Carrier himself defines (and uses) the "minimal historicity" thesis which is denoted by h in OHJ. Logically, the negation of h would be the general thesis of mythicism (the negation of the proposition that Jesus existed) and if we assume we can use probabilities in this context (which bot...

When I am talking about a specific hypothesis for historicity I am talking about Carriers specific, five-point scenario which falls into the general class of ahistoricity (the general class of ahistoric theories is the negation of "Jesus existed"). As Carrier explains in great detail, a '...

Hi JohanRonnblom, Regarding the first quote, the specific vs. general hypothesis of historicism, that's exactly the one mistake I agree is in my review: I summarized OHJ falsely by assuming Carrier compares a specific theory of historicity vs. a specific theory of mythicism and not the general idea ...

DB Roy:

I think JohanRonnblom and I disagree exactly about Carriers OHJ and it is that disagreement I am trying to have a discussion about. I can't see why that is off topic given this thread is dedicated to discussing OHJ.

Hi JohanRonnblom, I did read enough of this Tim Hendrix document to conclude that he is either dishonest, or unable to read English. He is claiming flaws in OtHoJC that clearly are not there, even claiming Carrier omits to explain things that are fully stated inside quotes that Hendrix provide in th...

I would like to join in on the discussion because I have read this and the previous book in the series (Proving History) and found both interesting, and also because my name came up in the discussion.