What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ
The earliest Christians believed Jesus was an ancient celestial being who put on a bodysuit of flesh, died at the hands of dark forces, and then rose from the dead and ascended back into the heavens. But the writing we have today from that first generation of Christians never says where they thought he landed, where he lived, or where he died. The idea that Jesus toured Galilee and visited Jerusalem arose only a lifetime later, in unsourced legends written in a foreign land and language. Many sources repeat those legends, but none corroborate them. Why? What exactly was the original belief about Jesus, and how did this belief change over time? In Jesus from Outer Space, noted philosopher and historian Richard Carrier summarizes for a popular audience the scholarly research on these and related questions, revealing in turn how modern attempts to conceal, misrepresent, or avoid the actual evidence calls into question the entire field of Jesus studies--and present-day beliefs about how Christianity began.
268 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 3, 2019
92 people are currently reading
237 people want to read
About the author
Richard C. Carrier
18 books323 followersRichard Cevantis Carrier is an American historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement. He is well known for his writings on Internet Infidels, otherwise known as the Secular Web, where he served as Editor-in-Chief for several years. As an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, he has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus. He currently contributes to The God Contention, a web site comparing and contrasting various worldviews.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
October 20, 2020
A great introduction to the strongest case that Jesus never existed, with important background information explaining why "outer space" is the most accurate translation of the original concept found in the earliest references to Jesus.
It's a much easier read than On the Historicity of Jesus, and makes the argument flow smoothly and with only the most important and uncontroversial elements.
Did Jesus exist? Probably not, and anyone who tells you his existence is certain after reading this book has not understood the facts.
It's a much easier read than On the Historicity of Jesus, and makes the argument flow smoothly and with only the most important and uncontroversial elements.
Did Jesus exist? Probably not, and anyone who tells you his existence is certain after reading this book has not understood the facts.
February 16, 2021
This is a general-audience version of the author's scholarly book _On the Historicity of Jesus_, which deals with the question of whether Jesus Christ was a historical person. Spoiler alert: Probably not, though we'll likely never know for sure. Unless someone stumbles across a 1st century version of the Nag Hammadi library, the best scholars can do is piece together clues from the manuscripts they have (most of which are copies that date from centuries later than the time the documents were probably composed).
The Jesus mythicist view is not currently the consensus among New Testament scholars. But it probably will be in a few years. In fact, the issue seems to be following the same trajectory as Moses/Abraham mythicism, which was reviled when first proposed by Thomas L Thompson in the early 1970s, but later became widely accepted.
The Jesus mythicist view is not currently the consensus among New Testament scholars. But it probably will be in a few years. In fact, the issue seems to be following the same trajectory as Moses/Abraham mythicism, which was reviled when first proposed by Thomas L Thompson in the early 1970s, but later became widely accepted.
January 11, 2025
Paul’s writes in one of his seven authentic letters ‘Christ died for our sins according to scripture.’ I have always had a problem by what that meant, and Carrier reinforces my trouble with that phrase.
Carrier will say Paul is probably using an esoteric reading of sacred documents and applying his ‘pesher’ on to it. According to Paul ‘Christ appeared to 500 at the same time.’ That would easily be performed by a celestial being and Carrier’s thesis makes Jesus celestial, spiritual, or as I like to say imaginary.
An apologist will always put on his holy-spirit decoder ring and say otherwise. So, for those who already believe as believers no convincing would be possible. The burden is on the claimant who makes the statement that 500 saw Christ at the same time. Tell me how that happened if it wasn't imaginary.
Carrier doesn’t get too far ahead of his argument and he uses nuance when appropriate. He stays away from a formal Bayesian analysis and describes the world as it really was. The Bible writers were primitive people and believed absurd things just as evangelical Christians do today.
The messiah was to come through the seed of David and there was always going to be an anointed king on his throne except there wasn’t. To make that prophecy true Paul could have made Jesus rule in heaven and made his kingdom celestial, a spiritual imaginary kingdom, and it would only take a ghostly visitation or two to convince him that was true.
The Gospel writers come latter and the writer of Mark does his best to return Christ back down to earth, and the other Gospel writers spin the story from there.
Paul’s Jesus is not an earthly Jesus for him. The Archons of this eon (possibly: the celestial rulers of the world) is what Paul refers to while the early church fathers argue against that framing. In the “Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I,” they warn against Docetism (Jesus only appeared to be bodily) and Gnostics (Truth is inherently known), the early church fathers made sure they argued against the gnostic ‘archons of this eon,’ and the only gospel they had was the good news according to Paul and they use their holy spirit decoder ring to re-orient Jesus back down to earth by mocking Docetism.
Mohammad did not reveal Islam; The angel Gabriel gave it to Mohammad so Gabriel revealed it. Joseph Smith did not reveal Mormonism. The angel Moroni gave it to Smith so Moroni revealed it. Carrier argues persuasively that Christianity was given through an angelic Jesus to earthlings of this eon through celestial means. Paul’s seven authentic letters seem to indicate that.
Carrier’s book “On the Historicity” irritated me because of his Bayesian non-sense. This book strips out that mode of thinking and develops a pretty good theory on what really happened. His other book of his I read “Sense and Goodness without God” lacked depth and was overall superficial towards the nature of science.
Carrier finds the sweet spot with this book and gives a good alternative explanation to what could have happened. Peter could have been the first recipient of a celestial Jesus and then Paul runs with that and Mark humanizes Jesus making him Christ in the process.
Carrier will say Paul is probably using an esoteric reading of sacred documents and applying his ‘pesher’ on to it. According to Paul ‘Christ appeared to 500 at the same time.’ That would easily be performed by a celestial being and Carrier’s thesis makes Jesus celestial, spiritual, or as I like to say imaginary.
An apologist will always put on his holy-spirit decoder ring and say otherwise. So, for those who already believe as believers no convincing would be possible. The burden is on the claimant who makes the statement that 500 saw Christ at the same time. Tell me how that happened if it wasn't imaginary.
Carrier doesn’t get too far ahead of his argument and he uses nuance when appropriate. He stays away from a formal Bayesian analysis and describes the world as it really was. The Bible writers were primitive people and believed absurd things just as evangelical Christians do today.
The messiah was to come through the seed of David and there was always going to be an anointed king on his throne except there wasn’t. To make that prophecy true Paul could have made Jesus rule in heaven and made his kingdom celestial, a spiritual imaginary kingdom, and it would only take a ghostly visitation or two to convince him that was true.
The Gospel writers come latter and the writer of Mark does his best to return Christ back down to earth, and the other Gospel writers spin the story from there.
Paul’s Jesus is not an earthly Jesus for him. The Archons of this eon (possibly: the celestial rulers of the world) is what Paul refers to while the early church fathers argue against that framing. In the “Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I,” they warn against Docetism (Jesus only appeared to be bodily) and Gnostics (Truth is inherently known), the early church fathers made sure they argued against the gnostic ‘archons of this eon,’ and the only gospel they had was the good news according to Paul and they use their holy spirit decoder ring to re-orient Jesus back down to earth by mocking Docetism.
Mohammad did not reveal Islam; The angel Gabriel gave it to Mohammad so Gabriel revealed it. Joseph Smith did not reveal Mormonism. The angel Moroni gave it to Smith so Moroni revealed it. Carrier argues persuasively that Christianity was given through an angelic Jesus to earthlings of this eon through celestial means. Paul’s seven authentic letters seem to indicate that.
Carrier’s book “On the Historicity” irritated me because of his Bayesian non-sense. This book strips out that mode of thinking and develops a pretty good theory on what really happened. His other book of his I read “Sense and Goodness without God” lacked depth and was overall superficial towards the nature of science.
Carrier finds the sweet spot with this book and gives a good alternative explanation to what could have happened. Peter could have been the first recipient of a celestial Jesus and then Paul runs with that and Mark humanizes Jesus making him Christ in the process.
October 28, 2020
One of the silliest titles for a very serious discussion of the origins of christianity. Carrier lays out, in more easily accessible form than his longer On the Historicity of Jesus (2004) the arguments for the Mythicist Theory of the beginning of christianity. A very complete survey of, and a good introduction to, the question of the historicity of not only Jesus but other figures familiar to christian mythology (e.g., Paul and the writers of the gospels). Certainly, a dedicated christian of any version would probably have problems with Carrier's views, but if you are sincerely interested in how the Jesus-centered religions started and how that start affected how they developed, this is a good start to an exploration of those days of yore.
July 12, 2022
I had heard other people say on a few occasions that "there is more evidence that Jesus existed than Caesar" or whatever other historical character and always just took it at face value that yeah there probably was some dude who was later mythologised, but this book without a doubt set me straight. An amazing read. The author is so sure of himself that he sometimes comes off as cocky but yeah I was definitely convinced by the first chapter and the rest of the book only strengthened the argument.
April 18, 2021
Sales-limiting title but thorough scholarship
If, like me, you were persuaded by Carrier’s exhaustive scholarly treatment of the mythicist hypothesis he argued for in On the Historicity of Jesus, but need a shorter, condensed and more accessible summary of its arguments, this will do the job. It’s ironic, given that Carrier is at pains to promote his version of mythicism as credible and scholarly, compared to those of “crank” authors, that he (or was it his publisher?) chose a title that screams crankery. Don’t let the title put you off though, as this book’s claims are thoroughly and expertly argued.
