學者們批判科里安的《關於耶穌的歷史性》
張逸萍譯自《維基百科》
科里安（Richard Carrier）的《關於耶穌的歷史性：為什麼我們有理由懷疑》（On
the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt）是一本近年懷疑耶穌曾經降生地上做人的書籍。雖然已經有其他先驅，但也引起了一些轟動。
他認為耶穌並不是一個真正曾經活在地上的人。耶穌可能是一個天上的個體，教會把他製作為一個活在地上的歷史人物，以寓言地傳達福音的主張，這些故事最終被相信和推廣。第二個可能是﹕猶太人採用了希臘神話，第二聖殿時期的猶太神學和政治，與當時異教宗教和哲學中最流行的特徵，融合而有。
一看維基百科（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier）對他的介紹，發現大部分編幅集中在這這書上。讓人驚奇的是——負面的批評很多，而且批評的人，不都是基督徒，只從學術角度去批評。現在翻譯維基百科頁，於2021年七月1日的“接受和批評”一段如下。
因為（1）人都可以去修改維基，所以附上幾張七月1日的截圖。（2）註釋方面，為方便和真實之故，保留維基本來的編號，放在譯文後。
《論耶穌的歷史性》（On
the Historicity of Jesus ）的合作者給此書正面的評價，[79]
《宗教歷史雜誌》（Journal
of Religious History）中的神話學家拉斐爾·拉塔斯特
(Raphael Lataster) 也同意地說，根據福音書﹕
“耶穌幾乎完全符合‘蘭克-拉格蘭神話類’（Rank-Raglan
mythotype），並說，“沒有一個確鑿的歷史人物”符合這個神話類。[80]
然而，大多數當代學術界都對科里安（Carrier）的方法論和結論持批評態度。古典主義者和聖經學者都同意，名為拿撒勒人的耶穌有歷史依據。[81][7] 邁克爾格蘭特（Michael
Grant）在 2004
年寫道： “近年來，‘沒有認真的學者敢於假設耶穌的非歷史性’，或者至少很少，而且他們沒有成功地處理更強有力、實際上非常豐富的相反證據。”
[82]
最近，帕特里克·格雷（Patrick
Gray）斷言：“有一些人相信我們對他的生死知之甚少。這些人也不再認真懷疑耶穌在第一世紀確實在活在地球上。”[i][83] 出於這個原因，科里安和其他認為歷史上的耶穌不存在的支持者的觀點，經常被古典學術界視為“邊緣理論”。[84]
阿維澤·塔克
(Aviezer Tucker) 曾是將“貝葉斯”技術（Bayesian
techniques）[1]
應用於歷史的倡導者，他對科里安的福音書觀點稍為同情，他說：
“從貝葉斯的角度來看，符類福音書作為歷史耶穌的證據的問題在於，連貫的證據似乎並不獨立，而獨立的證據似乎並不連貫。”然而，塔克認為歷史學家已經能用關於信息傳輸和保存的理論，以確定福音書的可靠部分。他說：“科里安對這種方法太不屑一顧，因為他專注於關於歷史耶穌的假設，而不是對證據的最佳解釋。”[3]
新約聖經學者巴特·埃爾曼
(Bart Ehrman)
寫道，僅有的兩位擁有和這題目有關的研究生證書、反對耶穌的歷史性的學者，科里安是其中之一。[85] 埃當爾曼討論科里安的理論，即是說﹕一些猶太人在基督教存在之前就相信“受辱的彌賽亞”，他批評科里安對舊約讀解很“特殊”，忽視了現代對聖經的批判性研究。[86]
