Three New Videos

BY R ICH AR D CAR R IER / O N J U LY 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 / 33 COMMENTS

The three best new videos of me of late are: (1) my talk at the Madison Freethought Festival:So…if Jesus Didn’t Exist,
Where Did He Come from Then?(you can also view a PDF of the slideshow, lacking the animations); (2) my talk the
year before for Wichita Rapture Day:You’re All Gonna Die!! How the Jews Kept Failing to Predict Doomsday and
Caused Christianity Instead (you can also view a PDF of the slideshow, lacking the animations); and (3) my interview
for WorldviewNaturalism.com (on how I came to naturalism and what it means for moral theory and the scientific
advancement of moral knowledge). That latter site has several other interesting new resources, including interviews with
several others and an extensive online catalog of debates.

My Madison talk is essentially a brief précis of what I believe to be the most defensible Jesus myth theory and why it
probably better explains the origins of Christianity than traditional theories do. Obviously it’s not a proof against all
objections, just a quick first glance at what it is and how a defense of it would most likely proceed. My Rapture Day talk,
by contrast, operates on the assumption of historicity (sticking to my methodological position that we should assume
historicity until a significant segment of the expert community is on board with any alternative, while treating the Jesus myth
theory as only a hypothesis, still in need of proper review). However, its analysis would apply equally to a Jesus myth
model (with suitable adaptation). I just don’t discuss that there.

Share
this:

   

PROVING HISTORY IN SA N FRA NCISCO EHRM A N ON HISTORICITY RECA P

33 comments
G O T H I C E M P E R O R • J U LY 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , 4 : 5 2 A M

On the stuff about Paul in the first video, you mention that all his sources are Scripture and Revelation. I’m
interested to know what you mean by Scripture here. Obviously, this was pre-Gospel, so do you mean Jewish
‘prophecy’, or maybe Hellenistic tradition?

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 0 9 P M

What constituted “scripture” in Paul’s day depended on sect: what each sect regarded as the
inspired word of God. That body of texts was larger than what became the OT, but usually
included the whole of the OT (or most of it). Among the texts the Epistles show were also
regarded as sacred scripture are Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Wisdom of
Solomon. Possibly others as well that we don’t even know about.

R E P LY

G O T H I C E M P E R O R • J U LY 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 4 9 A M

Thanks for answering!

R E P LY

R I C H A R D M A R T I N • J U LY 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , 6 : 2 3 A M

Hi Richard,

Thanks for this. I thoroughly enjoyed the videos. The pdf link for the first speech doesn’t work though. Would it
be possible to fix it?

Thanks,

Richard Martin

R E P LY
 R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 1 3 P M

Thanks for pointing that out.

If you looked at the URL you probably could have fixed it by hand. It’s a problem with the
WordPress system, it sometimes deletes the http in a URL in the editor, and when that
happens it inserts the WordPress URL in place of it, which creates a freakish hybrid URL.
But then it doesn’t happen for a while so I start forgetting to check. In any case, I fixed it, so
it works now.

R E P LY

D R V A N N O S T R A N D • J U LY 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 : 3 3 P M

I nominate “You’re All Gonna Die!! How the Jews Kept Failing to Predict Doomsday and Caused Christianity
Instead” as one of my favorite titles ever.

R E P LY

F • J U LY 2 1 , 2 0 1 2 , 9 : 5 9 P M

Thanks. This is the sort of video content I actually will bother to watch. (Admission: This is a trait of mine, and
not necessarily a reflection of my opinion on the quality of unseen video.)

R E P LY

J A C O B A L I E T • J U LY 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 0 : 1 7 P M

Hi Richard, Thanks for this. I believe the first PDF has a problem. Please review.

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 1 3 P M

It’s fixed.

R E P LY

T A S L I M A N A S R E E N • J U LY 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 0 : 3 5 P M

I watched ‘So…if Jesus Didn’t Exist, Where Did He Come from Then?’ video and enjoyed a lot. You are
brilliant.

R E P LY

D A V I D H I L L M A N • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 0 : 2 2 A M

It is interesting that the ideas, such as monotheism, the need for personal salvation, and others such as pacifism,
cynic like sayings, the idea that one has a soul separate from your body which can not be got at, would all be
related to the ideological needs of empire interplaying with ideas from below:the feeling of loss of power by
intellectuals and minor aristocrats and their need to retain some sense of authentic life when faced with
overwhelming power and a cosmopolitan world which makes their own nexi seem small. The details would differ
from place to place and decade to decade, I think.