If, like me, you were persuaded by Carrier’s exhaustive scholarly treatment of the mythicist hypothesis he argued for in On the Historicity of Jesus, but need a shorter, condensed and more accessible summary of its arguments, this will do the job. It’s ironic, given that Carrier is at pains to promote his version of mythicism as credible and scholarly, compared to those of “crank” authors, that he (or was it his publisher?) chose a title that screams crankery. Don’t let the title put you off though, as this book’s claims are thoroughly and expertly argued.
November 10, 2020
Mostly Good
This book is not for right-wing Christians. They will do what Carrier teaches not to do—read the past through the eyes of undying faith.
If you do have questions/doubts about the historicity of Christendom’s central character, Carrier’s work is for you.
He outlines foundational principles for historians to use in research generally, and then moves to the evidence, or lack of it, for the central character.
Carrier outlines the faulty approach many historians have taken, corrects their methodology, and proceeds to evaluate the dearth of evidence.
The book places Paul and the Jesus material squarely in the middle of the Mystery schools, and demonstrates how the Christian themes are simply revised versions of other cosmic saviors.
The reason I didn’t give Carrier five stars is because I found myself frustrated by what I perceived as repetition in the text.
I highly recommend the book.
This book is not for right-wing Christians. They will do what Carrier teaches not to do—read the past through the eyes of undying faith.
If you do have questions/doubts about the historicity of Christendom’s central character, Carrier’s work is for you.
He outlines foundational principles for historians to use in research generally, and then moves to the evidence, or lack of it, for the central character.
Carrier outlines the faulty approach many historians have taken, corrects their methodology, and proceeds to evaluate the dearth of evidence.
The book places Paul and the Jesus material squarely in the middle of the Mystery schools, and demonstrates how the Christian themes are simply revised versions of other cosmic saviors.
The reason I didn’t give Carrier five stars is because I found myself frustrated by what I perceived as repetition in the text.
I highly recommend the book.
June 3, 2021
great book
November 12, 2021
I really appreciated how much this opened my eyes to the mythicist arguments. A great presentation. I'll have to research more of the historicist arguments now and look for rebuttals.
October 15, 2022
Despite the title, this is a serious examination of the evidence - or rather the lack of evidence - for the existence of an historical Jesus. It also provides evidence that early Christians didn't believe Jesus was a person existing on earth and how these beliefs in a metaphysical Jesus/Savior were transformed into the Christianity of the Roman Empire through today that insists on belief in an historical Jesus.
April 30, 2025
An interesting work examining the historicity of Jesus examining the earliest Gospel / independent attestations.
Sadly, the title is an attempt at an attention getter, which detracts from the scholarly research.
A solid read but occasionally repetitive.
Sadly, the title is an attempt at an attention getter, which detracts from the scholarly research.
A solid read but occasionally repetitive.
October 31, 2022
Richard Carrier is perhaps the most prominent exponent of mythicism – the belief that Jesus was always mythical and never actually existed. He is one of the few leading mythicists with relevant academic credentials; he has a PhD in Ancient History, and some of his published work has been peer reviewed.
Jesus from Outer Space is a shorter and updated version of his 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus. It is well-written, coherent and frequently entertaining. Were it the only book I had ever read on the subject, I am sure I would find it convincing. But it isn’t. And I don’t.
Mythicism has its detractors. For example, the Yale University Open Course in New Testament Studies states that no reputable scholar makes such an argument. Carrier counters with a list of reputable scholars who either sympathise with parts of his thesis or suggest that academics should deal with his arguments instead of dismissing him as a crank.
Carrier’s thesis is that Christianity emerged as a result of syncretism, the mixing of religions. It is a Jewish take on the worship of dying-rising gods, which was commonplace among the mystery cults of the Greco-Roman world. He sees Peter as the founder of Christianity, which was based on his “inner visions” of a celestial being called Jesus.
It was only later that a small group within the Church “historicised” Jesus, claiming that he had walked the earth as a flesh-and-blood person. With their Gospel texts, these “historicists” created a new orthodoxy and suppressed the idea of Jesus as a purely celestial being.
Carrier makes great play of the fact that we have no contemporary or eyewitness accounts of Jesus: “No contemporary of Jesus ever mentioned him. That means none. No historian. No writer of any kind. No inscriptions. No documents. No letters.”
He says that effectively we have just two sources to work with: Paul’s epistles and what we know about dying-rising gods. All other sources are useless in terms of establishing Jesus’s historicity. Mark’s Gospel contains nothing of value in terms of biography, and the other Gospels are simply re-writes of Mark. Non-Christian sources often cited as evidence of Jesus (e.g., the “Testimonium Flavianum”) prove nothing about the historicity of Jesus.
I have some minor gripes with Carrier’s book and seven big problems with his thesis. I will start by dealing with one of the minor gripes, after which I will concentrate on the serious problems.
Minor gripe to get off my chest – I dislike his use of the terms like “outer space” and “space alien”. I think they are anachronistic and it would be better to speak of “the heavens” and “celestial beings”. But this is only a matter of personal preference.
In terms of content, these are my seven problems with Carrier’s thesis:
1. The lack of contemporary sources proves nothing.
2. Dying-rising gods are crucial to his argument, but the idea that they were common in the Greco-Roman world is contested.
3. Most scholars believe that Carrier misinterprets Paul’s epistles.
4. Carrier’s book doesn’t ever mention the word christology (differing views on how Jesus could be both human and divine), but no discussion of early Church doctrine is complete without the christological disputes that dominated it.
5. Most scholars don’t believe that Mark is useless as a source about the historical Jesus.
6. The consensus among scholars is that Matthew and Luke are not simply a rehash of Mark and that John’s Gospel represents a quite different tradition.
7. Carrier’s claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery is a minority view among academics.
Points 2, 3, and 5 are crucial. If Carrier is wrong about just one of them, his hypothesis is falsified. I will argue that aspects of point 4 are also crucial.
To examine each of the seven issues in turn:
1. THE LACK OF CONTEMPORARY REFERENCES TO JESUS
This means nothing and Carrier should know better than to make so much of it.
If, as a critical reading of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) would suggest, Jesus was a peasant preacher who conducted most of his mission in the back end of beyond before going to Jerusalem, where the authorities nipped his movement in the bud (or so they thought) by crucifying him, then it is no wonder that we have no contemporary record, just as we have no record of 99.9% of the people in the region at the time.
Carrier has a lengthy chapter comparing the documentary evidence for Jesus with that for historical figures such as Socrates, Alexander, Caesar and Pontius Pilate. If you read the chapter carefully, you will note that we also have no contemporary record of Spartacus, but nobody uses this fact to claim that Spartacus didn’t exist.
2. DYING-RISING GODS
Carrier devotes two chapters to dying-rising gods, which are crucial to his thesis. The idea of them became influential after Sir James George Frazer’s 1898 book The Golden Bough. Carrier claims that dying-rising gods were central to many mystery cults, a prominent feature of the Greco-Roman world, among them the cults of Osiris, Zalmoxis, Inanna of Sumer, Adonis, Dionysis and Baal.
He draws heavily on Swedish scholar Tryggve Mettinger (who rejects Jesus mythicism). However, Bart Ehrman has suggested that Mettinger’s evidence is ambiguous and his conclusions are rejected by most scholars. He and cites Jonathan Z Smith and Mark S. Smith (I don’t think they are related!), who argue against the existence of dying-rising gods. Jonathan Z. Smith states that the dying-rising god is “largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.” Almost without exception the gods that returned had never died and those gods that died did not return. Mark S. Smith suggests that the idea of dying-rising gods arose because Frazer allowed the Christian myth of the Resurrection to colour his analysis of paganism.
Carrier addresses criticisms of his and Mettinger’s views, and as a lay reader, I am not in any position to say who is right. I can only note that among scholars who study the question of dying-rising gods (without reference to Jesus mythicism), the majority view seems to be that they were rare or even non-existent. If this majority view is correct, Carrier’s thesis falls. This wouldn’t disprove Jesus mythicism, but it would mean that Carrier’s version of it is incorrect.
3. THE PAULINE EPISTLES
The seven authentic epistles of Paul are the oldest Christian documents we have, written in the 50s CE. Carrier repeatedly says that it is “weird” that Paul never speaks about Jesus as a living human being. He admits that his is a minority view and that mainstream scholars claim that Paul said these things of Jesus:
• He was a Jew, born of a woman (Galatians 4:4-5)
• He was descended from David (Romans 1:3)
• He had a brother called James, who Paul met (Galatians 1:19)
• He was killed by the Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
However, Carrier claims that whereas English translations of the Bible make it seem as if Paul said these things, careful examination of the original Greek shows that he did not in fact say any of them. To take the example of Jesus’s “brother” James, Carrier argues that here, “brother” is simply a term used to denote a fellow Christian.
As someone with no knowledge of Ancient Greek, I cannot assess his argument. I can only note that Carrier’s is a minority view among experts. And if the majority are right, and Jesus had a brother called James, who Paul met, then this is evidence that Jesus existed.