埃爾曼最後說
“[我們]沒有任何證據表明，在基督教誕生之前，有任何猶太人預料到將來有一位彌賽亞，會為罪而被殺——或者光是被殺——更不用說一個在眾目睽睽之下被猶太人的敵人無禮地摧毀、折磨和釘死。這與猶太人心目中的彌賽亞是相反的。”
[87]
埃爾曼還公開談到了科里安對貝葉斯定理的使用，指出“大多數歷史學家根本不認為你可以那樣做歷史。”
他說他只知道兩位歷史學家使用過貝葉斯定理，就是科里安和理察·斯溫伯恩（Richard
Swinburne），並指出斯溫伯恩本用它來證明耶穌從死裡復活這一事實，具有諷刺意味。埃爾曼否定了科里安和斯溫伯恩的結論，但承認他沒有資格評估他們如何應用該定理的細節。“我自己不是統計學家。有統計學家告訴我，兩個人都在誤用它，但我無法評估。”[88]
丹尼爾·N·古洛塔
(Daniel N. Gullotta)評論《關於耶穌的歷史性》說，科里安提供了“嚴謹而透徹的學術論文，毫無疑問，它將被視為衡量‘耶穌神話理論’的標準”；但他發現科里安的論點“有問題，且沒有說服力”，他對貝葉斯概率的使用是“不必要地複雜，又不吸引人”，他批評科里安
“證據不足、閱讀令人覺得辛苦、假設有麻煩。”
[5]
此外，他觀察到，使用貝葉斯定理在歷史上，似乎沒有用，或者至少不可靠，因為它會導致荒謬和矛盾的結果，例如科里安用它來推測耶穌存在的可能性很小，而學者斯溫伯恩用它來推測耶穌確實復活的可能性很高。[89] 古洛塔還說，絕對沒有任何文獻或考古證據表明，猶太人或基督徒曾經相信，耶穌是只存在於天堂的一個天體，這是科里安的“基礎”論點，而不是像人類一樣生活在地球上。[5]
據觀察，科里安經常曲解和誇張資料，他還廣泛使用邊緣思想，就如丹尼斯·麥克唐納
(Dennis MacDonald)
等人所表示的，荷馬史詩和福音書有平行之處，同時淡化了麥克唐納仍然是歷史學家，而非神話主義者的事實。[5]
古洛塔還觀察到，科里安依賴過時的和不能用於歷史的辦法。例如奧托·蘭克（Otto
Rank） 和費茲羅伊·薩默塞（Lord
Raglan）的“英雄神話原型事件列表”（hero myth
archetype events lists），這些方法被大多數民俗和神話學者批評和拒絕。其中科里安隨意改變這些列表的數量和措辭，使之對他有利。[90]
古洛塔將“歷史上的耶穌從不存在”的信念描述為一種“邊緣理論”，“在學術圈內未被注意到和未解決”。[7]
關於同一本書，紐卡斯爾大學（University
of Newcastle）的克里斯蒂娜·佩特森（Christina
Petterson）寫道，
“即使它是認真和正確，方法也是脆弱的。此外，數字和統計，似乎是一種轉移人的注意的策略，有意叫人混淆和困惑。”。與古洛塔不同，佩特森將《關於耶穌的歷史性》描述為稍微外行：
“撇開數學不談，書中沒有什麼讓我震驚的，似乎是學習新約的初級內容。”
關於科里安的論點，即是說，研究歷史耶穌的後期故事，應是為文學和修辭目的而研究，而不是為其歷史內容。佩特森說，
“這一點表明科里安對新約研究和早期基督教領域的無知。”[60]
澳大利亞天主教大學（Australian
Catholic University）的 大衛列華（M.