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 1 4 P M

There is some merit to that hypothesis, and it has been proposed and explored in the
literature before.

R E P LY

E M M A Z U N Z • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 1 : 2 5 A M

Hi Richard. Where does Philo use the name Jesus? Your Madison talk implies this.

Cheers
EZ

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 1 8 P M

In the PDF of the slideshow (link fixed) it directs you to my discussion of the evidence inNot
the Impossible Faith, pp. 250-51. But in short, Philo says the Jesus discussed in Zechariah
6 (there was no difference between the names Jesus and Joshua; that is entirely a modern
invention) was the logos, the firstborn son of god, supreme archangel and celestial high priest,
through whom god created and governs the universe.

See Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63, consulting the bible passage he is talking
about (Zechariah 6:11-12), and then linking that to his discussions of the same figure
elsewhere, esp. Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 146 and On Dreams 1.215. Yonge’s
The Works of Philo is a handy way to access everything we have from Philo (it’s a huge
 tome, but well priced).

R E P LY

E M M A Z U N Z • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 3 : 1 6 P M

I see. That is suggestive!

(I checked it out – I assume Philo was using the LXX where the word translated as “branch”
in modern Bibles is given as something like “the East”, which Philo uses in his reference.)

Cheers for explaining.

EZ

R E P LY

D A V E E M P E Y • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 : 2 9 P M

Fascinating talks, but (no doubt unavoidably) you left out some things I’d have liked to hear more about. (For
instance, Muhammed’s hallucinations. Why do you think they were scare-quote “hallucinations”, and not actual
hallucinations?) Guess I’ll have to buy your books.

One think puzzled me in your “You’re all gonna die!” talk. You said something about Joshua/Jesus going to Mt.
Gerizim (iirc) before crossing the Jordan, but Mt. Gerizim seems to be west of the Jordan on the map I looked
at. Wouldn’t the Hebrews have had to cross the Jordan before getting to Mr. Gerizim? Did the Bible writers get
their geography wrong, or is the present Mt. Gerizim different from the Biblical one, or am I confused, or what?

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 : 3 6 P M

Regarding “hallucination”: I regard questions like that to be unresolvable on present evidence.

There is no discernible difference between an actual hallucination and a pretended one–
absent medical examination of the percipient, which we don’t have. See Not the Impossible
Faith, chapter 10, for why pretending to hallucinate would be a popular tactic then.

Regarding “Girizim”: You’re right, it was the other way around. I’ve fixed the slide. It’s the
first place they assembled as a nation after they crossed the Jordan and felled Jericho and
Ai (the Jews having invaded Palestine from its eastern border, after crossing beneath it along
the Sinai), fulfilling the commandment of Moses that they do so there.

R E P LY
 M I K E • J U LY 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 0 : 3 5 P M

Really liked The Historicity of Jesus. Those parallels between the other ancient gods are the kinds of things that
would’ve made my heart drop like a rock had I heard them while I was still a strong Christian (and I say this
knowing that the case for parallels with other pagan religions has often been significantly overstated, as you
alluded to).

I’ve got a question: around 20:30 you said, “Note that in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus is not said to have appeared
before his death.” But Gal 3:1 says, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that
Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.” Would you argue that, since the audience was a group of
believers that clearly wasn’t present at the crucifixion, that this can’t possibly be talking about an actual event in
history?

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , 8 : 4 8 A M

Ah, yes, that’s a good one. That’s a nice example of English translators messing with reality,
and thus misleading everyone. The text, in Greek, actually says:

“
“Oh foolish Galatians! Who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ
was forewritten [proegraphê] crucified?”
(Gal. 3:1)

The word prographô means written down (graphô) before (pro), i.e. foretold in scripture.
Paul is referring to his having personally shown them the passages in the Bible that say Christ
was crucified (“you saw those passages with your own eyes!”). He is chastising the Galatians
for forgetting that Jesus was crucified and that this canceled the old Torah law (2:20-21),
only it’s a bit of a rhetorical trick since the notion that his crucifixion did that Paul only learned
by revelation (Gal. 1) not scripture, whereas scripture only confirmed that he was crucified.
But Paul’s on a roll so he skips over that quickly to continue his point with other arguments.

