What do you think?
Rate this book
Not the Impossible Faith
Dr. Richard Carrier is an expert in the history of the ancient world and a critic of Christian attempts to distort history in defense of their faith. Not the Impossible Faith is a tour de force in that genre, dissecting and refuting the oft-repeated claim that Christianity could not have succeeded in the ancient world unless it was true. Though framed as a detailed rebuttal to Christian apologist J.P. Holding (author of The Impossible Faith), Carrier takes a general approach that educates the reader on the history and sociology of the ancient world, answering many questions How did Christians approach evidence? Was there a widespread prejudice against the testimony of women? Was resurrection such a radical idea? Who would worship a crucified criminal? And much more. Written with occasional humor and an easy style, and thoroughly referenced, with many entertaining "gotcha!" moments, Not the Impossible Faith is a must-read for anyone interested in the origins of Christianity.
456 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
89 people are currently reading
680 people want to read
About the author
Richard C. Carrier
18 books327 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 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 11, 2010
Historian Richard Carrier has delivered the ultimate rebuttal of infamous Christian apologist J.P. Holding's argument in favor of the resurrection--which he detailed in an essay called "The Impossible Faith." Holding's argument was, essentially, that there were so many factors that should have worked against the success of Christianity in its early years, so much so that the actual success of the movement must entail that the earliest Christians had irrefutable evidence for the resurrection. He claims, for example, that the belief in a crucified God would have been repugnant to the ancients, so a religion that preaches such a God would have been rejected... unless they had evidence so compelling that it would overcome this concern. And there are many other factors in Holding's argument: nobody back then even believed resurrections were possible, nobody would want to join a strict moral order like Christianity, nobody would want to be persecuted, nobody would follow an ignorant savior like Jesus (who is said not to know the future on some occasions), etc. All of these factors, and more, would have ensured that Christian missionaries would have hit a brick wall of skepticism. But somehow that was overcome, and the movement was successful, so it must be because the evidence for the resurrection was so powerful that it defeated all of these objections.
This book leaves this argument nothing more than a pile of rubble. Ordinarily one would not write an entire book to refute an argument that an internet apologist puts on his website, but Holding is so obnoxious (and his argument is somewhat popular, apparently) that Carrier was paid good money to specifically write a book-length rebuttal.
Carrier dismantles the argument piece-by-piece, showing how none of these factors were great obstacles for the Christian movement to succeed. Each chapter is informative in its own right, but specifically addresses the argument made by Holding. And to ensure that Holding's argument is decisively refuted, Carrier constructs his counter-argument in such a way that it had many fallback positions. In many places, Carrier argues in this manner: (1) there is no evidence for Holding's assertions, and tons of evidence against them, and (2) even granting Holding's assertions, this does not prove his argument. This means that in order for Holding's argument to succeed, he has to not only cough up the evidence for his claims and dispute the evidence Carrier offers, but then he also has the burden of making the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. Rather than getting into specific instances of this argumentative strategy Carrier employs, I'll just mention a few other things and leave it to interested readers to find out the details for themselves.
First, most of the book's argument can be considered just "piling on" more and more problems for Holding's case, and not even essential to refute the argument. Carrier refutes the argument in one fell swoop in chapter 18, where he argues that, in fact, Christianity in its first hundred years was *not* a successful movement. Instead, it was remarkably unsuccessful, consisting of a relatively small number of converts. Even on the highest estimates of how many people converted to Christianity (which are absurdly high compared to what scholars actually think), it still remains that Christianity converted far less than 1% of the Roman Empire in the first century. And Holding's argument is premised on the notion that Christianity was enjoying a popularity so great that it needed supernatural backing. This alone is enough to dismiss the argument, so everything else Carrier writes in the book just compounds Holding's problems. In the end, the reader is left with the impression that Holding's argument is in more need of a supernatural resurrection than Jesus was! (But, in fairness, Holding is working on a book to argue for the resurrection, and in the book he will supposedly be revising his argument and responding to critics. So interested readers can see if he is able to breathe life back into the corpse that this book leaves behind.)
This was close to being a four-star book because of the fact that it has a bit of an unprofessional feel, given that it is part of an internet debate. Carrier could have written the book in such a manner that it both decisively refutes Holding *and* stands on its own as a book on early Christianity. It comes a little too close to being too much of the former and not enough of the latter. For example, Carrier does not really give a good summary of Holding's argument in each section before refuting it in the chapter. Instead, he seems to jump right in to the response as if we had all just read Holding's essay, and then flipped over to this book to see the response. I think the book would be better if the first section of each chapter gave a good summary of what Holding is arguing, what claims he is making, etc. Likewise, after Carrier gives the basic argument in each chapter, he sometimes has a section in which he responds to *Holding's* response to what he just wrote (since his original response was posted online for years, and Holding wrote a response to it). And when he gets into these sections, he sometimes seems to assume that the reader paused after reading the previous material, went and read Holding's response to that material, and then came back to see Carrier's counter-response. Although it would have taken more pages of writing to fix this problem, I think it would have made for better reading. Other than that, I have minor concerns about areas where Carrier might overstate some of his claims, though I can give no specifics on that because I didn't write them down when I read past them. In any case, I'm not the historian, so there's a good chance I'm wrong anyway.
Overall, this is a good book that deserves to be read.
This book leaves this argument nothing more than a pile of rubble. Ordinarily one would not write an entire book to refute an argument that an internet apologist puts on his website, but Holding is so obnoxious (and his argument is somewhat popular, apparently) that Carrier was paid good money to specifically write a book-length rebuttal.
Carrier dismantles the argument piece-by-piece, showing how none of these factors were great obstacles for the Christian movement to succeed. Each chapter is informative in its own right, but specifically addresses the argument made by Holding. And to ensure that Holding's argument is decisively refuted, Carrier constructs his counter-argument in such a way that it had many fallback positions. In many places, Carrier argues in this manner: (1) there is no evidence for Holding's assertions, and tons of evidence against them, and (2) even granting Holding's assertions, this does not prove his argument. This means that in order for Holding's argument to succeed, he has to not only cough up the evidence for his claims and dispute the evidence Carrier offers, but then he also has the burden of making the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. Rather than getting into specific instances of this argumentative strategy Carrier employs, I'll just mention a few other things and leave it to interested readers to find out the details for themselves.
First, most of the book's argument can be considered just "piling on" more and more problems for Holding's case, and not even essential to refute the argument. Carrier refutes the argument in one fell swoop in chapter 18, where he argues that, in fact, Christianity in its first hundred years was *not* a successful movement. Instead, it was remarkably unsuccessful, consisting of a relatively small number of converts. Even on the highest estimates of how many people converted to Christianity (which are absurdly high compared to what scholars actually think), it still remains that Christianity converted far less than 1% of the Roman Empire in the first century. And Holding's argument is premised on the notion that Christianity was enjoying a popularity so great that it needed supernatural backing. This alone is enough to dismiss the argument, so everything else Carrier writes in the book just compounds Holding's problems. In the end, the reader is left with the impression that Holding's argument is in more need of a supernatural resurrection than Jesus was! (But, in fairness, Holding is working on a book to argue for the resurrection, and in the book he will supposedly be revising his argument and responding to critics. So interested readers can see if he is able to breathe life back into the corpse that this book leaves behind.)