David Litwa）在討論科里安的作品時，把重點放在《關於耶穌的歷史性》，指出科里安描繪自己
“作為一個為世俗人文主義真理而戰的十字軍”，其使命是“證明基督教（或科里安所認識的）是錯誤的”。[6]
他還指出，“科里安對聖經的輕蔑和對聖經之神的敵意，似乎不會使他傾向於仔細研究聖經。”
[91]
列華將科里安描述為“處於學術同業會的邊緣”，儘管他是一名訓練有素的學者並且確實採用了學術方法。[6]
列華繼續反對科里安在《關於耶穌的歷史性》中提出的幾個論點。列華寫道，科里安將蘭克-薩默塞神話類型應用在耶穌身上，他們之間的相似之處是牽強的，並且“該模式忽略了[耶穌]一生的主要元素。”
[92]
他還批評科里安試圖以詹姆斯弗雷澤（James
Frazer）關於近東垂死和再生的生育神（dying-and-rising
fertility god）的理論中，影射在耶穌身上。他是依賴宗教學中“基本上已不復存在”的類別。[93]
他指出，很少有神會死而復活，通常是以不同方式仍然留在死亡中。[2]
儘管列華承認垂死的神靈所經歷的苦難，與耶穌的痛苦之間存在相似之處，但他認為異教垂死的神靈不會像耶穌那樣選擇死亡。[94]
關於科里安以似乎不存在的其他古代宗教人物為訴求，如羅繆勒斯（Romulus）和先知但以理。列華認為耶穌在他死後僅二十年，就被保羅證實了：
“在這麼短的時間內，不可能發明這樣的一個名字和一個人物，而不引起懷疑。”
[95]
列華駁斥了科里安的假設，即是說，保羅的耶穌是一位在天上被釘在十字架上的天使。因為這話依賴“毫無根據”的推測，即是說保羅可以得到二世紀〔偽經〕《以賽亞的升天》（Ascension
of Isaiah），並且其中提到耶穌降出，和他在耶路撒冷被釘十字架的事情，是後來添加的，儘管學者研究與之相反。[96]
愛丁堡大學（University
of Edinburgh）名譽教授拉里·烏爾塔多（Larry
Hurtado）寫道，與科里安的說法相反，亞歷山大的菲洛（Philo
of Alexandria）從未提及一位名叫“耶穌”的天使長。烏爾塔多還指出，使徒保羅清楚地相信耶穌是一個真正生活在地上的人，而且異教救世主的神靈，如伊希斯（Isis）和奧西里斯（Osiris），在他們的信徒的觀念中，不是從天上的神靈變為真實的活在地上的人。[97]
劍橋大學（Cambridge,）的西蒙·加瑟科爾
(Simon Gathercole)
也作出類似的批評。他總結道，科里安的論點，更廣泛地說，是神話學家對保羅書信不同方面的立場，這與歷史數據相矛盾，而且保羅對耶穌在地上的生活、他的個性和家庭的描述，確立保羅的傾向，就是將耶穌視為一個自然人，而不是一個寓言人物。[4]
此外，科里安的論點，和一般的共識相反，即是說，羅馬歷史學家塔西佗（Tacitus）早期提到基督，是基督教的插補。這個說法最近被保龍（
Willem Blom ）否決了，他發現科里安的論點依賴於無法令人信服的默不作聲，和對
1 世紀和 2
世紀的錯誤理解。[98]
References[edit]
1.
^ Jump up to:a b "Curriculum Vitae" (PDF). October 7, 2014. Retrieved March 19, 2015.2.
^ Jump up to:a b Casey, Maurice (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. Bloomsbury T&T Clark. pp. 14–16. ISBN 9780567447623.3.
^ Jump up to:a b c Tucker, Aviezer (February 2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs Jesus Christ". History and Theory. 55:1: 129–140. doi:10.1111/hith.10791.4.
^ Jump up to:a b c Gathercole, Simon. "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16.2-3 (2018): 183-212.5.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e Gullotta 2017.6.
^ Jump up to:a b c Litwa 2019, p. 35.7.
^ Jump up to:a b c Gullotta 2017, p. 312.8.
^ "From
Taoist to Infidel". The Secular Web. 2001.
Retrieved March 19, 2015.
9.
^ Carrier, Richard (February 18, 2015). "Coming
Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue". Richard
Carrier Blogs. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
10.
^ "Clio
Holdings Information". Columbia University
Libraries. Retrieved March 29, 2015.
11.
^ PZ
Myers. Richard Carrier's Blog.
12.
^ Carrier, Richard (November 7, 2013). "Atheism... Plus
What?". Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism. 21 (1): 105–113. doi:10.1558/eph.v21i1.105.
13.
^ Carrier, Richard (August 20, 2012). "The
New Atheism +". Richard Carrier Blogs.
14.
^ Pigliucci, Massimo (August 29, 2012). "On
A+, with a comment about Richard Carrier's intemperance". Rationally
Speaking. Massimo Pigliucci.