In a sense, though, this passage supports mythicism a little bit more than historicity, because it
confirms that Paul’s only source of evidence for Jesus having been crucified is scripture. Note
that he doesn’t say “there were eyewitnesses to his death, some are still alive today, so why
would you doubt it?” or “everyone knows, by report told far and wide, that Pilate crucified
Jesus and confirmed he had died on the cross” or “the Roman and Jewish authorities both
verify they crucified Christ and took him down from the cross dead” or any of countless other
things like that. No, the only evidence Paul has to offer the Galatians is that scripture said
Christ was crucified (“well, it must be true then!”).

R E P LY
 M I K E • J U LY 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 : 5 8 P M

Thanks for the clear explanation! But, dang. Now I’m beginning to see why you say that
“James, the brother of the Lord” is the best argument for historicity.

I’ve got one more question — maybe it’s too involved or betrays too many false
assumptions, but I’ll try anyway. You’re probably familiar with the line about the terms in 1
Cor 15:3, “delivered” and “received”, being rabbinical terms. NT Wright writes, “paredoka
and parelabon… are technical terms for the receiving and handing on of tradition”
(Resurrection of the Son of God, footnote 1029). Wright notes that Paul’s relaying of *this
particular formulation* of the message from the community is perfectly compatible with the
direct nature of the revelation Paul talks about in Gal 1.

But around 19:40 you say that Paul is actually referring to the way he “received” the teaching
directly from Jesus. If that’s the case, does Paul not necessarily expect those mentioned in
v3-7 to corroborate his story? This is one of the few places in Paul’s writing that claims to
touch actual history.

(The purported early dating of 1 Cor 15:3-7 that rests on the creed hypothesis is the thing
that gave me the most trouble right up to the time of my deconversion)

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , 4 : 0 2 P M

Wright (and everyone who uses that argument) is committing a fallacy of

affirming the consequent:

“
P1. If something is just like a rabbinical tradition, the
words “paredoka and parelabon” would be the technical
terms used.

P2. In 1 Cor. 15 the words “paredoka and parelabon” are

the technical terms used.

C1. Therefore, 1 Cor. 15 is just like a rabbinical tradition.

That is a fallacy (for the same reason as the dog-and-homework I

example I give in the article above).

In fact, those terms can mean the handing on of a tradition received by

direct revelation, as Galatians 1 proves (where the exact same words are
used, very adamantly not in reference to a human tradition). Paul uses not
 just the exact same words, but almost the exact same phrases in both
places (as my quotes show), in reference to the same exact thing (his
gospel). They therefore refer to the same thing: the revelation he received.
Hence Romans 16:25-26 never mentions human traditions as the source
of the Gospel: the gospel and kerygma come only from revelation and
scripture.

We can therefore be effectively certain that in 1 Cor. 15 Paul is not talking

about a human tradition passed on to him. To the contrary, in Gal. 1 he
makes it clear no one trusted human tradition, so much so that Paul had to
deny up and down that his gospel was ever based on it. Only direct
revelation (making one an apostle) was trusted as an authority; that, and
scripture (Gal. 3:1).

R E P LY

S H E R I D A N • J U LY 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , 1 2 : 4 9 P M

I was wondering what you mean exactly when you explain the incarnation, death, and burial as taking place in
“outer space”? Under what sort of cosmology did they imagine this happening? If I remember and understood
correctly, Babinski’s chapter in “The Christian Delusion” explains that the cosmology you get from a correct
historically informed reading of the old testament is a flat earth with a hard (metal?) dome but I’m not sure if that
belief persisted into the 1st century A.D.

R E P LY

R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 , 3 : 5 3 P M

You’re right, it did not. The sphericity of the earth was scientifically proved by the time of
Aristotle, and that knowledge had diffused (along with a geocentrist model of the solar
system of increasing accuracy and sophistication) to all literate regions of the Roman Empire
by the first century B.C. or earlier. There were some flat earthers still (and there remained
many; like young earth creationists today), but most educated persons knew the universe
consisted of multiple spheres (orbits) of vast distance between them.

For example, the distance of the moon was known to be hundreds of thousands of miles. It
was believed the breathable atmosphere extended to the moon, and above it was a different
kind of atmosphere made of ether. The various subsequent spheres (counting the moon and
sun, seven in all, plus the stars beyond) were known to be vast distances from each other (in
the millions of miles). Thus, when Paul (?) visits “the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2-4) that’s the
third sphere, the location of Venus (the Morning Star) in most schemes (or the expanse
between Venus and the Sun, depending on how the model was conceived). The “firmament”
(which Babinski discusses) was the sub-heavens, the atmosphere below the moon (or the
ceiling of that, but generally it meant the whole expanse–the atmosphere being the base upon
which the rest of the heavens rested).