This was close to being a four-star book because of the fact that it has a bit of an unprofessional feel, given that it is part of an internet debate. Carrier could have written the book in such a manner that it both decisively refutes Holding *and* stands on its own as a book on early Christianity. It comes a little too close to being too much of the former and not enough of the latter. For example, Carrier does not really give a good summary of Holding's argument in each section before refuting it in the chapter. Instead, he seems to jump right in to the response as if we had all just read Holding's essay, and then flipped over to this book to see the response. I think the book would be better if the first section of each chapter gave a good summary of what Holding is arguing, what claims he is making, etc. Likewise, after Carrier gives the basic argument in each chapter, he sometimes has a section in which he responds to *Holding's* response to what he just wrote (since his original response was posted online for years, and Holding wrote a response to it). And when he gets into these sections, he sometimes seems to assume that the reader paused after reading the previous material, went and read Holding's response to that material, and then came back to see Carrier's counter-response. Although it would have taken more pages of writing to fix this problem, I think it would have made for better reading. Other than that, I have minor concerns about areas where Carrier might overstate some of his claims, though I can give no specifics on that because I didn't write them down when I read past them. In any case, I'm not the historian, so there's a good chance I'm wrong anyway.
Overall, this is a good book that deserves to be read.
July 30, 2017
Evidence wins again over apologetics.
June 25, 2017
In this book Richard Carrier uses his historian’s skills to counter arguments from J. P. Holding that Christianity was so unlikely to succeed without it being true, so it has to be true. Carrier shows that this assumption is not true. He presents lots of evidence for Christianity succeeding without Christ’s resurrection to have actually occurred. Holding claims that it had to for Christianity to be true. In the process of countering Holding Carrier ask a series of questions divided into eighteen chapters. Some of the questions asked are “Who Would Believe in a Crucified God?”; “Was Resurrection Deemed Impossible?”; “Was Christianity Vulnerable to Disproof?”; “Who Would Want to be Persecuted?”; “Did No One Trust Women?”; and “How Successful Was Christianity?”
I have about a handful of comments based on specific parts of the text. Kindle locations are in brackets in front of a quote [].
[159] “J. P. Holding is something of a dark horse [not Trojan?] in the in apologetics community. He is very popular online. I have traveled the country, speaking to humanist groups near and far, and I always meet people who know his work.” However, I have never heard of him before reading this book. Then again I do not belong to any humanist groups, and I am not in the habit of reading apologetic works. I find it sufficient to read the reasonable critiques of these works and their authors from qualified scholars, such as Carrier.
[846] In explaining why Jews would follow a carpenter [Jesus] Carrier states: “In the Mishnah [the core of the Talmud], Rabbi Gamaliel said, ‘Fitting is learning the Torah along with a craft, for the labor put into the two of them makes one forget sin.’ Indeed ‘all learning of Torah which is not joined with labor is destined to be null and cause sin.’” Modern yeshiva students and rabbis seem not to pay attention to Gamaliel even though they must know about what he said. This would also be true of most priests, ministers, and preachers, but they have the accuse that they never read him. This does not let them of the hook though because Paul set them an example of working at a trade while doing his missionary work.
[3307] “It’s human nature to long for peace, love, justice, and the control of your own life. Take all that away from millions of people, and it’s just a matter of time before rebellions break out.” This maybe true of some societies, but if you considered most modern totalitarian states, change often comes about from within the government, as with Gorbachev in the USSR, or force upon them by victors in a war, as with Germany and Japan after World War II.
[5118] Speaking of the supposed evidence of Acts, Carrier says: “All that is needed was the same three-point sales pitch: “scripture says Jesus would rise, our ability to prophecy, heal, and speak in tongues proves we’re not lying . . .” He goes on to say: “That would not fly today. Scripture is hopelessly ambiguous, and can be used to prove anything—especially if you cherry-pick . . .” Evidently it does fly for many Christians today.
I think Carrier does an excellent job of demolishing Holding’s case. He shows how he either misused or did not understand other scholars whose works Holding believed to support his case. In my opinion Carrier is a very good scholar and is well worth listening to. He is also a good writer, and so the book never really bogged down in the reading of it, seeing this I enjoyed the book a lot.
If you are interested in the debunking of a group of apologetic works, whether Holding’s or others, or you would just like to read a good scholar in action, than I think you would like the book.
I have about a handful of comments based on specific parts of the text. Kindle locations are in brackets in front of a quote [].
[159] “J. P. Holding is something of a dark horse [not Trojan?] in the in apologetics community. He is very popular online. I have traveled the country, speaking to humanist groups near and far, and I always meet people who know his work.” However, I have never heard of him before reading this book. Then again I do not belong to any humanist groups, and I am not in the habit of reading apologetic works. I find it sufficient to read the reasonable critiques of these works and their authors from qualified scholars, such as Carrier.
[846] In explaining why Jews would follow a carpenter [Jesus] Carrier states: “In the Mishnah [the core of the Talmud], Rabbi Gamaliel said, ‘Fitting is learning the Torah along with a craft, for the labor put into the two of them makes one forget sin.’ Indeed ‘all learning of Torah which is not joined with labor is destined to be null and cause sin.’” Modern yeshiva students and rabbis seem not to pay attention to Gamaliel even though they must know about what he said. This would also be true of most priests, ministers, and preachers, but they have the accuse that they never read him. This does not let them of the hook though because Paul set them an example of working at a trade while doing his missionary work.
[3307] “It’s human nature to long for peace, love, justice, and the control of your own life. Take all that away from millions of people, and it’s just a matter of time before rebellions break out.” This maybe true of some societies, but if you considered most modern totalitarian states, change often comes about from within the government, as with Gorbachev in the USSR, or force upon them by victors in a war, as with Germany and Japan after World War II.
[5118] Speaking of the supposed evidence of Acts, Carrier says: “All that is needed was the same three-point sales pitch: “scripture says Jesus would rise, our ability to prophecy, heal, and speak in tongues proves we’re not lying . . .” He goes on to say: “That would not fly today. Scripture is hopelessly ambiguous, and can be used to prove anything—especially if you cherry-pick . . .” Evidently it does fly for many Christians today.
I think Carrier does an excellent job of demolishing Holding’s case. He shows how he either misused or did not understand other scholars whose works Holding believed to support his case. In my opinion Carrier is a very good scholar and is well worth listening to. He is also a good writer, and so the book never really bogged down in the reading of it, seeing this I enjoyed the book a lot.
If you are interested in the debunking of a group of apologetic works, whether Holding’s or others, or you would just like to read a good scholar in action, than I think you would like the book.
December 26, 2015
Have you ever been so pissed off at someone you were arguing with on the internet that you felt like you had to drop everything and type up a 456 page response to correct their stupidity? Richard Carrier knows how you feel, and if that someone happened to be the enthusiastic internet nobody with delusions of apologetic grandeur named Robert Turkel, aka J.P Holding ( JP Holding= JP Moreland?), Carrier has done all the work for you. But don’t get me wrong- as far as 456 page rebuttals to somebody nobody was listening to in the first place, this is the gold standard. Carrier brings to bear his expertise in ancient history and arguing obsessively with Christians to completely level every one of Turkel’s arguments for the “impossibility” of Christianity’s rise as a major world religion. Taken for what it is, this book shuts the door on the argument from impossibility/improbability. It really is the final word on the matter.
But is this a book that had to be written? A lot of the subject matter will be familiar to anyone who has spent five minutes engaged with Christian apologetics (female witnesses to the empty tomb, for example), but a lot more will feel hopelessly obscure and a little too narrowly “on topic”. Turkel/Holding is a very minor player in the world of apologetics, and nobody cares enough about what he has to say to read this much about why he’s wrong. It really feels like Carrier is punching below his weight a lot of the time, and his tone is occasionally peevish and small.