15.
^ https://the-orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2016/06/20/summarizing-current-allegations-richard-carrier/
16.
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/09/06/americas-leading-atheist-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-speaks-out/
17.
^ "Licona vs.
Carrier: On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ".
April 19, 2004. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
18.
^ "On
the Issue of Abortion". Retrieved March
19, 2015.
19.
^ "Marshall
vs. Carrier: Richard's opening argument". Christ
the Tao. March 25, 2013. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
20.
^ Zeba A. Crook; Richard Carrier (April 5, 2014). "Debate:
Jesus of Nazareth: Man or Myth?". centreforinquiry.ca. Centre
for Inquiry Canada. Retrieved May
16, 2016. Branch: Centre for Inquiry Ottawa
21.
^ "I'll
Be Debating the Historicity of Jesus in Ottawa, Canada". Richard
Carrier Blogs. March 26, 2014.
22.
^ "Ottawa
Historicity Debate: A Commentary". Richard
Carrier Blogs. May 29, 2014.
23.
^ Abbass, Veronica (May 11, 2014). "Jesus
of Nazareth: Man or Myth?". Canadian Atheist.
Retrieved May 25, 2016.
24.
^ "Videos
of Mark Smith – Debate: Was There An Historical Jesus?". www.jcnot4me.com.
October 23, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2016. Dr. Richard Carrier & Mark
Smith -vs- Rev. Doug Hamp & Dr. Dave Lehman, Huntington Beach, CA
25.
^ "Debate
#12 – The Historicity Of Jesus – Richard Carrier and Mark Smith vs Doug
Hamp and Dave Lehman". Backyard
Skeptics/Freethought Alliance Streaming Videos. October 23, 2014.
Retrieved May 25, 2016. Atheism Vs Christianity Debate Series. Please
note that the first 4 minutes of this video are not available due to
technical issues.
26.
^ "Upcoming
Events | Christianity/Atheism Debate – Huntington Beach, CA |
CreationEvents.org". creationevents.org.
27.
^ Coker, Matt (October 22, 2014). "Christians
and Atheists Debate in Huntington Beach Over Whether Jesus Was a Real
Dude". OC Weekly.
28.
^ Carrier, Richard (January 30, 2009). "W.L.
Craig Debate". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Retrieved May 17, 2016.
29.
^ Carrier, Richard (March 20, 2009). "Craig
Debate Wrap". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Retrieved May 17, 2016.
30.
^ William Lane Craig; Richard Carrier (March 18, 2009). "Debate:
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?". ReasonableFaith.org.
Retrieved May 17, 2016. Hosted by the Philosophy Club student
organization and posted online part-1 & part-2
32.
^ "Speaker will defend godless worldview". The Columbus
Dispatch. December 22, 2006. p. 03C.
33.
^ Imdb
cast listing
34.
^ "Leading
Atheist Philosopher Concludes God's Real". FOX
News. Associated Press. December 9, 2004. Retrieved March 19, 2015.
35.
^ Oppenheimer, Mark (November 4, 2007). "The
Turning of an Atheist". New York Times Magazine.
Retrieved March 19, 2015.
36.
^ Carrier, Richard (November 17, 2010). "Antony
Flew Considers God ... Sort Of". The Secular
Web. Retrieved May 21, 2017.
37.
^ Varghese, Roy Abraham (January 13, 2008). "There
Is a God". New York Times. Retrieved March
19, 2015.
38.
^ "'Hitler's
Table Talk': Troubling Finds." German Studies Review 26 (3):
561–576.
42.
^ Weinberg, Gerhard (2003). Foreword In
Hugh Trevor-Roper, ed. 2003. Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. New
York: Engima Books, p.
xi
43.
^ Hastings, Derek (2010). Catholicism and the Roots of
Nazism: Religious Identity and National Socialism. New York: Oxford
University Press. p. 251.
44.
^ Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). The Holy Reich: Nazi
conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.
255–256.
45.
^ Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2007). Christianity
and the Nazi Movement. Journal of Contemporary History 42
(2): 208. "Archived
copy" (PDF). Archived from the
original(PDF) on October 13, 2013.
