose in writing is and attempting to date events. But as we already saw (in Chapter 9) that appears to be a ruse.
6. The only Jesus Paul shows any knowledge of is a celestial being, not an earthly man. Paulâs Jesus is only ever in the heavens. Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been, or what people he knew. No memories from those who knew him are ever reported. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed to have displayed . . . or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gospels. Paul never references any event in Jesusâ life as an example to follow (beyond the abstractions of love, endurance and submissiveness), and never places anything Jesus said in any earthly historical context whatever. So far as these letters tell us, no Christian ever asked Paul about these things, either. Nor did any of these things ever become relevant in any dispute Paul had with anyone. Not one of his opponents, so far as Paul mentions, ever referenced a fact about Jesusâ life in support of their arguments. And no one ever doubted anything claimed about Jesus and asked for witnesses to confirm it or explain it or give more details. The interest Tacitus showed in Plinyâs father is never exhibited by any of them, nor is Plinyâs eagerness to talk about his father ever exhibited by Paul in his eagerness to talk aboutJesusâand yet Paul talks obsessively and repeatedly about Jesus.
7. Itâs worth emphasizing here that we have absolutely no evidence that any ancient Jews (much less all of them) considered the idea of exalting a slain messiah to be blasphemous or illegal or even inconceivableâthatâs a modern myth. To the contrary, the evidence we do have (from the Talmud, for example) shows they had no trouble conceiving and allowing such a thing (Element 5). Nor would such a notion be foolish to pagans, who had their own dying saviors, historical (Element 43) and mythical (Element 31). So the only thing Paul could mean the Jews were stumbling over was the notion that a celestial being could be crucifiedâas that would indeed seem strange, and would indeed be met with requests for evidence (âHow do you know that happened?â).
â Would I recommend this book?
Yes. I recommend this to everyone who has a deep interest in who Jesus Christ actually is, this book may be long but I think it's worth it. For a lighter read on a similar subject, I recommend Dennis R. MacDonald's "Mythologizing Jesus".