If I may add another of my minor gripes, reading Paul’s letters in English translation, Carrier appears to misuse the word “only”. For example, in Romans 16:25-26, Paul only writes about knowing Jesus through revelation and scripture. He doesn’t mention eyewitness accounts. On page 128, Carrier claims that Paul writes that Jesus can “only” be known through revelation and scripture. But that is not the same thing. To only say “X” is not the same as saying “only X”.
4. CHRISTOLOGY
This refers to what early Christians thought about Jesus’s nature: the extent to which he was human and the way in which he was divine. For a discussion of the diversity of views in the early Church, I would recommend Bart Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God.
Scholars distinguish between low christology (Jesus was a mortal man who became divine) and high christology (Jesus was a pre-existing divine figure who became human). If the former, when he became divine? Was it at birth (Matthew and Luke)? Or at his baptism (Mark)? Or at the Resurrection (a creed quoted by Paul in Romans 1:3-4)?
There were also different versions of high christology. Carrier and Bart Ehrman agree that Paul believed that Jesus was the pre-existing Angel of the Lord, though they disagree about whether Paul thought this angel stayed in the heavens or came down to earth as a human being. At a high extreme were the so-called Docetists, who believed that the earthly Jesus was never really human.
In the end, the kind of high christology expressed in John’s Gospel won out: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The fully human Jesus was an incarnation of God.
In the latter part of his book, Carrier makes oblique reference to christological debates. But for him, there were only really two sides: the early Church leaders who believed that Jesus never came down from the heavens and a later “historicist” faction who believed in an earthly Jesus.
Carrier says that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was an “angelic extraterrestrial”. Bart Ehrman and the Yale Open Course disagree. They both cite the creed buried in Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:3-4), possibly the earliest Christian text we have, in which Jesus was exalted to divine status at his Resurrection.
I don't know how mainstream this interpretation of Romans 1:3-4 is in academia. If it is correct, a central plank of Carrier’s thesis is falsified.
5. DOES MARK CONTAIN USEFUL BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION?
Carrier tears into Mark, not simply because of the dodgy miracle stories that take up so much of it, but because the whole Gospel is structured as myth rather than anything approaching history or biography. He concludes that “We can locate no history about Jesus” in Mark.
Mainstream scholars beg to differ, even if they agree that Mark is constructed as myth. One technique used to seek out nuggets of truth is the criterion of embarrassment: if a Gospel contains something that would have been very embarrassing for the early Church, it is highly unlikely that the authors would have made it up, so it may be true.
Carrier dismisses the criterion of embarrassment. He doesn’t fully set out his reasons for doing so but refers the reader to his book Proving History.
Atheist blogger Tim O’Neill cites three things in the Gospels that were highly embarrassing for the early Church and wouldn’t be there if they weren’t historical.
The first is that Jesus came from Nazareth. This is embarrassing because the Church had latched on to a prediction in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. It doesn’t seem to have worried Mark too much, but Matthew and Luke included lengthy and mutually contradictory tales that placed Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. But why would they mention such an obscure backwater as Nazareth if it wasn’t widely known to be the home of Jesus?
The second is that John baptised Jesus. It is inherent in the ritual of baptism that the status of the person doing the baptising is higher than that of the person being baptised. Both Mark and Matthew struggle with this reversal of status, and John’s Gospel can’t actually bring itself to describe the baptism at all.
The third is the most embarrassing event in the Gospels: the crucifixion. The Jewish apocalyptic tradition had the Messiah coming in clouds of glory to sweep away Israel’s enemies and institute God’s rule on earth. He wasn’t supposed to die, and much of Mark can be interpreted as an effort to explain away Jesus’s death.
But it wasn’t just a matter of his death. Even more embarrassing was the manner of his execution. Crucifixion was Rome’s most shameful and humiliating punishment, reserved for the lowest classes in society. The victim would be crucified naked, and their corpse would hang on the cross for days to be pecked at by carrion-eating birds. Among Jews, there was an added layer of shame, a belief that anyone hung on a tree was cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23).
Christians would never invent such a vile and shameful death for Jesus. They had to include it because it was something known to have happened that couldn’t be expunged from the record.
The dominant paradigm in academia is that the criterion of embarrassment is a useful tool that allows us to extract these three historical truths from Mark’s Gospel. If this paradigm is correct, then mythicism is falsified.
6. ARE ALL THE OTHER GOSPELS BASICALLY JUST A RE-WRITE OF MARK?
In the case of Matthew and Luke, mainstream scholars would partly agree. However, most believe that Matthew and Luke also had access to another source, which they have called Q, a collection of Jesus’s sayings. Carrier is sceptical about the Q hypothesis. In his view, Luke copied from Matthew. This is a perfectly respectable point of view supported by a minority of scholars in the field.
What is extraordinary is Carrier’s claim that, “John is just a freestyle rewrite of the previous three Gospels.” Every book I have ever read about early Christianity (and I have read quite a lot) has said that John comes from a very different tradition than the Synoptic Gospels. Most of the content of the Synoptic Gospels doesn’t appear in John, and most of the content of John doesn’t appear in the Synoptic Gospels.
This matters because one criterion historians use to check for authenticity is multiple attestation. If something appears in more than one source, it is more likely to be true. Mainstream scholars believe we have at least four Gospel texts that are sources of information about the historical Jesus: Mark, Q, John and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. Carrier whittles this down to just one: Mark. If he is wrong, that doesn’t falsify his hypothesis, but it does weaken it.
7. IS THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM A FORGERY?
Titus Flavius Josephus was a participant in the disastrous Jewish revolt against Roman rule in 66 CE. He defected to the Romans and survived to become our best source of information about Palestine under Roman rule, writing a history of the Jewish War and a wider history (or “Antiquities”) of the Jews. In the Antiquities, two passages, commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum, refer to Jesus.
Are these passages genuine or are they interpolations, forgeries inserted into the text by later Christian copyists?
The first passage states that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate but his “tribe” lives on. Scholars are almost unanimous that the pious bits of this passage are interpolations. The debate is over whether the rest is genuine. Carrier and a substantial minority of scholars argue that it is all interpolation. A majority believe that parts of the passage are genuine and can be used as secondary evidence that Jesus existed.
The second passage is less controversial. It refers to the execution of James, the brother of “Jesus who was called Messiah” (the same James referred to by Paul). Most scholars believe that this passage is authentic. Carrier and a smaller minority argue that it is not.
His position on the Testimonium is a respectable minority position.
However (minor quibble time), in his discussion of Josephus, Carrier includes a disingenuous passage that could trap the unwary reader: “The historian Josephus…tells the stories of several men claiming to be a Jesus Christ.”
To back this up, he points out that Jesus is a version of the name Joshua, the original liberator of Israel, and that Christ comes from the Greek for Messiah. From this, he leaps to the claim that anyone who claims to be the Messiah come to liberate the Jews is marketing themselves as a Jesus Christ.
However, in his brief discussion of these supposed “Jesus Christs”, Josephus doesn’t refer to Joshua at all, and neither does he use the term Messiah. Instead, he says two of them claimed to be prophets. He clearly regards the third as little more than a rabble rouser and gives hardly any details of the fourth.
The lay reader who doesn’t investigate Carrier’s claim about many Jesus Christs in Josephus is likely to come away with a very false impression.
CONCLUSIONS
In my discussion of Carrier’s thesis, he appears again and again as very much an outsider, not merely in his mythicism but in his approach to the seven different issues I have covered.
1. Scholars regard the lack of contemporary references to Jesus as irrelevant.
2. Most don’t believe that dying-rising gods were a common feature of Greco-Roman religion.
3. The majority believe that Paul referred to Jesus as a human being several times.
4. Carrier ignores the bitter christological disputes that dominated the theology of the early Church, and he ignores evidence that the very earliest Christians followed a low christology.
5. Most scholars believe the criterion of embarrassment can be used to extract some basic biographical details of Jesus from the Gospels.
6. Carrier acknowledges just one Gospel (Mark) that can be considered a source. The majority of scholars think we can work from at least four separate Gospel sources: Mark, Q, John and Thomas.
7. Most scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum is partly authentic.
Points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are central to Carrier’s argument. If he is wrong about just one of them, his whole thesis is falsified. If he is wrong about the others, it is weakened but not disproved.
I am not arguing from authority. The majority are not always right and a lone voice in the wilderness can be correct. But Carrier’s mythicist thesis depends on him being right and the majority of experts being wrong not about one, but at least three, possibly four and conceivably all seven of these separate issues.
We are told that we live in an era when people are tired of experts and prefer to believe what they want to believe. I suspect that this is why Richard Carrier's ideas are so popular.
There is a fully-sourced version of this review on my website.
Jesus from Outer Space is a shorter and updated version of his 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus. It is well-written, coherent and frequently entertaining. Were it the only book I had ever read on the subject, I am sure I would find it convincing. But it isn’t. And I don’t.
Mythicism has its detractors. For example, the Yale University Open Course in New Testament Studies states that no reputable scholar makes such an argument. Carrier counters with a list of reputable scholars who either sympathise with parts of his thesis or suggest that academics should deal with his arguments instead of dismissing him as a crank.