Retrieved October 13, 2013.
46.
^ Johnstone, Nathan. The New Atheism, Myth, and History:
The Black Legends of Contemporary Anti-Religion. Palgrave Macmillan,
2018, 90.
47.
^ Carrier, Richard (2005). "The Spiritual Body of Christ
and the Legend of the Empty Tomb". In Price, Robert M.; Lowder, Jeffery
Jay (eds.). The
Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Prometheus
Books. ISBN 9781591022862.
48.
^ Davis, Stephen T. (2006). "The Counterattack of the
Resurrection Skeptics: A Review Article". Philosophia Christi. 8 (1):
39–63. doi:10.5840/pc2006814.
49.
^ Geisler, Norman (Spring 2006). "A Critical Review of The
Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave". Christian Apologetics Journal. 5 (1):
45–106.
50.
^ Carrier, Richard (2016). Science Education in the Early
Roman Empire. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 9781634310901.
51.
^ Meeusen, Michiel (July 4, 2018). "Review: Science
Education in the Early Roman Empire, by Richard Carrier". History of
Education. 47 (4): 578–580. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2017.1382579. S2CID 149357972.
52.
^ Carrier, Richard (2017). The Scientist in the Early
Roman Empire. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 978-1634311069.
53.
^ Jump up to:a b Tolsa, Cristian (September 2019). "Review: Richard Carrier. The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire . 645 pp., bibl., index. Durham, N.C.: Pitchstone Publishing, 2017. $29.95 (paper). ISBN 9781634311069". Isis. 110 (3): 585–586. doi:10.1086/704630.54.
^ "Did
Jesus Exist? Dr. Robert M Price, Dr. Richard Carrier, David Fitzgerald
Interview Part 1".
55.
^ Carrier, Richard. "Spiritual
Body FAQ". Retrieved March 19, 2015.
56.
^ Carrier, Richard (March 25, 2009). "Richard
Carrier Blogs: Craig Debate Wrap".
Retrieved March 19, 2015.
57.
^ Carrier, Richard (2012). Proving History: Bayes's
Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. New York: Prometheus
Books. ISBN 9781616145606.
58.
^ Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility
of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of
the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1:
91.
59.
^ Carrier, Richard (June 30, 2014). On the Historicity of
Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (kindle ed.). location 40476:
Sheffield Phoenix Press. ASIN B00QSO2S5C.
60.
^ Jump up to:a b Petterson, Christina (December 2015). "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception. 5 (2): 253–58. Retrieved January 15, 2018.61.
^ "Sheffield
Phoenix Press – Display Book".
Sheffieldphoenix.com. Retrieved June 21,2016.
62.
^ Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus:
Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 9781909697355.
63.
^ Carrier, Richard (July 17, 2013). "Update
on Historicity of Jesus". Retrieved March
19,2015.
64.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e Carrier, Richard. "So ... if Jesus Didn't Exist, Where Did He Come from Then?"(PDF). www.richardcarrier.info. Retrieved May 12, 2016. The Official Website of Richard Carrier, Ph.D.65.
^ Raphael Lataster. Questioning
the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief
Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources. The Intermountain
West Journal of Religious Studies, 2015, 75.
66.
^ "Two
Lessons Bart Ehrman Needs to Learn about Probability Theory – Richard
Carrier". Richard Carrier. November 15, 2016.
Retrieved November 17, 2016. [A]part from what we can determine from and
for the Rank-Raglan data, nothing in the Gospels argues for or against
historicity: OHJ, pp. 395, 506–09.
67.
^ Did
Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity
68.
^ Lataster, Raphael (December 2014). "Richard Carrier: On
the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of Religious
History. 38 (4): 614–616. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.12219. [Richard
Carrier's hypothesis of 'minimal mythicism'], highly influenced by the
work of Earl Doherty, states that Jesus was initially believed to be a
celestial figure, who came to be historicised over time.
69.
^ Bart
Ehrman on How Jesus Became God
70.
