Richard Carrier. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014. See here to buy the book.
(UPDATE: See the comments under Vridar’s post.
There may be areas in which Carrier already addressed in his book some
of the concerns that I have, or Carrier’s argument may be different from
how I was conceptualizing it. On the other side, see Steve Hays' comments on my post at Triablogue.)
Richard Carrier is a Christ mythicist, one who does not believe that
Jesus existed in history. He has a Ph.D. in ancient history from
Columbia University. Most biblical scholars reject his view.
For Carrier, the earliest Christian belief was that Jesus came from
heaven to outer space and was crucified by malevolent spirit entities,
then he was resurrected and returned to the highest heaven. Carrier
maintains that such a scenario is in the Ascension of Isaiah, which
Carrier dates to the first-second centuries C.E. For Carrier, such a
scenario is consistent with, and makes better sense of, details that are
in the earliest New Testament writings: Paul’s writings, Deutero-Paul’s
writings, Hebrews, James, and elements of Acts. These writings do not
explicitly say that Jesus was crucified by flesh-and-blood human beings,
and many of them rely on personal revelation and interpretation of
Scripture, not historical events, in presenting their picture of Jesus.
Relying on personal revelation can be chaotic, however, as different
people can appeal to their own personal revelations from the divine.
Consequently, according to Carrier, there were Christians who
historicized Jesus, placing Jesus in a historical context. They relied
on alleged testimony from and connection to historical apostles who
supposedly knew Jesus, not personal revelation, to buttress their
authority. (UPDATE: Neil Godfrey disagrees with this particular characterization of Carrier’s argument in his comment here.) For Carrier, the Gospels and Acts reflect a belief in Jesus
as a historical person.
I would like to wrestle with some of Carrier’s arguments. This post
will not be comprehensive, but it will wrestle with key points that
Carrier makes in his book.
A. Carrier does ask good questions. Why do so many first century
extrabiblical sources fail to mention Jesus or Christianity, if Jesus
existed in the first century? Why does Paul so often fail to mention
aspects of Jesus’ life and teaching? Why did Epiphanius (Panarion 29.3)
and rabbinic sources (Carrier cites BT Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a; JT
Hagigah 2.2; Sanhedrin 23c) mention a view that Jesus lived during the
time of Alexander Jannaeus, which was a century before the historical
Jesus supposedly lived? For Carrier, this is an indication that early
Christians differed on where to put Jesus in history, which would be
odd, had Jesus been historical. Why does Origen, when he is discussing
extrabiblical sources for Jesus, fail to refer to Antiquities 18:63-64,
which is where Josephus supposedly talks about Jesus’ miracles and
crucifixion, and the early Christian belief in his resurrection (Origen,
Against Celsus 1.42, 47)? For Carrier, that is one indication that
this passage was not authentically by Josephus but was a later Christian
interpolation.
B. On why first century extra-biblical sources fail to mention
Jesus, many would respond that they would not mention a backwater
Galilean peasant. Why not, though, if Jesus was as famous as the
Gospels say he was (Matthew 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28, Luke 4:14,
37; 5:15)?
C. Yet, the failure of so many extrabiblical sources to mention
Christianity raises questions in my mind rather than convincing me of
mythicism. Even Richard Carrier appears to believe (or to grant for the sake of argument) that Christianity
existed in the first century C.E., even if he does not believe there was
a historical Jesus. Yet, Carrier notes that so many extrabiblical
sources fail to mention Christianity. Augustine himself seemed to
struggle with the question of why Seneca the Younger failed to mention
Christianity in his first century work about sects in Rome (Augustine,
City of God 6.10-11). Why did so many first century sources fail to
mention Christianity? Was it because Christianity was obscure, or not
well-established yet, or kept to itself?
D. There are sources that Carrier mentions that, in my opinion, are
open to interpretation. Did Ascension of Isaiah, in its earliest form,
really say that Jesus was crucified by malevolent spirits in outer
space? Or could it have believed that the malevolent spirits (or a
malevolent spirit) killed a historical Jesus through human agents on
earth, which is what is suggested in the Gospels, and in the so-called
“pocket Gospel” in Ascension of Isaiah 11 (which Carrier believes was a
later addition, and which is absent from some manuscripts)? I can see
how Carrier is arriving at his interpretation, but there seem to be
things in the story that pull in the opposite direction (i.e., Christ is
in the corruptible world). On the story that Ignatius mentions about
celestial activity during the time of Jesus, is that story implying that
Jesus only existed in the heavens and never came to earth, or does that
story suggest that Jesus came as a human (Ignatius, To the Ephesians
19; Carrier offers two interpretations of that part about Jesus
appearing in human form)?
E. Carrier argues that there were Christ mythicists during the time
of the church fathers. His implication may be that, had Jesus been
historical, there would have been more consensus among Christians about
that. I do not see strong evidence for there being Christian Christ
mythicists during the time of the church fathers. Ignatius may have
been arguing against Docetists, who believed that Christ was on earth
but only appeared to be human (yet, Carrier questions whether we know
this about the Docetists for sure). Irenaeus in Against All Heresies
1.30 is talking about Gnostics, who believed that Jesus was on earth.