Thus, as Plutarch tells us, Osiris was (in the higher mysteries) said to descend below the
 sphere of the moon (below the first heaven, and thus into the firmament), become incarnate in
a mortal body, which then is killed, and then Osiris rises back to life in an immortal divine
body and ascends back to go live in the heavens above. In the lower mysteries (the public
myths) this incarnation, death and resurrection takes place on earth (one time in the past, at
an identifiable point in history); but in the higher mysteries, it all takes place in outer space,
just below the moon, every year.

R E P LY

D R A G A N G L A S • J U LY 2 7, 2 0 1 2 , 7 : 0 0 P M

Greetings,

interesting videos.

As I’m currently in a discussion on the historicity of Jesus on another site, and am currently reading up more
books – including yours (though it’s a pity your forthcoming book on Jesus isn’t available yet!) – on top of those
I’ve already read, I’d like to take the opportunity to ask a question, which I haven’t seen addressed.

My own take is that there’s an historical figure behind the biblical Jesus – more a legend (like that of Robin
Hood: there’s a core tradition, with other stories added to it, which are of the “Robin Hood was here!” type).

My problem is that, if one takes the “standard model”:

John the Baptist > Jesus > James/Peter and the various sects of Jewish Christianity (Zadokites, Essenes,
Ebionites, Rechabites, Elchasites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc.) and then remove Jesus, how can one explain these
sects?

Bearing in mind that, at least one (Ebionites), saw Jesus as a purely human figure, with no divine nature.

I say this because of your mention, in the first video and in your reply to Emma Zunz (#8), of the story of Philo’s
“celestial Jesus”.

In my view, although this may explain the Gnostic – particularly Docetic – take on Jesus, and may also be how
Paul viewed Jesus (apart from his “conversion”), it does not explain the Ebionites’ and other Jewish Christians
(including those led by James/Peter) down-to-earth perception of Jesus.

Without a historical Jesus, these sects appear to be orphaned and cannot be explained.

What is your view of this, Dr. Carrier?

Kindest regards,

James

R E P LY
 R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • J U LY 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , 9 : 4 2 A M

First, we rarely to never hear what those sects actually believed from the sects themselves.
We just have what their opponents claimed they believe, which many scholars point out we
often have good reasons to distrust.

Second, we can trace none of those sects reliably to the first century. They might therefore all
be descendants of the earliest historicizing sect of the late first century.

Third, we have the Nazoreans who have more claim to being descendants of the first
Christian sect (prior even to Paul, as they were still Torah observant and did not adopt the
new fangled name “Christian” for themselves), and they believed Jesus lived and died under
King Alexander Jannaeus circa 70 BC. That is hard to explain if there was a historical Jesus–
easier to explain if there wasn’t, and two separate historicizing myths then developed
independently.

Fourth, we have hints of Christian sects who denied the historicity of Jesus (in the early layer
of The Ascension of Isaiah and by rebuttal in 2 Peter 1:16-2:1), we just don’t know which
sects those were.

Fifth, the Essenes were not a Christian sect. In fact, many so-called “sects” of Christianity
may in fact have just been separate messianic Jewish sects, who worshipped or preached
some Christ or other, who was not the same guy “the Christians” were talking about. The
Essenes, for example, at least the Qumran subsect, appear to have believed the Christ (the
final victory-producing “messiah”) was the celestial Melchizedek soon to return to earth
(Melchizedek having visited earth before, to bless and feed Abraham). Could their discourse
have been confused as Christian-sounding to later heresy-hunting Christians? Possibly. We
don’t know.

And finally, the original Paulines might even have been the ones who invented the myth (in
some form) as an exoteric teaching tool, and only initiates were told the real meaning, which
would be (for us) the esoteric myth. This is exactly the case in Osiris cult, where the public
myths placed Osiris in history and on earth, but higher ranking members were taught the true
story, that he only dies and rises in outer space–this is explained in Plutarch’s On Isis and
Osiris. It would therefore be difficult to tell the difference between a true historicizing sect,
and one that only appeared to be. And without their own internal documents, we often can’t
tell.