^ Jump up to:a b Carrier, Richard (August 2014). "The Bible and Interpretation – Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?". www.bibleinterp.com. Retrieved August 29, 2016. Christianity, as a Jewish sect, began when someone (most likely Cephas, perhaps backed by his closest devotees) claimed this [celestial deity] "Jesus" had at last revealed that he had tricked the Devil by becoming incarnate and being crucified by the Devil (in the region of the heavens ruled by Devil), thereby atoning for all of Israel's sins. ... It would be several decades later when subsequent members of this cult, after the world had not yet ended as claimed, started allegorizing the gospel of this angelic being. By placing him in earth history as a divine man, as a commentary on the gospel and its relation to society and the Christian mission.71.
^ Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 200–05.
§
Jesus being a preexisting archangel: Phil. 2:5–11
§
Jesus was as an angel: Gal. 4:14
§
Jesus knew Moses: 1 Cor. 10:4
72.
^ Richard Carrier. Why
We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a
Historical Jesus?. Bible and Interpretation, 2014.
73.
^ Larry Hurtad. Gee,
Dr. Carrier, You’re Really Upset! 2017.
74.
^ Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 577.
75.
^ Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 570.
76.
^ Gathercole, Simon. "The Historical and Human Existence of
Jesus in Paul’s Letters." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
16.2-3 (2018): 191, n. 32.
77.
^ Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 184–193.
78.
^ Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 100.
79.
^ Raphael Lataster; Richard Carrier. Jesus Did Not Exist:
A Debate Among Atheists. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
80.
^ Lataster, Raphael (December 3, 2014). "RichardCarrier:
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of
Religious History. 38 (4): 614. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.12219.
81.
^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: Writing in the name of God.
HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.
82.
^ Michael Grant (2004), Jesus: An Historian's Review of
the Gospels, ISBN 1898799881page
200
83.
^ Jump up to:a b Patrick Gray (2016), Varieties of Religious Invention, chapter 5, Jesus, Paul, and the birth of Christianity, Oxford University Press, p.11484.
^ Robert M. Price (2010), Secret Scrolls: Revelations from
the Lost Gospel Novels, p.200
85.
^ Ehrman, Bart (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne. pp. 19, 167.
86.
^ Ehrman, Bart (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne. pp. 167–170.
87.
^ Ehrman, Bart (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperOne. p. 170.
88.
^ Ehrman, Bart; Price, Robert; Mythicist Milwaukee. "Bart
Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist". YouTube.
Bart D. Ehrman. Event occurs at 1:52:12 – 1:53:50. Retrieved August
19, 2020.
89.
^ Gullotta
2017, p. 312 "Yet I cannot help but compare Carrier’s approach to
the work of Richard Swinburne, who likewise uses Bayes’ theorem to
demonstrate the high probability of Jesus’ resurrection, and wonder if
it is not fatally telling that Bayes’ theorem can be used to both prove
the reality of Jesus’ physical resurrection and prove that he had no
existence as a historical person.".
90.
^ Gullotta
2017, p. 340-342.
91.
^ Litwa
2019, p. 34.
92.
^ Litwa
2019, pp. 35-37.
93.
^ Litwa
2019, p. 39.
94.
^ Litwa
2019, pp. 39-41.
95.
^ Litwa
2019, p. 42.
96.
^ Litwa
2019, pp. 37-39.
97.
^ Hurtado, Larry (December 2, 2017). "Why
the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars". larryhurtado.wordpress.com.
Retrieved January 15, 2018.
98.
^ Blom, Willem JC. "Why the Testimonium Taciteum Is
Authentic: A Response to Carrier." Vigiliae Christianae 73.5 (2019):
564-581.
[1]貝葉斯定理（英語：Bayes'
theorem）是概率論中的一個定理，描述在已知一些條件下，某事件的發生機率。
[2]
譯按﹕關於耶穌死而復活乃抄襲神話故事，請參考﹕「耶穌的死和復活，是否抄襲自其他古代神靈故事？」（http://www.chineseapologetics.net/others/copy-other-gods.htm
）和「基督復活﹕模仿異教假神？他人模仿！」（http://www.chineseapologetics.net/others/copy-Greek-gods.htm
）