Both are consistent with seeing Jesus as a historical figure. At the
same time, Carrier also refers to a dispute between the non-Christian
Jew Trypho and Justin Martyr about whether Jesus was made-up (Dialogue
with Trypho 8-9). Trypho there is a non-Christian questioning Christian
claims about Jesus, not a Christian Christ mythicist (not that Carrier
is suggesting otherwise).
F. Carrier offers his own interpretation of passages that have been
cited to argue that Paul believed in a historical Jesus. Some of what
Carrier said was plausible, or, at least, I cannot say that the
interpretations are impossible (i.e., the Jews and Greeks of I
Corinthians 1 are offended by the cross because it is based on personal
revelation and not anything substantive). Some of what Carrier said
took me aback. For example, Carrier interprets Romans 10:14 (“How then
shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher?” KJV) to mean that Paul did not think that Christ
historically came to the Jewish people, for the Jewish people had not
heard of Christ. That, of course, would differ from what the Gospels
present. Is that what Paul is saying, though? Romans 10 does not deny
that Christ came to the Jewish people, even if it may be implying that
there were still Jewish people who needed to hear about Christ. I also
wonder about certain passages, doubting that they fit with Carrier’s
scenario. Galatians 4:4 says that Christ was born of a woman and made
under the law. Carrier says that Christ could have been born of a
celestial woman, but can a celestial being be under the law of Moses?
Wouldn’t only a Jew be under the law? (On Christ being from the seed of
David in Romans 1, Carrier says that David’s seed could have been
fashioned into a celestial being. On Christ being a second Adam in
Romans 5, Carrier may interpret that in light of the ancient Jewish
belief in a heavenly man, which Philo talks about. On James being the
Lord’s brother in Galatians 1, Carrier says that means James was a
Christian, and Paul is calling him the Lord’s brother to differentiate
James from the apostles.)
G. Carrier says that there are parallels between Christ and mystery
cults, and also between Christ and Romulus (for which Carrier cites
Plutarch, Romulus 27-28). One can perhaps quibble on details: there is
debate about how or whether Romulus even died, and thus it may be hasty
to say that he was resurrected. At the same time, there are parallels:
Romulus does ascend to heaven, appear to people thereafter, and talk
about a kingdom. On the mystery cults, there may be similarities
between mystery cults and Christianity (i.e., a suffering god, a meal,
perhaps some esotericism), but there is at least one difference:
Christians in the New Testament do not keep the Gospel a secret but
spread it throughout the world. Also, since even Carrier believes that
the early Christians were Jews, I wonder if Jews were in mystery cults.
That would be relevant to the question of whether mystery religions
influenced Christianity. Of course, Judaism was influenced by
Hellenism, so I am not overly sympathetic with Christian apologists who
imply that Judaism was in a pure container sealed off from paganism, or
that pagan views would not enter Judaism. But Bruce Metzger argued that
one reason Christianity was not influenced by mystery religions was
that mystery religions were not really a phenomenon in Palestine. (UPDATE: Godfrey says that Carrier already discussed Jews in mystery cults in the book. See also Bee’s comment about Hellenistic influence on and Greek presence in Palestine.)
H. Is Jesus’ name too good to be true? What do I mean by this? The
name “Jesus” relates to salvation, and, lo and behold, Jesus in
Christianity is a savior! I can somewhat understand Carrier’s argument
that this makes Jesus look made-up: do things work out that neatly in
real life? It’s not impossible, I guess, but likely?
I. On a related note, there is the high priest Joshua in the Book of
Zechariah. Joshua is a priest, maybe even a king. He is associated
with the removal of sin in one day. Satan afflicts him. Carrier says
that Joshua in the Book of Zechariah was a celestial priest, and that
Philo associated Joshua with the divine logos. Carrier may believe that
these things set the stage for Christianity (or at least relate to
Christianity), for the name Joshua is the same as the name Jesus, and
things are being said about Joshua that were later said about Jesus.
Carrier may be hasty in saying that the high priest Joshua was a
celestial priest, or that Philo believed in a divine logos named
“Jesus.” Still, is it a coincidence that things were said about Joshua
in the Book of Zechariah that were later claimed about another Joshua,
namely, Jesus?
J. A final item. Some Christian apologists argue that Christianity
was true because Christians would not make up a doctrine about a
crucified savior, since crucifixion was stigmatized in the ancient
world. As Carrier notes, however, people were offended by the
castration of Attis (Augustine, City of God 6.10-11), but that does not
mean that Attis was actually castrated. People can believe offensive
doctrines; that does not mean the doctrines are true. Some Christian
apologists make a big deal about Matthew 28:17’s acknowledgment that
some people saw the risen Jesus and still doubted, heralding the
apparent honesty of the Gospel writer, and thus his authenticity. But,
as Carrier says, Plutarch said that people had doubts about Romulus’
ascension. And yet, in the latter case, what was Plutarch’s agenda?
Plutarch often sifts through different sources and makes judgments. The
Gospel writers, however, are faith documents, and perhaps they were
more dogmatic than Plutarch was; consequently, their admission of doubt
may have a different significance than what is in Plutarch’s book on
Romulus.
Carrier covers other topics: Tacitus, Pliny, Papias. But I will stop here.