Loading...In an earlier post I indicated that I have difficulty responding to writings of mythicists, largely because they often say things that I think are dead wrong, but it would take so much time and effort to explain why. This morning I did think I should at least give one example of the sort of thing I mean, and I have chosen (just) one of the claims made several times by one of the mythicists’ leading spokespersons, Richard Carrier.
Carrier argues that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus ever came to earth but was a god who ministered and crucified in the heavenly realms. He also claims this view is supported by a close reading of the early New Testament writings themselves. He lists a number of them and discusses them all.
I am here simply picking one example, the book of Hebrews. I could do the same thing with others (he equally surprisingly includes the letters of Paul and the non-canonical book of 1 Clement, for example) but my idea is not to give a thorough response to his many, many claims (he is prolific), but just to illustrate my point by taking this one.
Is it true that the book of Hebrews does not indicate that Jesus ever came to, ministered on, or died on earth?
First let me lay out his overarching views in his own words from his book Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2020). Here are some of the summaries of his major perspectives:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
When talking about the women at the tomb you said that the reason why people might make up the story is because of naturaly women would have find the tomb first. But if so people made up a story about the tomb and that story is historicly not plausable because romans did not give such burrials. Seems like that is not a good reason or made you can make a conter example?
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Do most critical historians think that the story of the tomb is made up?
Nope.
Hello Bart! First time ever contacting you, it’s a pleasure! Sending you love from Egypt, hope to see you here one day, I was just visiting the Coptic Museum a couple of days ago, and I was fantasizing that one day I will repeat the visit with you!
Anyway, not to waste your time, I have a question, unrelated to the topic of this article as instructed by your Ask Bart page; I had a debate with my friend, that, theologically, the entirety of Jesus’s God nature was bonded with the entirety of his human nature inside his body. (That’s what I understand from Colossians 2:9).
My friend says, “no, his Godly nature is everywhere and was not limited to his body during his life. And that the verse means that all the capabilities of the father were given in its entirety to Jesus the person. And that since the son is always being born from the father; there were 2 Jesuses (or sons) at that point in time; one on Earth inside the body, and one in heaven being primordially and perpetually born from the father.”
We would really appreciate you weighing on this!! Thanks in advance. Lots of respect!
Well, this was a topic of long debate in early Chrisitianity, and there was a wide range of opinion. I dn’t have a personal opinion on the topic because it’s a theological issue and I’m not a Christian with theological views on the nature of Christ. I would say that most early Christians believed that Christ was localized in his body after the incarnation becuase he “emptied himself” of his divine perogatives to become human (as in Phil. 2:6-8).
My Jesuit professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley was a bit troubled that my term paper on Hebrews highlighted the Christian superiority (anti-Jewish) theme of the book. An interesting discussion ensued.
And. . .my latest newspaper column (in the USA Today network) highlights Bart’s “agnostic atheism,” with parallels to my own story of emergence from faith:
https://chighland.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ashevillecitizentimes_20250726_c02_1.pdf
Thanks!
I’d say that Christian superiority in itself is not necessarily anti-Jewish (since there have always been jews who were Christians), ,but it’s hard to deny that Hebrews emphasizes it (Xn superiority), since that’s more or less the p;oint of the book.
Good column, Chris. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the comment and linked article.
My main frustration is that most religious leaders and clergy do not present empirical evidence that counter Judeo-Christian positions, which is what I appreciate about Bart’s and other’s scholarly work. To use a contemporary example: Potatoes are derived genetically with Tomatoes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-potato-got-its-start-nine-million-years-ago-thanks-to-a-tomato/
Modern technology continues to demonstrate evolution rather than creation. Religious scholarly work demonstrates the many myths of the Old Testament, e.g. creation story uses myth and ‘cue’ names rather than it being literal; and New Testament books, e.g. gospel authors not known, stories in later versions not in earliest versions.
Connecting my comments to this thread: Countering mythicism by citing problems with mythicist arguments. Open and honest discussion is always positive.
Dr Ehrman:
I don’t really understand what Carriers motivation would be for his views of Jesus life and death. I think I understand the motivations of evangelicals who believe the Bible is the inspired word of god, atheists who want to argue that Jesus never existed, and scholars like you who want to understand history.
But what do you think motivates such an extreme view unsupported by evidence, a view that he obviously spends a lot of time on if he can write 700 page books on the subject. Selling more books? Claiming a spot among legitimate scholars?
I don’t know for sure. But I’d say a lot of mythicists hate Christianity and would like it to disappear, and it may be that arguing Jesus did not even exist is seen as the best way to get rid of it.
If mythicists do not believe that Jesus actually existed as a man, a historical being, why not just build a case for that rather than manufacturing some bizarre science fiction fantasy?
From my own very modest exposure to the Gnostics …
The thing about the bizarre SF fantasy is that it is a largely Gnostic world view, so it is, as it were, only one step removed from the modern view of Gnostic Christians who held the Docetist view of Jesus’s nature, that Jesus was a celestial being on Earth or a phantasm projected from the heavenly realms onto the earth. So then one only has to accept that there are “clues” that behind these views were earlier views that didn’t place Jesus on earth, but in the “lower heavens” ruled by a malign “authority”.
