Dead, Buried – and Likely to be Believed Resurrected

Thom Stark posted “It Is Finished for Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah: Part 2.”

Joel Watts linked to it with the title “Thom Stark buries Richard Carrier.” Joel also shared 11Q Melchizedek and Wisdom of Solomon as relevant ancient texts to the discussion.

So apparently the argument is dead and buried. But I suspect that mythicists will at some point come to believe that it has been resurrected. Whether it will actually have been resurrected is another matter.

Somehow this reminds me of another discussion, in ways that I suspect that mythicists may not appreciate the irony of…


"I do agree with the overall sentiment of your post, & I thank you for ..."

The Bible Was Made For Humans
"Hey James, I actually blogged about this not too long ago (https://jesusmemoirs.wordpr.... I still lean ..."

When the Word Became Flesh
"Several years ago I attended an atheist meeting to determine why people reject God. Eventually ..."

The Cruelty of Young-Earth Creationism
"Rev. Kent A. Meyer, Ph.D said: "Just how do they justify lying in the name ..."

The Cruelty of Young-Earth Creationism

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • GakuseiDon

    Joel wrote: “I find it rather odd that Carrier sees Isaiah 53 like contemporary evangelicals, but I digress.”

    It is not just odd, it is bizarre. I’ve noticed that with both Carrier and Doherty. Because the Christ Myth theory requires a high Christology, sometimes they appear to be using evangelical arguments. In fact, if you read Doherty’s J:NGNM, he has ramped up Paul’s Christology so high (along the lines of “how could a man so quickly be thought the creator of the universe???”) that it seems the only choices are a mythical Christ or an evangelical Son of God. And in an 800 page book, Doherty spends less than one paragraph on adoptionism, etc, despite citing Erhman where Ehrman spends entire chapters on the topic. Investigating the idea that Paul did not consider Jesus as God is not done by Doherty, and I guess is unpalatable to Carrier for the same reason.

    • Charles Ormsbee

      I don’t know that it’s solely contemporary evangelical as it is traditional Christian understandings (Earl Doherty is a former Catholic, I believe). But you’re right, he and other Mythicists at times seem to be reading post-Nicene assumptions into Paul. Neil Godfrey recently asserted that Paul’s Jesus is “a part of God” and Doherty uses similar crude Trinitarianish phrases.