Carrier’s thesis is that Christianity emerged as a result of syncretism, the mixing of religions. It is a Jewish take on the worship of dying-rising gods, which was commonplace among the mystery cults of the Greco-Roman world. He sees Peter as the founder of Christianity, which was based on his “inner visions” of a celestial being called Jesus.
It was only later that a small group within the Church “historicised” Jesus, claiming that he had walked the earth as a flesh-and-blood person. With their Gospel texts, these “historicists” created a new orthodoxy and suppressed the idea of Jesus as a purely celestial being.
Carrier makes great play of the fact that we have no contemporary or eyewitness accounts of Jesus: “No contemporary of Jesus ever mentioned him. That means none. No historian. No writer of any kind. No inscriptions. No documents. No letters.”
He says that effectively we have just two sources to work with: Paul’s epistles and what we know about dying-rising gods. All other sources are useless in terms of establishing Jesus’s historicity. Mark’s Gospel contains nothing of value in terms of biography, and the other Gospels are simply re-writes of Mark. Non-Christian sources often cited as evidence of Jesus (e.g., the “Testimonium Flavianum”) prove nothing about the historicity of Jesus.
I have some minor gripes with Carrier’s book and seven big problems with his thesis. I will start by dealing with one of the minor gripes, after which I will concentrate on the serious problems.
Minor gripe to get off my chest – I dislike his use of the terms like “outer space” and “space alien”. I think they are anachronistic and it would be better to speak of “the heavens” and “celestial beings”. But this is only a matter of personal preference.
In terms of content, these are my seven problems with Carrier’s thesis:
1. The lack of contemporary sources proves nothing.
2. Dying-rising gods are crucial to his argument, but the idea that they were common in the Greco-Roman world is contested.
3. Most scholars believe that Carrier misinterprets Paul’s epistles.
4. Carrier’s book doesn’t ever mention the word christology (differing views on how Jesus could be both human and divine), but no discussion of early Church doctrine is complete without the christological disputes that dominated it.
5. Most scholars don’t believe that Mark is useless as a source about the historical Jesus.
6. The consensus among scholars is that Matthew and Luke are not simply a rehash of Mark and that John’s Gospel represents a quite different tradition.
7. Carrier’s claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery is a minority view among academics.
Points 2, 3, and 5 are crucial. If Carrier is wrong about just one of them, his hypothesis is falsified. I will argue that aspects of point 4 are also crucial.
To examine each of the seven issues in turn:
1. THE LACK OF CONTEMPORARY REFERENCES TO JESUS
This means nothing and Carrier should know better than to make so much of it.
If, as a critical reading of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) would suggest, Jesus was a peasant preacher who conducted most of his mission in the back end of beyond before going to Jerusalem, where the authorities nipped his movement in the bud (or so they thought) by crucifying him, then it is no wonder that we have no contemporary record, just as we have no record of 99.9% of the people in the region at the time.
Carrier has a lengthy chapter comparing the documentary evidence for Jesus with that for historical figures such as Socrates, Alexander, Caesar and Pontius Pilate. If you read the chapter carefully, you will note that we also have no contemporary record of Spartacus, but nobody uses this fact to claim that Spartacus didn’t exist.
2. DYING-RISING GODS
Carrier devotes two chapters to dying-rising gods, which are crucial to his thesis. The idea of them became influential after Sir James George Frazer’s 1898 book The Golden Bough. Carrier claims that dying-rising gods were central to many mystery cults, a prominent feature of the Greco-Roman world, among them the cults of Osiris, Zalmoxis, Inanna of Sumer, Adonis, Dionysis and Baal.
He draws heavily on Swedish scholar Tryggve Mettinger (who rejects Jesus mythicism). However, Bart Ehrman has suggested that Mettinger’s evidence is ambiguous and his conclusions are rejected by most scholars. He and cites Jonathan Z Smith and Mark S. Smith (I don’t think they are related!), who argue against the existence of dying-rising gods. Jonathan Z. Smith states that the dying-rising god is “largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.” Almost without exception the gods that returned had never died and those gods that died did not return. Mark S. Smith suggests that the idea of dying-rising gods arose because Frazer allowed the Christian myth of the Resurrection to colour his analysis of paganism.
Carrier addresses criticisms of his and Mettinger’s views, and as a lay reader, I am not in any position to say who is right. I can only note that among scholars who study the question of dying-rising gods (without reference to Jesus mythicism), the majority view seems to be that they were rare or even non-existent. If this majority view is correct, Carrier’s thesis falls. This wouldn’t disprove Jesus mythicism, but it would mean that Carrier’s version of it is incorrect.
3. THE PAULINE EPISTLES
The seven authentic epistles of Paul are the oldest Christian documents we have, written in the 50s CE. Carrier repeatedly says that it is “weird” that Paul never speaks about Jesus as a living human being. He admits that his is a minority view and that mainstream scholars claim that Paul said these things of Jesus:
• He was a Jew, born of a woman (Galatians 4:4-5)
• He was descended from David (Romans 1:3)
• He had a brother called James, who Paul met (Galatians 1:19)
• He was killed by the Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
However, Carrier claims that whereas English translations of the Bible make it seem as if Paul said these things, careful examination of the original Greek shows that he did not in fact say any of them. To take the example of Jesus’s “brother” James, Carrier argues that here, “brother” is simply a term used to denote a fellow Christian.
As someone with no knowledge of Ancient Greek, I cannot assess his argument. I can only note that Carrier’s is a minority view among experts. And if the majority are right, and Jesus had a brother called James, who Paul met, then this is evidence that Jesus existed.
If I may add another of my minor gripes, reading Paul’s letters in English translation, Carrier appears to misuse the word “only”. For example, in Romans 16:25-26, Paul only writes about knowing Jesus through revelation and scripture. He doesn’t mention eyewitness accounts. On page 128, Carrier claims that Paul writes that Jesus can “only” be known through revelation and scripture. But that is not the same thing. To only say “X” is not the same as saying “only X”.
4. CHRISTOLOGY
This refers to what early Christians thought about Jesus’s nature: the extent to which he was human and the way in which he was divine. For a discussion of the diversity of views in the early Church, I would recommend Bart Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God.
Scholars distinguish between low christology (Jesus was a mortal man who became divine) and high christology (Jesus was a pre-existing divine figure who became human). If the former, when he became divine? Was it at birth (Matthew and Luke)? Or at his baptism (Mark)? Or at the Resurrection (a creed quoted by Paul in Romans 1:3-4)?
There were also different versions of high christology. Carrier and Bart Ehrman agree that Paul believed that Jesus was the pre-existing Angel of the Lord, though they disagree about whether Paul thought this angel stayed in the heavens or came down to earth as a human being. At a high extreme were the so-called Docetists, who believed that the earthly Jesus was never really human.
In the end, the kind of high christology expressed in John’s Gospel won out: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The fully human Jesus was an incarnation of God.
In the latter part of his book, Carrier makes oblique reference to christological debates. But for him, there were only really two sides: the early Church leaders who believed that Jesus never came down from the heavens and a later “historicist” faction who believed in an earthly Jesus.
Carrier says that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was an “angelic extraterrestrial”. Bart Ehrman and the Yale Open Course disagree. They both cite the creed buried in Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:3-4), possibly the earliest Christian text we have, in which Jesus was exalted to divine status at his Resurrection.
I don't know how mainstream this interpretation of Romans 1:3-4 is in academia. If it is correct, a central plank of Carrier’s thesis is falsified.
5. DOES MARK CONTAIN USEFUL BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION?
Carrier tears into Mark, not simply because of the dodgy miracle stories that take up so much of it, but because the whole Gospel is structured as myth rather than anything approaching history or biography. He concludes that “We can locate no history about Jesus” in Mark.
Mainstream scholars beg to differ, even if they agree that Mark is constructed as myth. One technique used to seek out nuggets of truth is the criterion of embarrassment: if a Gospel contains something that would have been very embarrassing for the early Church, it is highly unlikely that the authors would have made it up, so it may be true.
Carrier dismisses the criterion of embarrassment. He doesn’t fully set out his reasons for doing so but refers the reader to his book Proving History.
Atheist blogger Tim O’Neill cites three things in the Gospels that were highly embarrassing for the early Church and wouldn’t be there if they weren’t historical.
The first is that Jesus came from Nazareth. This is embarrassing because the Church had latched on to a prediction in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. It doesn’t seem to have worried Mark too much, but Matthew and Luke included lengthy and mutually contradictory tales that placed Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. But why would they mention such an obscure backwater as Nazareth if it wasn’t widely known to be the home of Jesus?
The second is that John baptised Jesus. It is inherent in the ritual of baptism that the status of the person doing the baptising is higher than that of the person being baptised. Both Mark and Matthew struggle with this reversal of status, and John’s Gospel can’t actually bring itself to describe the baptism at all.
The third is the most embarrassing event in the Gospels: the crucifixion. The Jewish apocalyptic tradition had the Messiah coming in clouds of glory to sweep away Israel’s enemies and institute God’s rule on earth. He wasn’t supposed to die, and much of Mark can be interpreted as an effort to explain away Jesus’s death.