Now, the thing is, Gnosticism was not exclusively Christian, and Gnostic manuscripts appear to have been later then the earliest non-Gnostic manuscripts, and there seem to be more “overwritten but not totally covered” clues to a low Christology than to a high one.
So perhaps it is as plausible if not more so that “behind” Gnostic Christianity was a *non* “SF Fantasy” Christianity that people who believed the Gnostic worldview reworked to make it the *more* “SF Fantasy” Gnostic texts, rather than a “ultra-Gnostic early church” hiding behind the Gnostic works we know of.
3.9 million huh? Them’s rookie numbers; gotta get it up to, I dunno, like, a gazillion. Or something.
I’ve never read Hebrews, but seeing you enumerate the relevant passages seems like a hell of a rebuttal to mysticism, especially – as you point out – 5:7.
Clickhole time! Saw a presentation he made where he claimed Paul didn’t actually meet James and Peter in the account relayed in the book of Acts, for example, and it feels like based on your – this – post and some of the other (many) claims he makes we’ve moved from sophistry to intellectual dishonesty on his part – my take, not yours – to wandering into “nuh uh, you.”
Tl;dr: if he doesn’t believe the New Testament authors are reliable historians, ok; what we’re not gonna do is say the Bible says things it is pretty unambiguous (to me anyway) about then say it didn’t say what it says it says (at least the surviving manuscripts). Frankly, it’s willful ignorance, at best. More bluntly: he sounds full of “it.”
Hope you enjoyed (is that the right word? Productive? Recharging? Peaceful? All of the preceding) your meditation retreat!
There are no mythicists in foxholes.
But they sure seem to be in the gun turrets….
These two Ancient Greek words are supposed to be synonymous?
Hebrews 1:6 & Hebrews 10:5
oikoumene & kosmos
οικουμενη & κοσμος
The Orthodox Jewish Bible, OJB has both translated as Olam Hazeh in both verses despite the Greek using different words. I don’t know, but κοσμος related to Cosmology which in modern science terminology doesn’t really mean planet Earth, but all the English translations have both as world.
Heb 13:12, “Jesus suffered outside the city gate…” sounds very earthly.
If the human Jesus according to Carrier is a conspiracy theory, why? And if the best sources of this Conspiracy Jesus are biblical, why would they comingle so many historical figures in their fantasy story?
Which is more important: (1) that Jesus came to earth or (2) that Jesus would return to earth? In other words, assuming Jesus was born of a woman (came to earth), was crucified, buried, raised from the dead and ascended to heaven is it not of equal importance he would return? In the very second verse of Hebrews we find mention that at the time of its writing it was reportedly in the last days (or eschaton) which I take to mean it was at the telos or end. No problem, as I give these words their common-sense meaning that it was then in the last days (the eschaton was upon them). But we now find ourselves in the year 2025 and looking back in time to see that the eschaton did not come at all, i.e., it was not in the last days as Hebrews led me to believe it was. So, Dr. Ehrman, please give me your honest opinion as to whether you believe this failure of Jesus to soon return as he prophesied he would (see Mark 13:30 and 14:62) turns out to be of more importance than his coming at all? Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman,
Two things.
One, Carrier has stated numerous times that you haven’t “read the peer reviewed work” of mythicism. I’m sure he’ll be happy to see you quoting him above.
Hahahaha. That was a joke. I got $5 that says he’ll lambast this post by saying you took him out of context, you’re “a liar”, and “a crank”, and I’m sure there will be a “He literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about” thrown in to boot.
Two, you’ve been butting heads with Carrier for what, 12 years now? I have a suggestion for the blog. Create a top-page level category people can click on that houses everything you’ve ever posted on mythicism, discusses your relevant books/videos on it, links to other sites that deal with it such as History for Atheists, links to other professionals who have material on it, etc… A huge plus would be to ask some of your scholarly math cohorts to provide a PhD take on Carrier’s use of Bayes theorem. That would be a blow to his delusions of omniscience.
It is disheartening to see partisans on both sides of what should be a serious intellectual debate descend into animus that provokes rising levels of vituperation and ad hominem remarks. Yes, there is plenty at stake. All the more reason for circumspection and care in accurate representation of views. There are serious arguments on both sides of this debate. And ample room for misinterpretation, ambiguity, and perhaps difficulty in identifying ways in which disparity on large conceptual issues can muddy the waters. Two examples: Everyone agrees that some Biblical language is not to be understood literally. But which; and why? Is the Jesus of the Gospels *literally* a King, or not? And what would each claim even exactly mean? When Jesus says he is not the ruler of this “world” (kosmos), what conceptual framework is proper for understanding such a remark? Is X a “mythicist”? What exactly would *that* mean? The term ‘myth’ in common parlance just means, roughly, “made up/false.” But within anthropology, such usage would be, not only misleading, but outright misguided.
In addition, if Hebrews 13:12 refers to a celestial city, the entire analogy to the Day of Atonement doesn’t make sense. There wouldn’t be any people inside the city who are being sanctified.
There’s also Hebrews 12:3, where he says Jesus endured antagonism “from sinners”. Of course Carrier thinks sinners could mean demons, but how common was it for authors to use “sinners” to mean demons?
I don’t know of any examples of it offhand.