All that being said, Carrier really does back up his arguments with a lot of research and sound logic and, as far as I’m concerned, his efforts win the day. There are three essential chapters that the reader should avoid skipping past if she’s looking for practical counter-apologetic material. Chapter 11 deals with the “argument from embarrassment” frequently offered by Christians which states that the testimony of women was held in such low regard across all sectors of Roman society that the “decision” to place female witnesses at the empty tomb would have been apologetic suicide for Christianity. Therefore it must be true! This is such a common argument, and Carrier does such a wonderful job demolishing it, that it really is a must read. Chapter 13 discusses the importance and possibility of fact-checking in the ancient world. He examines every instance of conversion in the book of Acts and concludes that facts and arguments had very little to do with anyone’s decision to embrace the gospel, and the Bible makes no effort to hide that. Finally, chapter 18 undermines Turkel’s entire theses by showing that Christianity did NOT in fact enjoy major success until the third century, which is well after all the arguments for the impossibility of Christian success would be moot.
Five stars for scholarship, readability and thoroughness. Minus one star for WHY IS IT SO DAMN LONG?
But is this a book that had to be written? A lot of the subject matter will be familiar to anyone who has spent five minutes engaged with Christian apologetics (female witnesses to the empty tomb, for example), but a lot more will feel hopelessly obscure and a little too narrowly “on topic”. Turkel/Holding is a very minor player in the world of apologetics, and nobody cares enough about what he has to say to read this much about why he’s wrong. It really feels like Carrier is punching below his weight a lot of the time, and his tone is occasionally peevish and small.
All that being said, Carrier really does back up his arguments with a lot of research and sound logic and, as far as I’m concerned, his efforts win the day. There are three essential chapters that the reader should avoid skipping past if she’s looking for practical counter-apologetic material. Chapter 11 deals with the “argument from embarrassment” frequently offered by Christians which states that the testimony of women was held in such low regard across all sectors of Roman society that the “decision” to place female witnesses at the empty tomb would have been apologetic suicide for Christianity. Therefore it must be true! This is such a common argument, and Carrier does such a wonderful job demolishing it, that it really is a must read. Chapter 13 discusses the importance and possibility of fact-checking in the ancient world. He examines every instance of conversion in the book of Acts and concludes that facts and arguments had very little to do with anyone’s decision to embrace the gospel, and the Bible makes no effort to hide that. Finally, chapter 18 undermines Turkel’s entire theses by showing that Christianity did NOT in fact enjoy major success until the third century, which is well after all the arguments for the impossibility of Christian success would be moot.
Five stars for scholarship, readability and thoroughness. Minus one star for WHY IS IT SO DAMN LONG?
December 31, 2025
This is a rebuttal of how Christianity would have been an impossible faith without the purported miracles. The fact is that a good many things back in those days made Christianity fit perfectly with what people wanted to believe.
June 28, 2012
The book has a bit of a strange structure, as it's a criticism of another work which I hadn't read. However, Carrier provides more than enough context in his responses to understand the original argument.
He's responding to the claim that Christianity must be true, because it's growth was wildly improbable. In so doing (and very effectively disproving this claim) he provides many fascinating explorations into Christianity's origin story and the context that it "grew up" in.
Things I found particularly interesting:
* The linkage between Zoroastrianism and the "import" of the Resurrection concept into the Jewish religion
* The extremely late authorship of the (very odd) book of Job
* The many similar-to-Christ deity figures around in that context
* The popularity of baptism and symbolic death/rebirth in other similar cults of the time
* The contradictions in Acts's telling of Paul's conversion story
* The evolution of the roles of women in the early to 3rd century church
* The relative quality of the historians at the time (it was common to cite sources, check facts, express skepticism, and yet e.g. Luke does none of these things)
* The genre fit in the non-Luke gospels to "mythic biography", more than history
* The incredible hidden meaning in the names of the women who discovered the missing body of Jesus in Mark (you'll have to read it, don't want to spoil it)
* The actual population growth of Christianity (tiny through the 1st century, and scaling up only as fast as similar groups have done many other times in history)
.... that's probably enough.
He's responding to the claim that Christianity must be true, because it's growth was wildly improbable. In so doing (and very effectively disproving this claim) he provides many fascinating explorations into Christianity's origin story and the context that it "grew up" in.
Things I found particularly interesting:
* The linkage between Zoroastrianism and the "import" of the Resurrection concept into the Jewish religion
* The extremely late authorship of the (very odd) book of Job
* The many similar-to-Christ deity figures around in that context
* The popularity of baptism and symbolic death/rebirth in other similar cults of the time
* The contradictions in Acts's telling of Paul's conversion story
* The evolution of the roles of women in the early to 3rd century church
* The relative quality of the historians at the time (it was common to cite sources, check facts, express skepticism, and yet e.g. Luke does none of these things)
* The genre fit in the non-Luke gospels to "mythic biography", more than history
* The incredible hidden meaning in the names of the women who discovered the missing body of Jesus in Mark (you'll have to read it, don't want to spoil it)
* The actual population growth of Christianity (tiny through the 1st century, and scaling up only as fast as similar groups have done many other times in history)
.... that's probably enough.
February 6, 2024
Not the Impossible Faith by Richard C. Carrier is a book which can basically be described as the refutation of various arguments Christian apologist J. P. Holding brings forward to support the case that Christianity could not have succeeded in the ancient world unless it was true. The extensive and rigorous way in which Carrier analyses the arguments using logic, primary sources from the first centuries, and the work of Biblical scholars which even Holding himself cites (often out of context), really bring to light how shallow these arguments are.
In the following, I will just present a list of the main points that Carrier makes clear in the book:
- The beginning and success of Christianity by preaching a crucified god was not improbable, and most probably even attractive to a certain group of people who were dissatisfied with the corruption and abuse of the ruling elite.
- A bodily resurrection, even of an individual, was not regarded as impossible by all pagans and Jews, but only by some of them.
- Christianity’s high moral demands were actually an asset, not a hindrance: The moral demands of Christianity ensured that Christians would enjoy the company of morally sincere members, which made membership attractive to those who wanted to avoid the morally suspect.
- The fact that early Christians were ready to die as martyrs for their faith does not mean that they must have had irrefutable evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. There are many other morally demanding idealistic movements in history (Islam, Soviet Marxism) in which a widespread willingness to suffer and sacrifice could be observed, but the motive was always a socio-moral ideal (just as in Christianity).
- For those who converted, evidence of the resurrection really needed to be no better than the sincere devotion of missionaries—and nothing more - which in turn required no more than biologically and culturally explicable visions of the divine, or a passionate, compassionate belief in a greater social good.
- There is evidence the early Christian idea of the Messiah as Son of God was actually right in line with the thinking of many Jews at the time, and not something that would be met by hostility by all of them.
- Even if it could be proved that Jesus rose from the dead, it would not necessarily mean that Christianity is true. There are Jews even today who believe Jesus rose from the dead, but conclude from this “that he was and is a great prophet to whom Israel should have paid attention at the time,” (N.T. Wright) and nothing more.
- Whether consciously or subconsciously motivated, appealing to visions and communications from God (which included scripture, as his revealed word) was the only way Christianity could succeed in its environment: a collectivist society bound by groupthink.
- There is no sense in which having women in the Church or its founding myths would have presented any difficulty for the original Christian mission, as both Gentiles and Jews, trusted the testimony of women in and outside the courtroom.
- There is no evidence the Apostles were actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Even in the Bible, we see that they were rather encouraging the rejection of the methods of critical and empirical inquiry advocated by elite scientists and philosophers. They appeal to mystical, moral and superstitious criteria in their preaching, which we know are everything but reliable.
- Even by the middle of the 2nd century, after a hundred-plus years of vigorous missionary activity establishing hundreds of churches throughout the Roman Empire, the Church still only comprised less than 1% of the Empire’s population, which means most rejected the Christian message.
- Over time Christianity changed to become more attractive to more people, by developing more appealing doctrines and incorporating popular festivals and superstitions
In the following, I will just present a list of the main points that Carrier makes clear in the book:
- The beginning and success of Christianity by preaching a crucified god was not improbable, and most probably even attractive to a certain group of people who were dissatisfied with the corruption and abuse of the ruling elite.
- A bodily resurrection, even of an individual, was not regarded as impossible by all pagans and Jews, but only by some of them.
- Christianity’s high moral demands were actually an asset, not a hindrance: The moral demands of Christianity ensured that Christians would enjoy the company of morally sincere members, which made membership attractive to those who wanted to avoid the morally suspect.
- The fact that early Christians were ready to die as martyrs for their faith does not mean that they must have had irrefutable evidence of Jesus rising from the dead. There are many other morally demanding idealistic movements in history (Islam, Soviet Marxism) in which a widespread willingness to suffer and sacrifice could be observed, but the motive was always a socio-moral ideal (just as in Christianity).
- For those who converted, evidence of the resurrection really needed to be no better than the sincere devotion of missionaries—and nothing more - which in turn required no more than biologically and culturally explicable visions of the divine, or a passionate, compassionate belief in a greater social good.
- There is evidence the early Christian idea of the Messiah as Son of God was actually right in line with the thinking of many Jews at the time, and not something that would be met by hostility by all of them.
- Even if it could be proved that Jesus rose from the dead, it would not necessarily mean that Christianity is true. There are Jews even today who believe Jesus rose from the dead, but conclude from this “that he was and is a great prophet to whom Israel should have paid attention at the time,” (N.T. Wright) and nothing more.
- Whether consciously or subconsciously motivated, appealing to visions and communications from God (which included scripture, as his revealed word) was the only way Christianity could succeed in its environment: a collectivist society bound by groupthink.
- There is no sense in which having women in the Church or its founding myths would have presented any difficulty for the original Christian mission, as both Gentiles and Jews, trusted the testimony of women in and outside the courtroom.
- There is no evidence the Apostles were actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Even in the Bible, we see that they were rather encouraging the rejection of the methods of critical and empirical inquiry advocated by elite scientists and philosophers. They appeal to mystical, moral and superstitious criteria in their preaching, which we know are everything but reliable.
- Even by the middle of the 2nd century, after a hundred-plus years of vigorous missionary activity establishing hundreds of churches throughout the Roman Empire, the Church still only comprised less than 1% of the Empire’s population, which means most rejected the Christian message.
- Over time Christianity changed to become more attractive to more people, by developing more appealing doctrines and incorporating popular festivals and superstitions
May 26, 2024
A LONG CRITIQUE OF A MUCH SHORTER BOOK BY A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born 1969) is an American historian and Atheist activist.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2009 book, “A common apologetic argument for the truth of the Christian religion is that its origins were too improbable for it to be false. This argument … [is] combined into a single popular effort ['The Impossible Faith'] by James Patrick Holding… Holding’s argument is that the origin and success of Christianity in the ancient Roman Empire was so improbable it must have been based on a true story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This book refutes his argument… [Holding] advertises this as ‘A Thesis So Explosive, An Atheist Paid $5,000 for An Answer.’ As it happens, I was the scholar paid… to compose a well-researched refutation, which Holding conveniently never directs anyone to—nor does he even name me, and his book doesn’t even mention my refutations, much less address them.”
He explains that in historical inquiry, “we need only ascertain the MOST probable cause of an event, given all we know… In laymen’s terms, even though miracles must be extremely rare… and therefore miracles must be extremely improbable, it is still possible to have enough evidence to … make ‘miracle’ the most probable explanation among all alternatives… Does Holding have that kind of evidence?... Holding does not make any effort to answer these questions even vaguely. Thus, his conclusion can only be vaguely certain at best… I will nevertheless set this aside and assume … that Holding’s case succeeds unless we can show that some set of natural causes… were reasonably likely to have produced the same result… I will also assume … that if Jesus was not raised by God, then probably Christianity’s success was due to natural causes, and not (for example) Satan.” (Pg. 12-14)
He points out, “This idea of a suffering, executed god would resonate especially with those Jews and their sympathizers who EXPECTED a humiliated messiah. Jewish scripture [Isa 49:7] declared that ‘The Redeemer of Israel’ or ‘The Holy One of God’ shall be ‘despised’ by men, and nations will be ‘disgusted’ with him, yet he shall triumph… The idea that a Chosen One of God must suffer total humiliation and execution at the hands of the wicked is a major theme in Isaiah… Even David… sings in Psalm 22, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’… This song set up a Jewish model for a crucified Davidic savior.” (Pg. 34)
He notes, “Nazareth … was not the tiny hovel it’s often made out to be. A Jewish inscription from the 2nd or 3rd century confirms that Nazareth was one of the towns that took in Jewish priests after the destruction of the Temple in 66 AD. Would priests deign to shack up in a despised hick town?... This was no mere hamlet, but a village inhabited by hundreds experiencing significant economic success… In contrast, the Gospel of John is ALONE in having anyone declare anything like the concern of Nathanael: ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’” (Pg. 64-65)
He asserts, “That the Jews borrowed the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrian pagans is demonstrated not only by the fact that early Greek sources identify it as a Persian (and not a Jewish) belief, but by the fact that the Old Testament completely lacks any reference to the idea until after the Jews were exiled to cities in contact with Zoroastrianism… Even many Greco-Roman pagans flirted with the possibility of being raised from the dead… We’ve already discussed the resurrections of Romulus, Osiris, Adonis, and Inanna as well… So it’s plainly false to claim that no pagans would believe in a resurrection of the body, especially for a deified or divine man.” (Pg. 86-87)
He observes, “Christianity’s success was not at all remarkable until the late 3rd century. Before then it was a struggling minority cult. Indeed, it barely even blipped of the radar of Roman society before the age of Trajan… Christianity only won a tiny fraction of the hearts and minds of the Greek, Roman, and Jewish world. That kind of humble success does not require Christianity to have been the most sellable product since the invention of beer. As long as it would sell at all, as long as a tiny fraction of the evangelized groups would find it attractive… then Christianity would succeed on the scale we actually observe for that first century, just as the cult of Attis today.” (Pg. 117)
He suggests, “Thus, Christianity succeeded precisely when it abandoned all those difficulties, while retaining the ideology of justice and compassion that people most wanted. By making that easier to obtain, joining the CHRISTIAN brotherhood became an attractive option to many people who had become disappointed with the wider society. Yes, to obtain this they had to give things up, including the more liberal sexuality of the age, but this was not greater sacrifice than the ritual and economic demands placed on them by every other religious movement… And in exchange for this increased self-discipline, what they got was family, brotherhood, equity, justice---in short the joys of community, without the pains of the rat race, insulated from the tribulations of an uncertain and difficult world. Anyone who saw this trade as worthwhile would be inclined to join up.” (Pg. 137)
He states, “This doesn’t mean Luke was necessarily a lousy historian. He was certainly better than average when it came to some details---though, even at his best, like all other ancient historians, for each detail he could only be a reliable as his sources. But on top of that we know he lied. For instance, his account of Paul’s mission and the division it created in the Church contradicts Paul’s own account (in his letter to the Galatians) in almost every single detail, and in a way we can discern was deliberate. And if Luke lied about that, he could be lying about anything else… But despite all that, even if Luke were as honest and reliable as the very best historians of his own day, that would still not be sufficient to carry Holding’s point for the resurrection.” (Pg. 162-163)
He says, “Holding claims that ‘throughout the [New Testament], the apostles encouraged people to check’ and ‘seek proof and verify facts.’ This is blatantly false… Is Paul talking about [in 1 Thess 5:21] checking the evidence for the resurrection? Or in fact ANY empirical claim? No. He is talking about testing ongoing prophecies in the Church… and the test he refers to is not empirical, but moral: believe any prophesy that’s morally GOOD, and shun any prophesy that’s morally BAD. That kind of test isn’t even relevant to Holding’s argument… It’s impossible to accept any of these tests as evidence today. Whether someone in a prophetic trance confesses Christ and advocates love has no bearing at all on whether Jesus really rose from the dead… they were clearly satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call ‘irrefutable’ evidence.” (Pg. 385-387)
He suggests, “Had the [Roman] Empire maintained the Pax Romana of the glory years, with the wealth and progress of the 1st and early 2nd century, and had the Senate established a stable constitutional government by the 3rd century… instead of fifty years of civil war, I suspect Christianity would have been doomed---not to oblivion, but at least to obscurity, a fate much like American Hinduism. Today, Christians would perhaps be a small fringe cult, as they had been before, competing for customers with scores of other cults and sects… Christianity would not have had as much to offer anymore, as peace and prosperity would gradually claim more and more potential converts by giving them what they wanted: material happiness and security at the hands of a successful… pagan government.” (Pg. 439)
He concludes, “from the point of those few Christianity was an attractive idea whose time had come. This minority did not need irrefutable evidence … We know that none of their ‘evidences’ entails the conclusion, or even so much as strongly implies it. But that’s us. We have the advantage of hindsight, and of scientific knowledge reason. They didn’t. That doesn’t make them ‘suckers.’ It just makes them wrong. Nor does it mean their beliefs were ‘absurd’ to them. It just means they were false.” (Pg. 443)
While such a long and detailed reply to Holding’s much shorter book (112 pages) might seem like “overkill,” Carrier makes a number of points that will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying the rise of Christianity.
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born 1969) is an American historian and Atheist activist.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2009 book, “A common apologetic argument for the truth of the Christian religion is that its origins were too improbable for it to be false. This argument … [is] combined into a single popular effort ['The Impossible Faith'] by James Patrick Holding… Holding’s argument is that the origin and success of Christianity in the ancient Roman Empire was so improbable it must have been based on a true story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This book refutes his argument… [Holding] advertises this as ‘A Thesis So Explosive, An Atheist Paid $5,000 for An Answer.’ As it happens, I was the scholar paid… to compose a well-researched refutation, which Holding conveniently never directs anyone to—nor does he even name me, and his book doesn’t even mention my refutations, much less address them.”
He explains that in historical inquiry, “we need only ascertain the MOST probable cause of an event, given all we know… In laymen’s terms, even though miracles must be extremely rare… and therefore miracles must be extremely improbable, it is still possible to have enough evidence to … make ‘miracle’ the most probable explanation among all alternatives… Does Holding have that kind of evidence?... Holding does not make any effort to answer these questions even vaguely. Thus, his conclusion can only be vaguely certain at best… I will nevertheless set this aside and assume … that Holding’s case succeeds unless we can show that some set of natural causes… were reasonably likely to have produced the same result… I will also assume … that if Jesus was not raised by God, then probably Christianity’s success was due to natural causes, and not (for example) Satan.” (Pg. 12-14)
He points out, “This idea of a suffering, executed god would resonate especially with those Jews and their sympathizers who EXPECTED a humiliated messiah. Jewish scripture [Isa 49:7] declared that ‘The Redeemer of Israel’ or ‘The Holy One of God’ shall be ‘despised’ by men, and nations will be ‘disgusted’ with him, yet he shall triumph… The idea that a Chosen One of God must suffer total humiliation and execution at the hands of the wicked is a major theme in Isaiah… Even David… sings in Psalm 22, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’… This song set up a Jewish model for a crucified Davidic savior.” (Pg. 34)
He notes, “Nazareth … was not the tiny hovel it’s often made out to be. A Jewish inscription from the 2nd or 3rd century confirms that Nazareth was one of the towns that took in Jewish priests after the destruction of the Temple in 66 AD. Would priests deign to shack up in a despised hick town?... This was no mere hamlet, but a village inhabited by hundreds experiencing significant economic success… In contrast, the Gospel of John is ALONE in having anyone declare anything like the concern of Nathanael: ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’” (Pg. 64-65)
He asserts, “That the Jews borrowed the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrian pagans is demonstrated not only by the fact that early Greek sources identify it as a Persian (and not a Jewish) belief, but by the fact that the Old Testament completely lacks any reference to the idea until after the Jews were exiled to cities in contact with Zoroastrianism… Even many Greco-Roman pagans flirted with the possibility of being raised from the dead… We’ve already discussed the resurrections of Romulus, Osiris, Adonis, and Inanna as well… So it’s plainly false to claim that no pagans would believe in a resurrection of the body, especially for a deified or divine man.” (Pg. 86-87)
He observes, “Christianity’s success was not at all remarkable until the late 3rd century. Before then it was a struggling minority cult. Indeed, it barely even blipped of the radar of Roman society before the age of Trajan… Christianity only won a tiny fraction of the hearts and minds of the Greek, Roman, and Jewish world. That kind of humble success does not require Christianity to have been the most sellable product since the invention of beer. As long as it would sell at all, as long as a tiny fraction of the evangelized groups would find it attractive… then Christianity would succeed on the scale we actually observe for that first century, just as the cult of Attis today.” (Pg. 117)
He suggests, “Thus, Christianity succeeded precisely when it abandoned all those difficulties, while retaining the ideology of justice and compassion that people most wanted. By making that easier to obtain, joining the CHRISTIAN brotherhood became an attractive option to many people who had become disappointed with the wider society. Yes, to obtain this they had to give things up, including the more liberal sexuality of the age, but this was not greater sacrifice than the ritual and economic demands placed on them by every other religious movement… And in exchange for this increased self-discipline, what they got was family, brotherhood, equity, justice---in short the joys of community, without the pains of the rat race, insulated from the tribulations of an uncertain and difficult world. Anyone who saw this trade as worthwhile would be inclined to join up.” (Pg. 137)
He states, “This doesn’t mean Luke was necessarily a lousy historian. He was certainly better than average when it came to some details---though, even at his best, like all other ancient historians, for each detail he could only be a reliable as his sources. But on top of that we know he lied. For instance, his account of Paul’s mission and the division it created in the Church contradicts Paul’s own account (in his letter to the Galatians) in almost every single detail, and in a way we can discern was deliberate. And if Luke lied about that, he could be lying about anything else… But despite all that, even if Luke were as honest and reliable as the very best historians of his own day, that would still not be sufficient to carry Holding’s point for the resurrection.” (Pg. 162-163)
He says, “Holding claims that ‘throughout the [New Testament], the apostles encouraged people to check’ and ‘seek proof and verify facts.’ This is blatantly false… Is Paul talking about [in 1 Thess 5:21] checking the evidence for the resurrection? Or in fact ANY empirical claim? No. He is talking about testing ongoing prophecies in the Church… and the test he refers to is not empirical, but moral: believe any prophesy that’s morally GOOD, and shun any prophesy that’s morally BAD. That kind of test isn’t even relevant to Holding’s argument… It’s impossible to accept any of these tests as evidence today. Whether someone in a prophetic trance confesses Christ and advocates love has no bearing at all on whether Jesus really rose from the dead… they were clearly satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call ‘irrefutable’ evidence.” (Pg. 385-387)
He suggests, “Had the [Roman] Empire maintained the Pax Romana of the glory years, with the wealth and progress of the 1st and early 2nd century, and had the Senate established a stable constitutional government by the 3rd century… instead of fifty years of civil war, I suspect Christianity would have been doomed---not to oblivion, but at least to obscurity, a fate much like American Hinduism. Today, Christians would perhaps be a small fringe cult, as they had been before, competing for customers with scores of other cults and sects… Christianity would not have had as much to offer anymore, as peace and prosperity would gradually claim more and more potential converts by giving them what they wanted: material happiness and security at the hands of a successful… pagan government.” (Pg. 439)
He concludes, “from the point of those few Christianity was an attractive idea whose time had come. This minority did not need irrefutable evidence … We know that none of their ‘evidences’ entails the conclusion, or even so much as strongly implies it. But that’s us. We have the advantage of hindsight, and of scientific knowledge reason. They didn’t. That doesn’t make them ‘suckers.’ It just makes them wrong. Nor does it mean their beliefs were ‘absurd’ to them. It just means they were false.” (Pg. 443)
While such a long and detailed reply to Holding’s much shorter book (112 pages) might seem like “overkill,” Carrier makes a number of points that will be of great interest to anyone seriously studying the rise of Christianity.