This is the main problem with Christian history: even though hundreds of letters and books
would have been written in the first century by many different sects, we have almost none of
it. We get only a tiny selection (not even a complete selection of Paul’s letters, by the way;
for example, his actual first letter to the Corinthians, which he refers to in 1 Corinthians, was
not preserved…why?), and that selection being the documents the victorious church
approved. We don’t even get these Christians’ polemical writings against their opponents in
the first century, so we don’t even get to hear second hand what their opponents were
arguing.

The first documents we get in which the victorious church’s advocates argue against
opponents appear in the mid-to-late second century, a hundred years after the Pauline
churches were thriving (a possible exception are the Ignatian letters, which at least are anti-
 Docetist, but there are serious problems with the claim that those letters actually date to the
early second century). We simply do not know what happened to those churches in the
interim; nor do we know what they were saying, even if they still knew the truth of the matter.
How, after all, would they? Eventually no one would be left alive to vouch for their gospel
being actually the original rather than a “Satanic corruption” of it.

In the battle to win the hearts and minds of the various churches, the historicists would always
have the more attractive and persuasive argument, regardless of the evidence, simply because
a “historical” Jesus makes for a more defensible authority figure, whereas an a-historicist
would have no evidence the historicist was wrong (there not having been any historical Jesus
before that, there will not be any documents “saying” he did not exist, or anything else by
which to prove their case). This and other points along these lines are precisely what is
argued by K.L. Knoll in Is This Not the Carpenter?

R E P LY

ILC EN S OR E • AUGUS T 5, 2012, 2:10 P M

Hello.

I translated the Madison Freethought Festival presentation into Italian and published it here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/pub?
id=1TByLBN_JEOSg8zL9dk1X84D8eX7By741LeXs9coot0s&start=false&loop=false&delayms=300
0

This Italian version is being linked by the following post, which gives full credit to Dr. Carrier:
http://uticense.blogspot.it/2012/08/richard-carrier-presenta-la-sua-teoria.html

However, since I do not claim any right on the presentation (nor on its translation) I will immediately delete it if
requested.

I hope this is fine with Dr. Carrier.

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • AUGUS T 6 , 2012, 5:54 P M

Thank you.

I fully approve. I can’t vouch for translations done of my work, of course. But I don’t mind
them being done when it’s of anything already available for free online (like that video), and is
being provided to the public for free (or at no more than cost).

When it’s my books, the issue is more complicated, and prospective translators should
contact me directly to work out a foreign language license.
 R E P LY

DR AGAN GLAS • AUGUS T 13, 2012, 8:49 AM

Greetings,

I apologise for the long delay in replying – life and all that!

In reply to Dr. Carrier’s response at 12-1:

“
Third, we have the Nazoreans who have more claim to being descendants of the first Christian
sect (prior even to Paul, as they were still Torah observant and did not adopt the new fangled
name “Christian” for themselves), and they believed Jesus lived and died under King
Alexander Jannaeus circa 70 BC. That is hard to explain if there was a historical Jesus–easier
to explain if there wasn’t, and two separate historicizing myths then developed independently.

That’s an interesting point, Dr. Carrier, in that – if Christian sects existed prior to Paul, then that would disprove
the claim by some mythicists that Paul “invented” Christianity: that there were no “Christians” which Paul
persecuted.

Secondly, if the Jesus of King Alexander Jannaeus is the “true” one, then it could be argued that there *is* an
historical Jesus, even if it’s not the one Christianity considers to be him.

“
Fourth, we have hints of Christian sects who denied the historicity of Jesus (in the early layer of
The Ascension of Isaiah and by rebuttal in 2 Peter 1:16-2:1), we just don’t know which sects
those were.

It would certainly be interesting to know if these were the followers of the earlier “Jesus” or, perhaps, those who
dismissed the Jesus of Peter as the celestial one mentioned by Philo. Or, even more of a stretch, a gnostic
version – perhaps the earliest reference to Docetism?

I take your points in the rest of your argument: it may well be impossible to identify an historical Jesus due to all
the changes that have been made to texts, etc.

I just feel – yes, appeal to emotion(!) – that it would be easier to “hang” a myth on a real person than to create
one from scratch.
Kindest regards,

James

R E P LY

R IC H AR D C AR R IER • AUGUS T 13, 2012, 5:54 P M

That early Christians believed in a Jannaean Christ does not entail that that belief even existed
in Paul’s day, much less preceded it. If Jesus was mythical, historical contexts could have
been invented for him at any time decades after the religion started, allowing Eastern
Christians to place him under Jannaeus, and Western Christians to place him under Pilate,
independently of each other.

Paul has no idea of a Jannaean Christ either, so that is just as fake as the Pilate-executed
Christ. To the contrary, Paul seems to believe, as we can tell from 1 Corinthians and
Galatians (and elsewhere) that the religion only recently began. Thus he clearly does not
know of any Jannaean Christ gospel. So that likely post-dates Paul, just as a Pilate-executed
Jesus appears to.

That Jesus was placed in two completely different historical times and given two completely
different biographies around them proves your last point false: clearly creating whole new
myths from scratch was very easily done (we have many more examples in the Christian
tradition, from the Infancy Gospels to the Acts of Paul), and we know this is how most myths
get created (Romulus: created from scratch, borrowing materials and elements from prior
Greek myths; Hercules, from scratch; Osiris, from scratch; Attis, from scratch; and so on).

It’s actually more likely that a mythical person would get two myths placing him in two
different historical periods. A historical person would be extremely hard to suddenly and
inexplicably “relocate” to a different historical period, as if everything about Jesus interacting
with Herod and Caiaphas and Pilate and Antipas was being preached for years and then
someone decided “hey, that’s all bullshit, I say he was executed a hundred years before those
guys even lived!” (or vice versa). It’s a lot harder to pull that off, than for a celestial deity to
be “historicized” differently in two different geographical regions.

That’s why the Jannaean Jesus is evidence for a mythical Jesus (not a proof, but it weighs in
that direction, not the other).

R E P LY

B A B A G A N U S Z • N O V E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 7, 4 : 3 7 A M

“
Paul seems to believe, as we can tell from 1 Corinthians
and Galatians (and elsewhere) that the religion only
 recently began. Thus he clearly does not know of any
Jannaean Christ gospel. So that likely post-dates Paul, just
as a Pilate-executed Jesus appears to.

request for painstaking clarification: “. . . just as [i]the narrative of[/i] a

Pilate-executed Jesus appears to.” = correct?

R E P LY

RICHARD CARRIER •

N O V E M B E R 2 6 , 2 0 1 7, 2 : 2 5 P M

No.

The reference you are quoting is to the mythicist

hypothesis, wherein there was no Pilate execution.
Jesus didn’t ever visit earth in that theology.

MA R Y H ELEN A • AUGUS T 14, 2012, 4:23 AM

Richard: “That’s why the Jannaean Jesus is evidence for a mythical Jesus (not a proof, but it
weighs in that direction, not the other).”

Indeed, the Yeshu story, born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, is evidence that indicates a
mythical JC, a composite or symbolic JC figure, i.e. not a historical JC figure. But perhaps
much more as well…

What the Toledot Yeshu story does do is widen the field of research for the roots of early
christian history. Yes, that story is easily ridiculed or denied relevance. But, surely, if we are
wanting to dig deep for the roots of early christian history, we should not be so quick to rule
the Toledot Yeshu out of our field of focus.

I’ve just put up a thread on FRDB related to the Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu. For
anyone interested, here is the link.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7246235#post7246235

Who is the Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu?

R E P LY
 R I C H A R D C A R R I E R • A U G U S T 1 7, 2 0 1 2 , 4 : 0 2 P M

The Toledot Yeshu is, of course, late polemical fiction. But it does strangely assume the
Babylonian-Nazorean storyline and shows no knowledge of the Roman-Pilate narrative.
Other than that, I suspect its uses are probably limited. At the very least, proceed with
caution.

R E P LY

Add a Comment (For Patrons & Select Persons Only)

Enter your comment here...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search This Blog

Search here...

Get Carrier’s Latest!

Follow Richard Carrier’s Work & Announcements

 
 Categories

Select Category

Archives

Select Month

About The Author

Richard Carrier is the author of many books and numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to
Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, and the
origins of Christianity and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He
is also a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and historical methods.
 Support Dr. Carrier

Subscribe To This Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,459 other subscribers

Email Address

Subscribe

Subscribe

Books By Dr. Carrier

Explore C.H.R.E.S.T.U.S.
 Get Your E-Books Signed!

Take Online Courses With Dr. Carrier

As An Amazon Associate I Earn From Qualifying Purchases Following Links On My Website.

Buying From Here Helps Fund My Work.

Recommendations

Proudly powered by WordPress | Copyright 2016 Danza