But it wasn’t just a matter of his death. Even more embarrassing was the manner of his execution. Crucifixion was Rome’s most shameful and humiliating punishment, reserved for the lowest classes in society. The victim would be crucified naked, and their corpse would hang on the cross for days to be pecked at by carrion-eating birds. Among Jews, there was an added layer of shame, a belief that anyone hung on a tree was cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23).
Christians would never invent such a vile and shameful death for Jesus. They had to include it because it was something known to have happened that couldn’t be expunged from the record.
The dominant paradigm in academia is that the criterion of embarrassment is a useful tool that allows us to extract these three historical truths from Mark’s Gospel. If this paradigm is correct, then mythicism is falsified.
6. ARE ALL THE OTHER GOSPELS BASICALLY JUST A RE-WRITE OF MARK?
In the case of Matthew and Luke, mainstream scholars would partly agree. However, most believe that Matthew and Luke also had access to another source, which they have called Q, a collection of Jesus’s sayings. Carrier is sceptical about the Q hypothesis. In his view, Luke copied from Matthew. This is a perfectly respectable point of view supported by a minority of scholars in the field.
What is extraordinary is Carrier’s claim that, “John is just a freestyle rewrite of the previous three Gospels.” Every book I have ever read about early Christianity (and I have read quite a lot) has said that John comes from a very different tradition than the Synoptic Gospels. Most of the content of the Synoptic Gospels doesn’t appear in John, and most of the content of John doesn’t appear in the Synoptic Gospels.
This matters because one criterion historians use to check for authenticity is multiple attestation. If something appears in more than one source, it is more likely to be true. Mainstream scholars believe we have at least four Gospel texts that are sources of information about the historical Jesus: Mark, Q, John and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. Carrier whittles this down to just one: Mark. If he is wrong, that doesn’t falsify his hypothesis, but it does weaken it.
7. IS THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM A FORGERY?
Titus Flavius Josephus was a participant in the disastrous Jewish revolt against Roman rule in 66 CE. He defected to the Romans and survived to become our best source of information about Palestine under Roman rule, writing a history of the Jewish War and a wider history (or “Antiquities”) of the Jews. In the Antiquities, two passages, commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum, refer to Jesus.
Are these passages genuine or are they interpolations, forgeries inserted into the text by later Christian copyists?
The first passage states that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate but his “tribe” lives on. Scholars are almost unanimous that the pious bits of this passage are interpolations. The debate is over whether the rest is genuine. Carrier and a substantial minority of scholars argue that it is all interpolation. A majority believe that parts of the passage are genuine and can be used as secondary evidence that Jesus existed.
The second passage is less controversial. It refers to the execution of James, the brother of “Jesus who was called Messiah” (the same James referred to by Paul). Most scholars believe that this passage is authentic. Carrier and a smaller minority argue that it is not.
His position on the Testimonium is a respectable minority position.
However (minor quibble time), in his discussion of Josephus, Carrier includes a disingenuous passage that could trap the unwary reader: “The historian Josephus…tells the stories of several men claiming to be a Jesus Christ.”
To back this up, he points out that Jesus is a version of the name Joshua, the original liberator of Israel, and that Christ comes from the Greek for Messiah. From this, he leaps to the claim that anyone who claims to be the Messiah come to liberate the Jews is marketing themselves as a Jesus Christ.
However, in his brief discussion of these supposed “Jesus Christs”, Josephus doesn’t refer to Joshua at all, and neither does he use the term Messiah. Instead, he says two of them claimed to be prophets. He clearly regards the third as little more than a rabble rouser and gives hardly any details of the fourth.
The lay reader who doesn’t investigate Carrier’s claim about many Jesus Christs in Josephus is likely to come away with a very false impression.
CONCLUSIONS
In my discussion of Carrier’s thesis, he appears again and again as very much an outsider, not merely in his mythicism but in his approach to the seven different issues I have covered.
1. Scholars regard the lack of contemporary references to Jesus as irrelevant.
2. Most don’t believe that dying-rising gods were a common feature of Greco-Roman religion.
3. The majority believe that Paul referred to Jesus as a human being several times.
4. Carrier ignores the bitter christological disputes that dominated the theology of the early Church, and he ignores evidence that the very earliest Christians followed a low christology.
5. Most scholars believe the criterion of embarrassment can be used to extract some basic biographical details of Jesus from the Gospels.
6. Carrier acknowledges just one Gospel (Mark) that can be considered a source. The majority of scholars think we can work from at least four separate Gospel sources: Mark, Q, John and Thomas.
7. Most scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum is partly authentic.
Points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are central to Carrier’s argument. If he is wrong about just one of them, his whole thesis is falsified. If he is wrong about the others, it is weakened but not disproved.
I am not arguing from authority. The majority are not always right and a lone voice in the wilderness can be correct. But Carrier’s mythicist thesis depends on him being right and the majority of experts being wrong not about one, but at least three, possibly four and conceivably all seven of these separate issues.
We are told that we live in an era when people are tired of experts and prefer to believe what they want to believe. I suspect that this is why Richard Carrier's ideas are so popular.
There is a fully-sourced version of this review on my website.
September 24, 2023
Το βιβλίο αυτό αναλύεται η ιστορικοτητα του Ιησού, αν δηλ. υπήρξε ως πραγματικό ιστορικό πρόσωπο, χρησιμοποιώντας τις πηγές που έχουμε για τον Ιησού (επιστολές του Παύλου, τα Ευαγγέλια και μια σύντομη αναφορά του ιστορικού Ιώσηπου). Αντιπαραβάλλεται επίσης η ιστορία του Ιησού με τα στοιχεία που έχουμε για πρόσωπα που έχουν αποδεχθεί σύμφωνα με ιστορικά στοιχεία όπως υπήρξαν (π.χ
Σωκράτης, Ιούλιος Καίσαρας). Στο βιβλίο σίγουρα υπάρχουν πολύ καλά επιχειρήματα μια καλή ανάλυση και βοηθάει τον αναγνώστη να καταλάβει και να βάλει σε σειρά πράγματα που και ο ίδιος υποπτευόταν. Το βιβλίο χάνει από τον τρόπο γραφής του Carrier που θέλει να προβάλλει πολύ τον εαυτό του και τη δουλειά του οπότε γίνεται κουραστικός σε πολλά σημεία, επαναλαμβάνεται και πάει το συζήτηση στον ίδιο στην ουσία. Σίγουρα ένα ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο αν και θ�� μπορούσε να αποτελείται από 3 μόνο κεφάλαια και πάλι να τα πει όλα.
Σωκράτης, Ιούλιος Καίσαρας). Στο βιβλίο σίγουρα υπάρχουν πολύ καλά επιχειρήματα μια καλή ανάλυση και βοηθάει τον αναγνώστη να καταλάβει και να βάλει σε σειρά πράγματα που και ο ίδιος υποπτευόταν. Το βιβλίο χάνει από τον τρόπο γραφής του Carrier που θέλει να προβάλλει πολύ τον εαυτό του και τη δουλειά του οπότε γίνεται κουραστικός σε πολλά σημεία, επαναλαμβάνεται και πάει το συζήτηση στον ίδιο στην ουσία. Σίγουρα ένα ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο αν και θ�� μπορούσε να αποτελείται από 3 μόνο κεφάλαια και πάλι να τα πει όλα.
October 5, 2025
In “Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ,” Richard Carrier advocates “mythicism” — the view that Jesus never existed and that the biblical accounts are mythical. He argues that early Christians conceived of Christ as a celestial being dwelling in some region in outer space. While ancient religions did portray heaven using vivid, concrete imagery, this doesn’t necessarily mean they understood it as existing in a specific physical location or time. The diverse portrayals of heaven across cultures suggest that believers often interpreted these descriptions symbolically rather than literally.
Ancient peoples approached truth differently than we do today, not drawing sharp distinctions between symbolic and literal meaning. They could accept supernatural elements as fully real while understanding them to operate in a different mode of reality than physical objects. Plato applied this mode of thinking in his theory of Forms, which conceived of Ideas as concrete entities existing in a higher realm of reality. This sophisticated understanding suggests that ancient people were more nuanced thinkers than Carrier acknowledges.
Thus, Carrier’s claim that ancient people had no concept of heaven as a transcendent dimension outside our physical universe is incorrect. The Platonists developed sophisticated transcendental concepts centuries before Christianity emerged. Indeed, Plato (428-348 BCE) conceived of the Good as existing “beyond Being,” demonstrating that abstract, non-physical conceptions of divine realms were well-established in ancient thought.
References to heaven in specific physical locations and times reflect narrative space and narrative time, as we can only describe transcendent concepts through narrative language. While some may have interpreted heaven literally as a physical place, ancient thinkers like Plato understood it as a transcendent dimension beyond physical reality.
This understanding is also reflected in the gospels, where Jesus appears and disappears at will, seemingly moving between dimensions rather than traveling through physical space. His ability to materialize suddenly, as if passing through walls, suggests he inhabits a transcendent realm rather than a distant physical location. If heaven were merely a far-off physical place requiring conventional travel, such instantaneous appearances would be impossible.
The author misrepresents the Osiris myth, and divine myths generally, when he claims that gods first existed as cosmic beings in outer space before becoming historicized as earthly beings (p. 164). The actual mythological sequence is the reverse. According to these myths, Osiris existed on earth during a paradisiacal age when heaven and earth were still united. Only after their separation did the gods move to the heavens.