November 15, 2018
This was one of those books I didn't want to end. Carrier's logic was thorough, covering just about every possible angle of a given topic, and I almost felt sorry for JP Holding.
Holding had written a book basically arguing that Christianity shouldn't have been successful by natural means, therefore it was successful because of supernatural means, or something. What does that even mean anyway? No one would have wanted Christianity, so god made them do it?
Carrier showed that he has a really good grasp on the history of the early church and Roman empire. He was also able to cut through Christian fancies that get thrown around by pastors and non-scholars, and expound the data that gave rise to them - for example, there's this common idea that the Bereans were super smart and looked critically into everything that Paul said. But all they really did was listen to Paul's stories and see if they could fit with received dogma in the old Scriptures. That's not critical investigation! They wrote no letters, sent no people to confirm Paul's stories and investigate the resurrection, etc. They simply looked in their bible and found Paul's ideas of the Messiah to be plausible. They can be forgiven for not understanding critical scientific methodology, but present day Christian leaders cannot. Admittedly, it's probably not their fault. I was never taught critical methods in my seminary.
Other fallacious ideas held today are:
No one would believe in a crucified god (there were gods dying and rising all over the place)
No one believed resurrection (there were all sorts of stories of this, including Herod's belief that John the Baptist had been raised!)
People could have 'dug up Jesus's bones' (who could have? When? 50 days after burial? Who does that anywhere ever? Who's to say people didnt do that, and rejected Christianity?)
No one trusts women's testimony (enlightening and thorough discussion)
Christianity was a runaway success (it wasn't)
I got the kindle version with whispersync audio so I could look up his references. I did this from the very first page where Carrier argues that Inanna (aka Ishtar) was crucified, when actually her dead body was placed on some kind of hook or stake. I didn't think it was fair to call this crucifixion, but after chasing down his sources, and then realising that Paul compares Jesus's crucifixion with the OT directive not to leave someone hanging on a tree overnight (who would have been executed before being hung up), I decided the comparison was fair enough. My remaining criticism is that Carrier should have explained all this, because most people will not consider that Jesus's death by crucifixion should be compared with Inanna's post death debasement. Inanna was, technically, crucified, but she wasn't killed by crucifixion, and it wasn't Roman crucifixion, which is what most people think of when they think of Jesus's execution.
All in all, fantastic scholarly book. A totally different league than internet apologists and YouTube 'scholars'.
Holding had written a book basically arguing that Christianity shouldn't have been successful by natural means, therefore it was successful because of supernatural means, or something. What does that even mean anyway? No one would have wanted Christianity, so god made them do it?
Carrier showed that he has a really good grasp on the history of the early church and Roman empire. He was also able to cut through Christian fancies that get thrown around by pastors and non-scholars, and expound the data that gave rise to them - for example, there's this common idea that the Bereans were super smart and looked critically into everything that Paul said. But all they really did was listen to Paul's stories and see if they could fit with received dogma in the old Scriptures. That's not critical investigation! They wrote no letters, sent no people to confirm Paul's stories and investigate the resurrection, etc. They simply looked in their bible and found Paul's ideas of the Messiah to be plausible. They can be forgiven for not understanding critical scientific methodology, but present day Christian leaders cannot. Admittedly, it's probably not their fault. I was never taught critical methods in my seminary.
Other fallacious ideas held today are:
No one would believe in a crucified god (there were gods dying and rising all over the place)
No one believed resurrection (there were all sorts of stories of this, including Herod's belief that John the Baptist had been raised!)
People could have 'dug up Jesus's bones' (who could have? When? 50 days after burial? Who does that anywhere ever? Who's to say people didnt do that, and rejected Christianity?)
No one trusts women's testimony (enlightening and thorough discussion)
Christianity was a runaway success (it wasn't)
I got the kindle version with whispersync audio so I could look up his references. I did this from the very first page where Carrier argues that Inanna (aka Ishtar) was crucified, when actually her dead body was placed on some kind of hook or stake. I didn't think it was fair to call this crucifixion, but after chasing down his sources, and then realising that Paul compares Jesus's crucifixion with the OT directive not to leave someone hanging on a tree overnight (who would have been executed before being hung up), I decided the comparison was fair enough. My remaining criticism is that Carrier should have explained all this, because most people will not consider that Jesus's death by crucifixion should be compared with Inanna's post death debasement. Inanna was, technically, crucified, but she wasn't killed by crucifixion, and it wasn't Roman crucifixion, which is what most people think of when they think of Jesus's execution.
All in all, fantastic scholarly book. A totally different league than internet apologists and YouTube 'scholars'.
August 24, 2012
This is a book about the growth of Christianity in the 1st & 2nd centuries, written as a response to work by one J.P. Holding who made a number of claims about that growth. A common claim made by Holding and others is that Christian origins were too improbable for it to be false. Carrier pretty much demolishes these arguments, one by one, in such exhaustive detail that you almost feel sorry for Holding, except for the fact that Carrier repeatedly shows him to be a liar at best and a very poor scholar at worst. On the one hand, the book is kind of shackled by this structure; in having to structure it according to the claims of Holding, Carrier is limited in how he can tell the story. But what emerges is a rounded picture of society and religion in the first couple centuries of the Common Era, and is well worth reading. I'll keep my eye out for more of his books. The truth is always more interesting and rewarding to read than propaganda.
January 19, 2013
Richard Carrier tears JP Holding's thesis (i.e. The Impossible Faith) a new rectal cavity in this very complete examination of just how non-miraculous was the rise of Christianity. Carrier is frequently repetitive, beating a point like a dead horse, but he certainly cannot be faulted for glossing over any of Holding's arguments. Christianity is shown to be a not-all-that-remarkable cult among a myriad of similar cults that happened to win the day in the Roman Empire due to mundane circumstances in its favor. Just like every other major religion that points to its founding and growth as some sort of divine miracle, the evidence shows nothing of the sort.
August 10, 2019
Since I have NOT read James P. Holding’s “The Impossible Faith... Or, How Not to Start an Ancient Religion” reading Carrier’s book, which disputes Holding's theory, is a bit like listening to one side of a phone conversation. That said, there is MUCH to learn about early Christianity, why it formed when it did and how it grew. Carrier’s knowledge of the history of the first four centuries of the Current Era is astounding and persuasive. Plus, I gained insight into how scholars work to challenge, correct, and grow from each other.
September 26, 2012
I spent some time in Seminary learning all the supposed arguments why Christianity had to be true in order to thrive in the time period it was unleashed on humanity. Richard Carrier, a scholar of Roman history, is just the man to examine those assumptions and destroy them. This book is a powerful tool to use when faced with bible and McDowell quoting evangelists who seek to take advantage of people's lack of learning. I own this book in soft cover and kindle. Highly recommend it.
October 11, 2013
Two thousand years passed you would think people have changed... Nope... Religious virus is still strong and deadly. Now I began to understand why America is so religious. Despite of high living standard compering to others it is a country of misery. It is beyond of my comprehension how in the most pro-capitalist society the utopian christian communistic ideals can flourish in minds of the majority of population.
June 19, 2023
Richard Carrier argues against James Patrick Holding’s contention—stated in his book, “The Impossible Faith”—that Christianity survived special resistance during its development, yet it did survive. This survival can only be explained in one way; its first missionaries had indisputable proof of the faith’s central tenet, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As you might anticipate, Carrier says the survival and growth of Christianity is easily explained and accepted through natural causes, when examined through the cultures of the Roman Empire and the written records of the time. Now Carrier has a big advantage in this fight, because he earned a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history. I’m not an education snob; I applaud J.P. Holding for doing his research and presenting his arguments, degree or no degree. However, the subject is big and complicated, so stepping into it requires some serious forethought, at least. While I love an underdog, the writing indicates that, agree or not, Carrier undertook a comprehensive, methodical study of the Empire and of Christian origins, while Holding did not. The points Holding attempts were worth refuting, however.
Why did I read this book?
Examining the development of religion is a window into human nature and behavior. We need a window, because we are not naturally self-aware. As Robert Wright wrote in The Moral Animal, “Sometimes it is emphatically not in our genetic interest to be aware of exactly what we are doing and why.”
In the present book, I’m not as interested in proving either Carrier’s or Holding’s proposition, as in looking at the record of this movement, Christianity. What can we know about it, in its infancy? What does that record tell us about human nature, societies, civilizations?
Instead of responding to James Patrick Holding’s short book, “The Impossible Faith,” Carrier’s book is directed to 17 short arguments published on Holding’s website, tektonics.org. This means I did not need to spend $12 to buy Holding’s book, but I’ll take that in good humor. Carrier’s book, by contrast, is only $6.44 on Kindle, just over half the price, while delivering about four times the content of Holding’s. On this basis alone, the greater value is clear.
What did I learn?
Much of the history of Christianity consists of arguments over what Jesus wanted his followers to do. How were they to worship God? What authority structure, if any, did he recommend? Who were his appointed heirs?
I already knew the surprising answer to these questions. There was no agreement on these points in the late first century C.E. In fact, there is evidence for conflict even during the documented lifetime of Jesus. There was no original, uniform Christian doctrine or practice. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were groping in the dark, trying to return to an original faith that never existed. They had no good evidence Jesus would approve of their churches over Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.
What I did not know, but perhaps should have guessed, was that Judaism had no historical core either. During the first century, Carrier writes:
“There was no ‘orthodoxy’ [in Judaism] but dozens of competing sects. They all differed and often fell into heated debate over the proper beliefs and community values, yet they all thrived. Not only did some reject the Torah, but some credited an angel with the creation, some worshipped Moses as Christ, some permitted obeisance to idols, some practiced astrology, some accepted baptism as an atonement for sins, some rejected a literal interpretation of the scriptures, some scorned the Jerusalem Temple, some may have believed Herod was the messiah, some denied the existence of souls or angels or spirits of any kind, and some denied resurrection altogether.
As a result, every Jewish sect was a deviant sect to at least some other Jewish sect. They were all attacking each other and trying to convert people to their way of thinking.”
As for Holding’s contention that the first Christians were persuaded by overwhelming evidence of the resurrection, Carrier goes directly to the New Testament to deflate his opponent’s balloon. In the new testament,
“Never once is anyone ‘encouraged’ to ‘check,’ ‘seek proof,’ or ‘verify facts’ at all. No empirical method or standard of critical inquiry gains any praise. To the contrary, those who advocated such methods (and the principles of reasoned doubt and investigation) are pretty much on the receiving end of condemnation. Christianity, after all, targeted for conversion those who scorned the ‘wisdom of the wise’ (1 Corinthians 1:17-31), not those who cherished the forensic standards of the super-educated lawyers, historians, and scientists of the day.”
Carrier observes, and I think correctly, that from its beginning, Christianity attracted many people because of its community values and the sense of purpose it added to their lives.
“Most [converts] got what they wanted, or very near to it: a brief glimpse of happiness and comfort within a surrogate family that really met their needs, emotionally and materially, with a hope of even more in a utopian future. And they took a shot at what they honestly thought would right the wrongs of their dysfunctional society.”
This was a classic win-win for the individual and the movement, but evidence played no role in the victory.
As you might anticipate, Carrier says the survival and growth of Christianity is easily explained and accepted through natural causes, when examined through the cultures of the Roman Empire and the written records of the time. Now Carrier has a big advantage in this fight, because he earned a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history. I’m not an education snob; I applaud J.P. Holding for doing his research and presenting his arguments, degree or no degree. However, the subject is big and complicated, so stepping into it requires some serious forethought, at least. While I love an underdog, the writing indicates that, agree or not, Carrier undertook a comprehensive, methodical study of the Empire and of Christian origins, while Holding did not. The points Holding attempts were worth refuting, however.
Why did I read this book?
Examining the development of religion is a window into human nature and behavior. We need a window, because we are not naturally self-aware. As Robert Wright wrote in The Moral Animal, “Sometimes it is emphatically not in our genetic interest to be aware of exactly what we are doing and why.”
In the present book, I’m not as interested in proving either Carrier’s or Holding’s proposition, as in looking at the record of this movement, Christianity. What can we know about it, in its infancy? What does that record tell us about human nature, societies, civilizations?
Instead of responding to James Patrick Holding’s short book, “The Impossible Faith,” Carrier’s book is directed to 17 short arguments published on Holding’s website, tektonics.org. This means I did not need to spend $12 to buy Holding’s book, but I’ll take that in good humor. Carrier’s book, by contrast, is only $6.44 on Kindle, just over half the price, while delivering about four times the content of Holding’s. On this basis alone, the greater value is clear.
What did I learn?
Much of the history of Christianity consists of arguments over what Jesus wanted his followers to do. How were they to worship God? What authority structure, if any, did he recommend? Who were his appointed heirs?
I already knew the surprising answer to these questions. There was no agreement on these points in the late first century C.E. In fact, there is evidence for conflict even during the documented lifetime of Jesus. There was no original, uniform Christian doctrine or practice. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were groping in the dark, trying to return to an original faith that never existed. They had no good evidence Jesus would approve of their churches over Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.
What I did not know, but perhaps should have guessed, was that Judaism had no historical core either. During the first century, Carrier writes:
“There was no ‘orthodoxy’ [in Judaism] but dozens of competing sects. They all differed and often fell into heated debate over the proper beliefs and community values, yet they all thrived. Not only did some reject the Torah, but some credited an angel with the creation, some worshipped Moses as Christ, some permitted obeisance to idols, some practiced astrology, some accepted baptism as an atonement for sins, some rejected a literal interpretation of the scriptures, some scorned the Jerusalem Temple, some may have believed Herod was the messiah, some denied the existence of souls or angels or spirits of any kind, and some denied resurrection altogether.
As a result, every Jewish sect was a deviant sect to at least some other Jewish sect. They were all attacking each other and trying to convert people to their way of thinking.”
As for Holding’s contention that the first Christians were persuaded by overwhelming evidence of the resurrection, Carrier goes directly to the New Testament to deflate his opponent’s balloon. In the new testament,
“Never once is anyone ‘encouraged’ to ‘check,’ ‘seek proof,’ or ‘verify facts’ at all. No empirical method or standard of critical inquiry gains any praise. To the contrary, those who advocated such methods (and the principles of reasoned doubt and investigation) are pretty much on the receiving end of condemnation. Christianity, after all, targeted for conversion those who scorned the ‘wisdom of the wise’ (1 Corinthians 1:17-31), not those who cherished the forensic standards of the super-educated lawyers, historians, and scientists of the day.”
Carrier observes, and I think correctly, that from its beginning, Christianity attracted many people because of its community values and the sense of purpose it added to their lives.
“Most [converts] got what they wanted, or very near to it: a brief glimpse of happiness and comfort within a surrogate family that really met their needs, emotionally and materially, with a hope of even more in a utopian future. And they took a shot at what they honestly thought would right the wrongs of their dysfunctional society.”
This was a classic win-win for the individual and the movement, but evidence played no role in the victory.
May 11, 2013
Dissects JP Holding's book, steamroller over the apologist's blather. Solid, deals directly with the holding book yet much is applicable to apologetics nonsense in general , ie the evidence as presented by apologists ain't necessarily so.
June 16, 2015
The book is a bit of a drag to read at some points, but this work is nevertheless like kryptonite to apologetics. I've consulted this book many times already when listening to Christian apologetics and it covers pretty much every topic that might come up.
May 16, 2012
Enjoyable, but when refuting ignoramuses
August 12, 2025
In terms of research, Richard Carrier could certainly be called a world class scholar, as the careful research in this book shows. But it seems to be more important to him, I think, to be regarded as a hero in the online atheist and skeptic community. Hence this book, a response to the claims by a certain James Patrick Holding that the rise of Christianity was miraculous. My reaction to all this is: why should we care what J. P. Holding thinks? Carrier even admits that Holding is something of a dark horse in the apologetics community, but that Holding has a strong online presence, which is where Carrier also thrives.
When I found this book in my Kindle library, I was confused because I didn’t remember reading it, or even purchasing it. This is not particularly unusual for me, my memory being what it is. So I quickly searched my books on Goodreads to see if I had entered it there. I saw that not only had I not reviewed it, I hadn’t even entered it. So I assumed I had not read it and purposed to do so as soon as I had a reasonable opportunity. To my surprise, I found that the book was full of highlighting, so obviously I had read it at some time in the past. It must have been years ago.
I'm not a big fan of counter-apologetics so I wasn’t thrilled with the tone of this book. Phrases like, "Holding is just spouting another non sequitur in defense of his irrational case for Christianity" and headings like "The Bankrupt Methods of J.P. Holding" are exactly the sort of things that may win the approval of the online atheist and skeptic community, but are likely to mark Carrier as an undesirable in the scholarly community.
Not every chapter was filled with this polemical rhetoric. I especially enjoyed chapters 9 and 11: "Was a God Incarnate Always Repugnant?" and "Did No One Trust Women?". The final chapter, about how many Christians there may have actually been in the Roman Empire in the first century is also excellent.
There were a couple of places where I thought Carrier went against the mythicist interpretations he later expressed in OHJ. For example, "But there’s nothing in the evidence from Paul himself that Jesus was ever thought to be God Incarnate while residing on earth." This seems to imply Paul thought Jesus resided on earth. Then there is, "Hence all Christians are 'adopted' by God and thence called 'brothers.'" In his later works, Carrier claims that only non-apostolic Christians are called "brothers," in his attempt to explain why James is called the "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19. Carrier's explanation here doesn’t make much sense to me. It would be a good idea for me to reread OHJ to refresh my memory of Carrier’s arguments on these points. I also want to read Carrier's books on the scientist in the ancient world. I hope and pray that they are relatively free from the anti-apologetic polemics of Not The Impossible Faith.
So in the end I would recommend this book even to those, like me, who are not especially into anti-apologetics. It did remind me that I still need to read Evidence Which Demands a Verdict. It will be a good exercise to see how modern apologetics compares to the ancient apologetics such as that of Justin Martyr.
When I found this book in my Kindle library, I was confused because I didn’t remember reading it, or even purchasing it. This is not particularly unusual for me, my memory being what it is. So I quickly searched my books on Goodreads to see if I had entered it there. I saw that not only had I not reviewed it, I hadn’t even entered it. So I assumed I had not read it and purposed to do so as soon as I had a reasonable opportunity. To my surprise, I found that the book was full of highlighting, so obviously I had read it at some time in the past. It must have been years ago.
I'm not a big fan of counter-apologetics so I wasn’t thrilled with the tone of this book. Phrases like, "Holding is just spouting another non sequitur in defense of his irrational case for Christianity" and headings like "The Bankrupt Methods of J.P. Holding" are exactly the sort of things that may win the approval of the online atheist and skeptic community, but are likely to mark Carrier as an undesirable in the scholarly community.
Not every chapter was filled with this polemical rhetoric. I especially enjoyed chapters 9 and 11: "Was a God Incarnate Always Repugnant?" and "Did No One Trust Women?". The final chapter, about how many Christians there may have actually been in the Roman Empire in the first century is also excellent.
There were a couple of places where I thought Carrier went against the mythicist interpretations he later expressed in OHJ. For example, "But there’s nothing in the evidence from Paul himself that Jesus was ever thought to be God Incarnate while residing on earth." This seems to imply Paul thought Jesus resided on earth. Then there is, "Hence all Christians are 'adopted' by God and thence called 'brothers.'" In his later works, Carrier claims that only non-apostolic Christians are called "brothers," in his attempt to explain why James is called the "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19. Carrier's explanation here doesn’t make much sense to me. It would be a good idea for me to reread OHJ to refresh my memory of Carrier’s arguments on these points. I also want to read Carrier's books on the scientist in the ancient world. I hope and pray that they are relatively free from the anti-apologetic polemics of Not The Impossible Faith.
So in the end I would recommend this book even to those, like me, who are not especially into anti-apologetics. It did remind me that I still need to read Evidence Which Demands a Verdict. It will be a good exercise to see how modern apologetics compares to the ancient apologetics such as that of Justin Martyr.
October 10, 2022
Carrier's exhaustive research is, at times, exhausting.
May 9, 2024
This book is extraordinarily well researched and written. The arguments are solid.
January 12, 2024
This book is a very well-articulated rant against a well-known (in his circles) apologist whom I was unfamiliar with. As such, it paints a vast historic view of the biblical texts and how they developed many decades after Jesus walked the land. This book opens an understanding of the hagiographic mindset that brought about the eventual deification of the Galilean carpenter by the people of the early centuries of the Christian era.
I read this in conjunction with God: An Anatomy by British biblical scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou. (See my review. )
I read this in conjunction with God: An Anatomy by British biblical scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou. (See my review. )
February 1, 2013
Mostly a personal rebuttal to specific criticisms.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews