One thing about Carrier that annoys me is that he does not get into the likelihood of the paul story. There is a simple reason for this. "Paul" as written does not harm Carrier's argument for mythicism at all, so why bother? There is precious little in paul which indicates that jesus was anything other than another cosmic figure who resided in the heavens except for a few obvious interpolations stuck in by later xtian editors to make it sound better.
Also Carrier treats as "authentic" letters which he himself admits (along with other scholars) that were merely combinations of multiple letters crammed together by editors. I always considered paul as incoherent drivel and that explains why. I keep wondering where the "authentic" part comes in.
Also Carrier treats as "authentic" letters which he himself admits (along with other scholars) that were merely combinations of multiple letters crammed together by editors. I always considered paul as incoherent drivel and that explains why. I keep wondering where the "authentic" part comes in.