Thus, Osiris’s origins were not as a celestial deity who became earthbound through allegory. Rather, he began as a vegetation god, which explains his traditional representations in either black (symbolizing earth) or green (symbolizing vegetation). His cycle of death and rebirth was tied to the seasonal cycles on earth, reflecting his nature as a terrestrial deity. Only later was Osiris elevated to the status of a heavenly god, but this transformation required him to transcend his earthly form. This evolution from an earth-bound to a celestial deity represents the opposite trajectory of what Carrier suggests.
The Aztec creation myth follows the same pattern: the gods inhabited the primordial earth before sacrificing their physical forms to create the material world, including the sun and moon. Mircea Eliade terms this primordial epoch ‘in illo tempore’ (“in that time”), a theme that appears consistently across world mythologies. We see the same pattern in Genesis, where God walks among humans in the Garden of Eden.
Carrier’s claim about historicization patterns in myths is contradicted by the evidence from other mythological traditions. The Aztec creation myth serves as a counter-example to Carrier’s claim that myths typically involve heavenly gods becoming historicized.
The author argues that the biblical stories are “implausible,” “unrealistic,” and “improbable” (p. 130), claiming these events could not have occurred in reality. This argument is meant to support his hypothesis that the historical Jesus never existed. This reasoning assumes that implausible narrative elements necessarily disprove the existence of the central historical figure. However, this logic is flawed. Consider Vespasian, who in 69 CE reportedly performed two healing miracles in Alexandria: restoring sight to a blind man by spitting in his eyes and healing a man’s withered hand by stepping on it. These miracle accounts don’t make Vespasian a mythological figure. Similarly, Jesus’s reported miracles neither prove nor disprove his historical existence. (Besides, supernatural events are fundamental to religion. Without them, what remains is not religion but mere ideology.)
The men seeking healing from Vespasian were associated with the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria. Vespasian initially resisted their requests to heal them, expressing doubt in his ability to do so. The reported healings took place, and Vespasian later supported the cult of Serapis, as evidenced by the temple he built to Serapis in Rome.
Were Vespasian’s healings truly “implausible”? Not necessarily. The events could have been orchestrated by temple illusionists as part of a religious ritual. Such staged healings would align with known practices of ancient temples.
Carrier asserts that Osiris was resurrected on the third day, similar to Jesus, citing three chapters in Plutarch’s “Isis and Osiris” (p. 118). However, the chapters Carrier references contain no mention of such a timeline. There is no evidence in the Osiris myth suggesting he was resurrected on the third day. While there is a festival of Isis and Osiris that includes a ritual procession with the recovery of a sacred chest on the nineteenth of Athyr, this does not indicate a third-day resurrection of Osiris in mythic narrative.
We should be cautious about drawing historical conclusions based solely on later ritual practices. This would be like claiming Jesus observed the Sabbath on Sunday because modern Christians do, or that Jesus was born on December 25th simply because Christmas is celebrated then, or that Jesus was baptized as an infant because Christian denominations practice infant baptism.
The author’s claim about Inanna’s resurrection is also inaccurate. The Sumerian text merely states that Inanna instructed her servant Ninshubur to wait three days and three nights before seeking help if she didn’t return. This waiting period is longer than “on the third day” (as Jesus’s death-day was counted as day one), and the text doesn’t specify how long Inanna remained dead.
Carrier argues that Jesus could not have overturned the tables in the Temple Mount because it was a heavily guarded, crowded space of over 35 acres (not 10 acres as he states), protected by armed forces authorized to kill troublemakers on sight (p. 54). This argument is flawed. While the Temple was guarded by both Levite police and Roman soldiers from the Antonia Fortress, they primarily made arrests for violations of Temple rules and Roman law. Summary execution was not their standard policy. The size and crowds of the Temple complex could actually have made it more difficult for guards to respond quickly to such an incident.
While this book shows more scholarly rigour than similar works in the genre (such as Tom Harpur’s), it still falls short of academic standards. The concept of Christ’s work in the heavenly realm is well-established in orthodox theology, suggesting that a more nuanced dialogue between mythicist perspectives and traditional scholarship could be productive if approached less dogmatically.
Ancient peoples approached truth differently than we do today, not drawing sharp distinctions between symbolic and literal meaning. They could accept supernatural elements as fully real while understanding them to operate in a different mode of reality than physical objects. Plato applied this mode of thinking in his theory of Forms, which conceived of Ideas as concrete entities existing in a higher realm of reality. This sophisticated understanding suggests that ancient people were more nuanced thinkers than Carrier acknowledges.
Thus, Carrier’s claim that ancient people had no concept of heaven as a transcendent dimension outside our physical universe is incorrect. The Platonists developed sophisticated transcendental concepts centuries before Christianity emerged. Indeed, Plato (428-348 BCE) conceived of the Good as existing “beyond Being,” demonstrating that abstract, non-physical conceptions of divine realms were well-established in ancient thought.
References to heaven in specific physical locations and times reflect narrative space and narrative time, as we can only describe transcendent concepts through narrative language. While some may have interpreted heaven literally as a physical place, ancient thinkers like Plato understood it as a transcendent dimension beyond physical reality.
This understanding is also reflected in the gospels, where Jesus appears and disappears at will, seemingly moving between dimensions rather than traveling through physical space. His ability to materialize suddenly, as if passing through walls, suggests he inhabits a transcendent realm rather than a distant physical location. If heaven were merely a far-off physical place requiring conventional travel, such instantaneous appearances would be impossible.
The author misrepresents the Osiris myth, and divine myths generally, when he claims that gods first existed as cosmic beings in outer space before becoming historicized as earthly beings (p. 164). The actual mythological sequence is the reverse. According to these myths, Osiris existed on earth during a paradisiacal age when heaven and earth were still united. Only after their separation did the gods move to the heavens.
Thus, Osiris’s origins were not as a celestial deity who became earthbound through allegory. Rather, he began as a vegetation god, which explains his traditional representations in either black (symbolizing earth) or green (symbolizing vegetation). His cycle of death and rebirth was tied to the seasonal cycles on earth, reflecting his nature as a terrestrial deity. Only later was Osiris elevated to the status of a heavenly god, but this transformation required him to transcend his earthly form. This evolution from an earth-bound to a celestial deity represents the opposite trajectory of what Carrier suggests.
The Aztec creation myth follows the same pattern: the gods inhabited the primordial earth before sacrificing their physical forms to create the material world, including the sun and moon. Mircea Eliade terms this primordial epoch ‘in illo tempore’ (“in that time”), a theme that appears consistently across world mythologies. We see the same pattern in Genesis, where God walks among humans in the Garden of Eden.
Carrier’s claim about historicization patterns in myths is contradicted by the evidence from other mythological traditions. The Aztec creation myth serves as a counter-example to Carrier’s claim that myths typically involve heavenly gods becoming historicized.
The author argues that the biblical stories are “implausible,” “unrealistic,” and “improbable” (p. 130), claiming these events could not have occurred in reality. This argument is meant to support his hypothesis that the historical Jesus never existed. This reasoning assumes that implausible narrative elements necessarily disprove the existence of the central historical figure. However, this logic is flawed. Consider Vespasian, who in 69 CE reportedly performed two healing miracles in Alexandria: restoring sight to a blind man by spitting in his eyes and healing a man’s withered hand by stepping on it. These miracle accounts don’t make Vespasian a mythological figure. Similarly, Jesus’s reported miracles neither prove nor disprove his historical existence. (Besides, supernatural events are fundamental to religion. Without them, what remains is not religion but mere ideology.)
The men seeking healing from Vespasian were associated with the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria. Vespasian initially resisted their requests to heal them, expressing doubt in his ability to do so. The reported healings took place, and Vespasian later supported the cult of Serapis, as evidenced by the temple he built to Serapis in Rome.
Were Vespasian’s healings truly “implausible”? Not necessarily. The events could have been orchestrated by temple illusionists as part of a religious ritual. Such staged healings would align with known practices of ancient temples.
Carrier asserts that Osiris was resurrected on the third day, similar to Jesus, citing three chapters in Plutarch’s “Isis and Osiris” (p. 118). However, the chapters Carrier references contain no mention of such a timeline. There is no evidence in the Osiris myth suggesting he was resurrected on the third day. While there is a festival of Isis and Osiris that includes a ritual procession with the recovery of a sacred chest on the nineteenth of Athyr, this does not indicate a third-day resurrection of Osiris in mythic narrative.
We should be cautious about drawing historical conclusions based solely on later ritual practices. This would be like claiming Jesus observed the Sabbath on Sunday because modern Christians do, or that Jesus was born on December 25th simply because Christmas is celebrated then, or that Jesus was baptized as an infant because Christian denominations practice infant baptism.
The author’s claim about Inanna’s resurrection is also inaccurate. The Sumerian text merely states that Inanna instructed her servant Ninshubur to wait three days and three nights before seeking help if she didn’t return. This waiting period is longer than “on the third day” (as Jesus’s death-day was counted as day one), and the text doesn’t specify how long Inanna remained dead.
Carrier argues that Jesus could not have overturned the tables in the Temple Mount because it was a heavily guarded, crowded space of over 35 acres (not 10 acres as he states), protected by armed forces authorized to kill troublemakers on sight (p. 54). This argument is flawed. While the Temple was guarded by both Levite police and Roman soldiers from the Antonia Fortress, they primarily made arrests for violations of Temple rules and Roman law. Summary execution was not their standard policy. The size and crowds of the Temple complex could actually have made it more difficult for guards to respond quickly to such an incident.
While this book shows more scholarly rigour than similar works in the genre (such as Tom Harpur’s), it still falls short of academic standards. The concept of Christ’s work in the heavenly realm is well-established in orthodox theology, suggesting that a more nuanced dialogue between mythicist perspectives and traditional scholarship could be productive if approached less dogmatically.
November 17, 2019
The title of this book by the ever laughable mr. Richard Carrier, is HILARIOUS !!! This book will surely be the comedy gold he is known for !!! Yes it is true that the whole new testament/christian Jesus "christ" character is hugely suspect on historical (and rational) grounds, but Carrier's cosmonaut theology, is sure to be a riot, worthy of a soda, a tub of popcorn and open mouthed slobbering jocularity !!!! So pull up a chair, gather 'round, and let the clown routine begin !!!! Thankyou to mr. Carrier for tickling our funny bone !!!
But seriously folks, for those of you who interested in serious scholarship on how various scholars have wrestled with and viewed the whole debated historical Jesus issue, see:
The Historical Jesus Question by Gregory Dawes
In Quest of Jesus by Barnes Tatum
Jesus as a Figure in History by Mark Allen Powell
But seriously folks, for those of you who interested in serious scholarship on how various scholars have wrestled with and viewed the whole debated historical Jesus issue, see:
The Historical Jesus Question by Gregory Dawes
In Quest of Jesus by Barnes Tatum
Jesus as a Figure in History by Mark Allen Powell
Read
December 15, 2020Fascinating and thorough. Even though the author, for me, was "preaching to the choir," I discovered even more facts and gained more insight into the whole "Jesus cult" thing.
July 25, 2022
Outstanding!
Everyone needs to read this.
An easy to read and understand explanation of Richard’s extensive research into the Jesus question.
Everyone needs to read this.
An easy to read and understand explanation of Richard’s extensive research into the Jesus question.
May 18, 2025
I’ll write the review later today because it will be long. Just for now, those people who say that this is an advert for his longer book are right. I’ll explain why, even though this book is quite interesting, I only gave it 2 stars. Unfortunately, I can read him and Ehrman and still feel like an idiot because I am not understanding some of the arguments and details, and that could either be because I might not be very bright and just don’t understand them, or it could also be that both of them are not explaining with enough detail how they get to the conclusions of some of their arguments.
For example, I am just a lay guy.
Carrier totally discounts the whole passage in Josephus, Ehrman says some of the writing style makes most scholars accept a tiny bit of it. How do I know what to think?
Then I also don’t understand the whole debate about the writings of Paul and how they supposedly help or harm the mythicists.
All for the moment, before I try write a better review for this book, all I seem to understand is that this book is trying to tell me the following.
The crucifixion of Jesus was a legend to copy myths of other dying and rising gods.
The upper classes knew and believed that Jesus was supposedly crucified in a lower level of space by demons like other gods were.
He then ascended back to his heaven, the highest spatial level, because, through being crucified and rising again, he saved man from the evil forces so man could have a better afterlife.
The Gospels and the Jesus who existed on earth were created later by the church and the upper classes to spread and explain the workings of Christianity better to the uneducated lower classes?
So, as an actual real person, Jesus never actually existed.
Scholars who claim we have better records and testimony for Jesus than we have for Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great are idiots?
Look, I know I’m probably not doing such a good job writing this, but it is 5 in the morning.
And why is this guy and Ehrman so petty that they won’t debate or try harder to understand on why they differ on whether Jesus existed or not and then collaborate on some sort of work to explain why we might not have an answer to this question, or could one of them just concede on whatever point they think they might be wrong on?
Ehrman says no one takes mythicists seriously.
Carrier thinks one day we will.
But wow, if this book and Carrier are right, this is a totally stretched and mad event.
I mean, of course I’m biased because I was raised with the Bible, I can accept an earthly Jesus, I can accept that a lot about him could be legend, but, with Christianity and the church and the Bible and the whole history of civilization and this 2000 year old impact Jesus had and still has on the world, this idea that, even as a man, Jesus never existed at all, it is really throwing me and it would change a lot of beliefs I think I have.
The problem and question for me is that a lot of the argument and book makes sense, but how do I know I am understanding it properly and at the moment can I really believe this interesting and crazy story and idea?
At the moment, my answer to both those questions is no.
It is quite an important issue for me. To understand why, go and read my review of Consciousness Beyond Life.
Maybe I am a bit obsessed with wanting to desperately find an answer to the afterlife question, but I probably think many of us are.
I lowered the stars on this book, because I hated how the text would tell you to look up verses and passages in the Bible, but then expects you to do that instead of just including the verses in the book.
Super irritating.
For example, I am just a lay guy.
Carrier totally discounts the whole passage in Josephus, Ehrman says some of the writing style makes most scholars accept a tiny bit of it. How do I know what to think?
Then I also don’t understand the whole debate about the writings of Paul and how they supposedly help or harm the mythicists.
All for the moment, before I try write a better review for this book, all I seem to understand is that this book is trying to tell me the following.
The crucifixion of Jesus was a legend to copy myths of other dying and rising gods.
The upper classes knew and believed that Jesus was supposedly crucified in a lower level of space by demons like other gods were.
He then ascended back to his heaven, the highest spatial level, because, through being crucified and rising again, he saved man from the evil forces so man could have a better afterlife.
The Gospels and the Jesus who existed on earth were created later by the church and the upper classes to spread and explain the workings of Christianity better to the uneducated lower classes?
So, as an actual real person, Jesus never actually existed.
Scholars who claim we have better records and testimony for Jesus than we have for Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great are idiots?
Look, I know I’m probably not doing such a good job writing this, but it is 5 in the morning.
And why is this guy and Ehrman so petty that they won’t debate or try harder to understand on why they differ on whether Jesus existed or not and then collaborate on some sort of work to explain why we might not have an answer to this question, or could one of them just concede on whatever point they think they might be wrong on?
Ehrman says no one takes mythicists seriously.
Carrier thinks one day we will.
But wow, if this book and Carrier are right, this is a totally stretched and mad event.
I mean, of course I’m biased because I was raised with the Bible, I can accept an earthly Jesus, I can accept that a lot about him could be legend, but, with Christianity and the church and the Bible and the whole history of civilization and this 2000 year old impact Jesus had and still has on the world, this idea that, even as a man, Jesus never existed at all, it is really throwing me and it would change a lot of beliefs I think I have.
The problem and question for me is that a lot of the argument and book makes sense, but how do I know I am understanding it properly and at the moment can I really believe this interesting and crazy story and idea?
At the moment, my answer to both those questions is no.
It is quite an important issue for me. To understand why, go and read my review of Consciousness Beyond Life.
Maybe I am a bit obsessed with wanting to desperately find an answer to the afterlife question, but I probably think many of us are.
I lowered the stars on this book, because I hated how the text would tell you to look up verses and passages in the Bible, but then expects you to do that instead of just including the verses in the book.
Super irritating.
March 2, 2024
Here's a one sentence summary of this book: "What most people believe about Jesus is not true and if you want detailed evidence of why, buy my other books."
I get publishing a non-scholarly book targeted at laymen in conjunction with a scholarly text. But that's not what this is--this is just bald assertion with a bit of rationalization that literally--constantly--says "go read my other books" or "go read my blog titled _____."
Aside from that, this book is mostly arguments that have been advanced before, although Carrier's presentation is unique given his overarching claim that Jesus was always a celestial being that no early Christian believed was a real human. He also makes some pretty outrageous and almost comical claims. For example, he writes that God's promise that David's seed would occupy an eternal throne means Paul possibly believed that God took some of David's sperm into outer space and used it to manufacture Jesus. While I give points for originality, this betrays a severe ignorance of ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew understandings of descent (i.e., that all future generations are products of a patriarch's "loins."). The levels of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what ancient peoples actually believed and did is unacceptable in a book written by someone with the author's credentials.
That's just one example, but there are others that I won't spend the time going into here. Perhaps, for my own curiosity, I will fulfill Carrier's wish: I'll buy his other books. But I'll try to get them secondhand if I can.
I get publishing a non-scholarly book targeted at laymen in conjunction with a scholarly text. But that's not what this is--this is just bald assertion with a bit of rationalization that literally--constantly--says "go read my other books" or "go read my blog titled _____."
Aside from that, this book is mostly arguments that have been advanced before, although Carrier's presentation is unique given his overarching claim that Jesus was always a celestial being that no early Christian believed was a real human. He also makes some pretty outrageous and almost comical claims. For example, he writes that God's promise that David's seed would occupy an eternal throne means Paul possibly believed that God took some of David's sperm into outer space and used it to manufacture Jesus. While I give points for originality, this betrays a severe ignorance of ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew understandings of descent (i.e., that all future generations are products of a patriarch's "loins."). The levels of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what ancient peoples actually believed and did is unacceptable in a book written by someone with the author's credentials.
That's just one example, but there are others that I won't spend the time going into here. Perhaps, for my own curiosity, I will fulfill Carrier's wish: I'll buy his other books. But I'll try to get them secondhand if I can.
March 23, 2021
A bit tedious and annoying.
So, Santa Clause never really existed, so what? But there is a reason to be interested. It’s a big important myth that has had a profound influence on our culture and a still highly controlling influence on numerous still existing primitive subcultures. All still Vying for political power and influence even now. Therefore it’s worth examining.
The author gives a no doubt expert account of how the myth was constructed and propagated. How alternatives were ruthlessly filtered and suppressed as the growing firm using it as a founding myth was consolidating its power. All very interesting and informative. Lots of solid content.
He has quite a low opinion of his readers. He keeps repeating himself over and over. Dumbing it down. Yeah I got it in the first five repetitions. Thanks. The title has more than a whiff of sales oriented opportunism about it. Which is always annoying. Though he sort of explains it in a bit of an ad hoc way. He quibbles over words a lot - words which by his own account come from heavily controlled and censored documents. So why bother.
However In our current age of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ it’s important to understand that there's nothing new about any of this. And to understand in detail how mythologizing has always been a big component of the propagandists toolkit. As different groups strive to take power or to keep it. This book is a good account of that process, in the hands of what would have to be considered the most successful cult in history.
So, Santa Clause never really existed, so what? But there is a reason to be interested. It’s a big important myth that has had a profound influence on our culture and a still highly controlling influence on numerous still existing primitive subcultures. All still Vying for political power and influence even now. Therefore it’s worth examining.
The author gives a no doubt expert account of how the myth was constructed and propagated. How alternatives were ruthlessly filtered and suppressed as the growing firm using it as a founding myth was consolidating its power. All very interesting and informative. Lots of solid content.
He has quite a low opinion of his readers. He keeps repeating himself over and over. Dumbing it down. Yeah I got it in the first five repetitions. Thanks. The title has more than a whiff of sales oriented opportunism about it. Which is always annoying. Though he sort of explains it in a bit of an ad hoc way. He quibbles over words a lot - words which by his own account come from heavily controlled and censored documents. So why bother.
However In our current age of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ it’s important to understand that there's nothing new about any of this. And to understand in detail how mythologizing has always been a big component of the propagandists toolkit. As different groups strive to take power or to keep it. This book is a good account of that process, in the hands of what would have to be considered the most successful cult in history.
June 13, 2021
This unfortunately titled book is not like the superb Philip Jose Farmer novel from some years ago, Jesus On Mars; instead it's an examination of what early Christians, those in the New Testament and around, thought what or who Jesus was. He argues that much of the language around Jesus shows that early Christians actually thought he descended from space, and has plenty of proof of it. It doesn't really do a great job of talking about what early Christians, or others, may have thought of him. I was hoping for more of a wide-ranging survey, but is instead of a very good (to me) discussion of the historicity of Jesus -- did he really exist? Carrier makes the case that all history about Jesus derives from the book of Mark, and even Paul's early epistles don't discuss a historical Jesus, but a myth. I was, am, pretty persuaded, but I think a lot of that is my own bias. I'm also reading Ehrmann's book about whether Jesus was real or not, and at least in the first half, find it less well argued than Carrier. It seems to me that the evidence for a historical Jesus is just very thin.
June 13, 2025
This book is the short version of Carrier’s larger work “On the Historicity of Jesus.” It’s 300 pages long, and I think it could have been 50 pages shorter as it does get a bit repetitive.
Basically the argument of the book is: Paul came first, and his Christ is a cosmic (“outer space”) Christ seen only after his resurrection. Later, the gospel authors, starting with Mark, reified Paul’s cosmic Jesus into a flesh and blood in sandals rabbi Jesus. And, the gospels are so obviously mythical, there is no reason to believe the gospels’ Jesus ever existed. Of course Carrier doesn’t believe Paul’s cosmic Jesus exists either, but he wrote a different book about that.
I’m no historian, but I’m sure Carrier overstates his case in this book. When I look into some of his claims, they are not as strong as he would suggest. But, I find that to be true of much modern biblical critical scholarship. However, I like Carrier — I think he’s interesting to read and listen to.
Basically the argument of the book is: Paul came first, and his Christ is a cosmic (“outer space”) Christ seen only after his resurrection. Later, the gospel authors, starting with Mark, reified Paul’s cosmic Jesus into a flesh and blood in sandals rabbi Jesus. And, the gospels are so obviously mythical, there is no reason to believe the gospels’ Jesus ever existed. Of course Carrier doesn’t believe Paul’s cosmic Jesus exists either, but he wrote a different book about that.
I’m no historian, but I’m sure Carrier overstates his case in this book. When I look into some of his claims, they are not as strong as he would suggest. But, I find that to be true of much modern biblical critical scholarship. However, I like Carrier — I think he’s interesting to read and listen to.
November 21, 2022
Επιτέλους και στα ελληνικά η πιο προσιτή μορφή του σπουδαίου έργου του Richard Carrier "On the historicity of Jesus"
"Ιησούς" λοιπόν λέγεται η ελληνική έκδοση την οποία δεν την βρήκα εδώ μέσα γιαυτό έβαλα την αμερικανική. Εκδόσεις Δαιδάλεος.
Τον Carrier τον παρακολουθώ πολλά χρόνια μέσα από τις διαλέξεις του και τα debate, είναι εξαιρετικός μελετητής με phD που ειδικεύεται στον πρώιμο χριστιανισμό.
Φυσικα η θέση που αναπτύσσει στο έργο του είναι η μη ύπαρξη του Ιησού ως ιστορικό προσώπο και το κάνει πολύ πειστικά με σοβαρότατα επιχειρήματα χωρίς βέβαια να γίνεται απόλυτος.
Εδώ διαβάσει πολλά βιβλία για το θέμα αυτό αλλά εδώ βρήκα καινούρια στοιχεία, πολλά χρήσιμα σημεία που έλειπαν από τον παζλ και που όλα δένουν ακόμη πιο πολύ και με την δική μου άποψη ότι όντως ιστορικό πρόσωπο Ιησούς μάλλον δεν υπήρξε ποτέ.
Διαβάστε το
"Ιησούς" λοιπόν λέγεται η ελληνική έκδοση την οποία δεν την βρήκα εδώ μέσα γιαυτό έβαλα την αμερικανική. Εκδόσεις Δαιδάλεος.
Τον Carrier τον παρακολουθώ πολλά χρόνια μέσα από τις διαλέξεις του και τα debate, είναι εξαιρετικός μελετητής με phD που ειδικεύεται στον πρώιμο χριστιανισμό.
Φυσικα η θέση που αναπτύσσει στο έργο του είναι η μη ύπαρξη του Ιησού ως ιστορικό προσώπο και το κάνει πολύ πειστικά με σοβαρότατα επιχειρήματα χωρίς βέβαια να γίνεται απόλυτος.
Εδώ διαβάσει πολλά βιβλία για το θέμα αυτό αλλά εδώ βρήκα καινούρια στοιχεία, πολλά χρήσιμα σημεία που έλειπαν από τον παζλ και που όλα δένουν ακόμη πιο πολύ και με την δική μου άποψη ότι όντως ιστορικό πρόσωπο Ιησούς μάλλον δεν υπήρξε ποτέ.
Διαβάστε το
October 30, 2022
A pretty good intro to the strongest of the mythicist theories. Most, but not all, of this was covered in OHJ in depth, but there were some new angles in here that I hadn't heard before.
Carrier can be a difficult read for some people. Occasionally he goes too far with saying that someone would never do a particular thing - I think we often underestimate people and the weird things they do, and history is pretty weird. But his logic, if followed carefully and technically, is almost always tight.
Carrier can be a difficult read for some people. Occasionally he goes too far with saying that someone would never do a particular thing - I think we often underestimate people and the weird things they do, and history is pretty weird. But his logic, if followed carefully and technically, is almost always tight.
January 1, 2024
This book largely summarizes Carrier's longer, scholarly book, On the Historicity of Jesus, which I highly recommend. This book was a valuable additional read because it refreshed my memory and took a stronger position. Here, Carrier isn't trying to hedge his conclusion--he's coming out swinging in favor of the mythological Jesus. I am convinced, and I think anyone who seriously considers the evidence (or lack thereof) will be convinced too.
June 22, 2022
I am now quite convinced that Jesus was never even a real person. The book references a lot the author's other book On The Historicity Of Jesus, which is 700+ pages and costs about oh a hundred dollars. This book is pretty much a condensed version of that opus. A fun read, educational, enlightening, a little bit repetitive.
May 3, 2022
To the point!
November 24, 2022
Fair enough.
December 2, 2022
A great read
Extremely well researched. I've read all of Carrier's academic works too, but this one is more conversational in tone. Highly recommended.
Extremely well researched. I've read all of Carrier's academic works too, but this one is more conversational in tone. Highly recommended.
April 6, 2024
A history of “Jesus”. Very good.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews