This page will be continually updated. The first section lists typos that will be fixed in a future printing. The second lists additions or changes that might be implemented in a future edition but for now are usefully available here.
One error has already been corrected: in the first print run the footnote numbers restarted on page 253, mid-chapter (chapter seven, on Docetism). So some copies floating around will have the footnotes in that chapter numbered differently.
⌘
p. 45, bottom: “Steve Maso” should be “Steve Mason”.
p. 118, bottom: “set the probably” should be “set the probability”.
p. 140, middle: “a mater of public record” should be “a matter of public record”.
p. 169, middle: “anymore than he did” should be “anymore that he did”.
p. 172, near bottom: “not to a certainly” should be “not to a certainty”
p. 176, middle: “truly uniformed priors” should be “truly uninformed priors”.
p. 178, middle: “when I asses the effect” should be “when I assessed the effect”.
p. 181, near top: “if it’s being there” should be “if its being there”.
p. 196, middle: “Ether it is devoid” should be “Either it is devoid”.
p. 199, middle: “among the the great” should be “among the great” [= Fig. 6_2].
p. 219, bottom: “Then the final odds on Socrates being historical” should be “Then the final odds on Spartacus being historical”.
p. 247, bottom: “independent of Bible” should be independent of the Bible”.
p. 278, n. 42: “61–61” should be “61–62”.
p. 304, n. 6: “Romans 1:3–4 as as Unified” should be “Romans 1:3–4 as Unified”.
p. 317, middle: “it’s being fitted” should be “its being fitted”.
p. 331, middle: “relates to real mothers as all” should be “relates to real mothers at all”.
p. 384, image: Correct the formatting of “Papias” (to match).
p. 389, Bates: “Romans 1:3–4 as as Unified” should be “Romans 1:3–4 as Unified”.
p. 430, alphabetically: under both the entries for a fortiori and a judicantiori, add “379–386”.
p. 432, alphabetically: add “dependent probability, 57, 172–78, 187, 193, 222–23, 379–80”
p. 432, after “Didache”: add 46n79
p. 435, after “likelihoods”: “Bayes’ Theorem” should be “Bayes’ Theorem, dependent probability”.
p. 437, after “probability”: “Bayes’ Theorem, Laplace’s Law” should be “Bayes’ Theorem, dependent probability, Laplace’s Law”.
⌘
p. 24 n. 8: Add to the sources in the first sentence: Stephen Wunrow, Heavenly Space in Hebrews and Its Jewish and Christian Environment: Passing through the Heavens (T&T Clark 2025). And change “743. Both” to “743. These”. Then add this to the bibliography.
p. 28 n. 18: Add (and update the bibliography) right after where the list starts with “see:” as follows: Ian Mills, The Hypothesis of the Gospels: Narrative Traditions in Hellenistic Reading Culture (Fortress, 2025);
p. 30 n. 24: remove the “and” before the citation of Duncan and add after that citation: “, and James Barker, Writing and Rewriting the Gospels: John and the Synoptics (Eerdmans, 2025)” and add the Barker book to the bibliography.
p. 31 n. 29: change “and Mark Goodacre” to “, Mark Goodacre” and add after that citation “, and Barker, Writing and Rewriting the Gospels,”.
p. 38 n. 51: After the Thatcher citation add: “; and Hugo Méndez, The Epistles of John: Origins, Authorship, Purpose (Cambridge University Press, 2026).” And then add that to the bibliography.
p. 38 n. 52: add after Hebrews 3:5 the following verses: Revelation 11:3, Acts 22:14–16, and 1 Corinthians 15:15. And add those to scripture index. And then cite (and add to bibliography) Suzanne de Diétrich, “’You Are My Witnesses’: A Study of the Church’s Witness,” Interpretation 8.3 (1954), 273–79, and S.C. Todd, “The Language of Rhetorical Proof in Greek Historical Writers: Witness Terminology,” in The Ancient Art of Persuasion across Genres and Topics (ed. Sophia Papaioannou, Andreas Serafim, and Kyriakos Demetriou; Brill, 2020), 281–98.
p. 43 n. 66: Add before the Travis Proctor citation “Anna Angelini, L’imaginaire du démoniaque dans la Septante: Une analyse comparée de la notion de “démon” dans la Septante et dans la Bible Hébraïque (Brill, 2021);” and then update the bibliography.
p. 45. near center: “betrayal by Judas here” should be “betrayal by Judas here either (as is also argued to get this to be historical lore rather than a vision Paul is relating)”.
p. 51 n. 100: Replace “My study of the minor testimonium remains the most comprehensive demonstration of its interpolation” with “But the most comprehensive treatments of interpolation in this passage are” and after the citation that follows add “; and Chrissy Hansen, “Josephus and the Murder of James: An Argument Against Some Common Wisdom,” Studies of Biblical Interest 2 (2025)”. And update the bibliography.
p. 54 n. 108: Replace “which came out as this book was already going to press. I will address it in a future article.” with: For my full critique of that see Richard Carrier, “Exposing T.C. Schmidt’s Oxford Apologetics for the Testimonia Flaviana” (8 September 2025) at richardcarrier.info/archives/34662. And add this to the bibliography.
p. 56 n. 114: Add sentence at end of note: For the theory that our text has replaced the original, see Chris Hansen, “A Negative Testimonium? A Response to Fernando Bermejo-Rubio,” New Testament Studies 7.1 (January 2025), 56–63. And add that to the bibliography.
p. 68 n. 146: Add sentence at end (and update bibliography): See also Phillip Munoa, “Who Lies Beneath? Revising Paul Holloway’s Angelic Interpretation of Philippians 2:6–11,” Journal of Biblical Literature 144.2 (2025), 373–93.
p. 74, middle: After the sentence about Ixion add: And as another but later proof of concept, 2 Enoch 7 imagines evil spirits hung as a torment in the second heaven.
p. 83 n. 21: Add to footnote 21: David Eastman, The Many Deaths of Peter and Paul (Oxford University Press 2019). And add that to the bibliography.
p. 108 n. 124: Add to list of citations, obeying chronological position (and then update the bibliography): Maria Todorova, “What Is a Hero and Are Heroes Born?” in Bones of Contention: The Living Archive of Vasil Levski and the Making of Bulgaria’s National Hero (Central European University Press, 2009), 185–202; Patricia Ní Mhaoileoin, “Patterns and Problems in the Heroic Biography of Fergus Mac Róich, ” Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium 32 (2012), 214–28; Thomas Gibson, “The Hero Legend in Colonial Southeast Asia, ” Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints 61.4 (2013), 437–76.
p. 309, middle: Add after “will sit an eternal throne.” the sentence “This requirement for the messiah was reflected even in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q174 1.11, 4Q252 5,3–4).”
p. 345 n. 1: Add at end:
It also conclusively refutes Chris Hansen, “Familial Brother(s) of the Lord? On Recent Disagreements on Galatians 1.19 and 1 Corinthians 9.5,” The Expository Times 136.11 (2025), 483–93, which already ignored most of the evidence presented in my original study, responding to essentially none of it (e.g., compare Hansen, “Familial Brother(s),” pp. 488–89 with Carrier, Historicity, 582–87, esp. 586). For example, here, 361–62, 353, etc., and the ten studies here cited (349–50), conclusively refute everything she says (in 490–91) about baptized Christians not being the brothers of Jesus.
Then add that Hansen source to the bibliography.
p. 350 n. 4: Add at the end: One exception published after Obsolete Paradigm went to press, Hansen, “Familial Brother(s),” is overwhelmingly refuted by all these prior studies, none of which it even mentions.
p. 364 n. 23: Add after the Hansen reference “, and” and in parentheses “Josephus and the Murder of James”. Then add at end: Also supported by Olson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” 315–19.
⌘
After those changes are complete, then add the following footnotes:
p. 21, near bottom: after “the order of its chapters).” add a footnote as follows (and add to bibliography accordingly): To confirm this, I had the peer reviews peer-reviewed by two experts in the field: Derek Lambert, Richard Carrier, Aaron Adair, and Richard Miller, “The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus,” MythVision Podcast (7 September 2025) at youtube.com/watch?v=AVLpW_l_lH4.
p. 331, bottom: after “not an actual one.” add footnote as follows (and update bibliography): See Courtney Friesen, “Hagar on Sinai: The Choice of Heracles, Mountain Women, and Pauline Allegory in Galatians,” Journal of Biblical Literature 144.3 (2025), 535–55 (539–43).
p. 369, end of last paragraph: After “for any reason.” add the following footnote: And there is no valid case to be made against any of this: see Richard Carrier, “T.C. Schmidt on James in Josephus: Apologetics vs. History” (6 January 2026) at richardcarrier.info/archives/39541. And update the bibliography.
p. 334, middle: Add after “So let’s walk through Paul’s argument.” the following footnote: Substantial support for all the following points can be found in Mark Seifrid, “‘These Things Are Spoken Allegorically’: Paul and Christian Interpretation of Scripture,” Scripture, Texts, and Tracings in Galatians and 1 Thessalonians (ed. A.A. Das and B.J. Oropeza; Lexington/Fortress, 2023), 95–112. Then add that to the bibliography.
Thanks for this, Dr Carrier. Really enjoying the book. Also enjoyed your lecture on Josephus on Saturday evening (was evening here in England). Thanks again.
p. 178, second paragraph second sentence “when I asses the effect” should be “when I assess the effect”
London, England. This is tantalising, I am still waiting. Indeed, by the time my Amazon order (placed 27 Sept) is finally fulfilled, I imagine the credit card with which I placed it will have expired. These trade wars are so annoying.
If it doesn’t arrive by mid-January you should check the Amazon order tracking and see what it says. I can’t understand a delay of more than 60 days, war or no.
Order cancelled, re-ordered, and I have just received my copy in London — printed on demand nearby in England. I try and read a chapter at each mealtime, now about half-way through. Excellent. Indeed, the bibiography on its own is excellent!
Thank you for catching me up on that. So glad you finally got it!
Thanks for this. I’m at chapter 6 and moving forward! As usual, your work is impeccable. I bought the paperback in advance because a Kindle version wasn’t available, but I am going to buy the Kindle version as well so I can archive highlighted passages for later reference. Excellent work.
Page 45, paragraph 2: “Steve Maso” should be Steve Mason
Good catch. Thank you. Added!
“Out text” in the errata may need to be “our text”.
Good catch. Fixed.
Dear Mr. Carrier,, greetings from the Netherlands.
Regarding The Obsolete Paradigm, you have been noticed by one Sam Leiper https://youtu.be/j19RcG46iVM?si=a8UMGpRZzNJoPl4p who states thst you raise interesting questions, but doesn’t seem all that convinced.
I do own a copy of On The Historicity of Jesus, yet The Obsolete Paradigm is not readily obtainable in The Netherlands as it stands,
With kind regards.
Indeed I’ll be doing Leiper’s show soon. Keep an eye on my social media.
Middle of page 140 is missing a “t” in “mater of public record”.
Excellent. Thanks. Added.
Dr. Carrier a quick question for you.
You released JFOS as an easier read for most (outside the field of academia) than say OTHOJ. Now that this latest book OPHJ has been released, where would you position it from that standpoint? I understand the purpose of the book, to address arguments that have made since the release of OTHOJ, and to provides updates on latest scholarship on this topic. So certainly, the book might be of interest to anyone would was familiar with the topic/debate and wanted to get up to speed with the latest information.
But once again, for someone that is outside the field of academia and wanting to get educated on the topic, would you suggest that we point them to JFOS or your latest book OPHJ?
JFOS if they are new to the whole thing. Generally, they should be acquainted with what’s in JFOS before diving into OPH.
It’s rather like whether someone needs to see a TV series from the beginning or can jump in at any episode and catch up.
Someone versed in existing literature and debates, or someone who can jump in the middle of an academic discussion and catch up, can both start with OPH even if it’s the first mythicist text they’ve ever read. And then move on to OHJ if they want to dive further. Everyone else should probably start at JFOS, or if they want to start academic, OHJ. But a lot of people can jump right in at OPH and move to OHJ after.
In terms of readability, OPH is an easier read than OHJ (it’s designed to be broadly readable that way) but not as easy as JFOS (which is super simplified and not at all academic-market).
Page 196: “Ether it is devoid of identifiable reasons; or it is not.”, should be “Either”.
Excellent. Thank you. Added.
On p. 164, final line of first (partial) paragraph , should “than” be “that”?
0n p. 199 the line of verse labeled “a” has double “the”.
p. 164: I’m not finding it; maybe quote three words together so I can search the string?
p. 199: Good catch. Adding.
I’m so sorry. It’s page 169. “It’s just not evidence anymore than he did.”
Excellent. Added.
I’m not sure you saw this when I first commented, so I’m repeating my comment.
p. 178, second paragraph second sentence “when I asses the effect” should be “when I assess the effect”
Excellent book by the way. I loved the “brother of the Lord” chapter. It never make sense to me that this one verse would prove that Jesus had a biological brother, James.
Thank you. (And added! In fact it was supposed to be past tense as well.)
I’m seeing lots of errors in all forms of publication (academic, fiction, or otherwise). This is happening regardless of the publisher and/or editor’s experience and expertise. Considering your recent essay on AI, I wonder if you’d consider that at least in editing, AI would be beneficial. Additionally, if anyone could create a tool to make an index using AI, that would be amazingly helpful.
AI is not consistent, so no, I doubt it would be of much use in editing. You need humans to do that.
For example, AI doesn’t “know” what it is doing, so any changes it made to a paper can change it from making true statements into false ones, or clear statements into ambiguous ones. Only humans can tell the difference and thus edit formal papers productively.
As far as making indexes, we already had that. Automated indexing software has been around for thirty years.
Again, the problem is AI’s inconsistency. It will miss or mistake things in building an index more than a competent human. Yet there is no way to know that without doing all the work over again manually (you have to actually read every page of a book to know what is or isn’t on each page by subject). Whereas automated spellcheckers and grammar-proofers already exist; they have no need of AI.
At best, in either application (indexing or editing), a half-assed AI run can help an editor or indexer catch their own mistakes, by statistic effect (if AI is 80% reliable and the human 99% reliable they are together 99.8% reliable). But that’s a fairly trivial benefit that by its very nature can never replace any human job, and in fact requires hiring a human to do.
And humans would also have to build these software machines. AI would be an engine within the software, but it can’t build or replace the software that has to be human-built around it. So you still need coders to make these things exist and work.
An example is software that builds reference lists: these exist, and have an AI engine, but the bulk of the software is human-made and engineered to corral or correct the AI’s mistakes. And yet for all that, they cannot replace an expert literature review, as these things aren’t smart enough to really know what should or shouldn’t be there, so they will err by over-report and omission, and thus cannot replace a real scholar simply using traditional methods of specialized database searching. At most I think some such tool could be made native in some databases to improve (not replace) standard search methods. But again, that would be a minor tweak, not radical, and it can’t replace humans in the loop.
P.S. For anyone reading this thread not already aware, see my article on this point: How to Use Pseudo-AI.
How often do you find after sending even a short text message that autocorrect has changed a word thereby rendering your text gibberish as written? Even if that never happens to you because you always carefully reread your texts before sending, that’s still an extra step you shouldn’t have had to take. Now, multiply that by hundreds of pages of a book.
I just watched your conversation from a couple of weeks ago with Godless Engineer reviewing Tim O’Neill’s discussion with Bart Ehrman – and the confusion about Gnosticism & Docetism that arises around 1h46.
At 1h58 you say you would be ‘shocked’ if Bart was unaware of the Westar Institute’s findings regarding Gnosticism, and that he must have jumbled up his terms when responding to Tim’s apparent comment that you singlehandedly ‘disproved Docetism’.
But you misheard. Tim indeed referred to Gnosticism, and the exchange between the pair was about the status of Gnosticism. Of which both seem – shockingly – blissfully uninformed.
Were you aware of this?
No, I didn’t. I thought they discussed what my book says, which is that Docetism doesn’t exist. I checked and you’re right. Of course, it isn’t even that Gnosticism didn’t “exist” but that “Gnosticism” didn’t exist, and O’Neill seems not to grasp the distinction or to have read my blog about that.
This doesn’t make sense.
O’Neill must have been confused somehow (?) about what my book argues, since he was talking about what was in my book, not my website (which only summarizes existing scholarship and why I agree with it; it doesn’t “prove” anything about Gnosticism, but it does both regarding Docetism and that was one of the main points I advertised it did). And though my book does incidentally discuss Gnosticism, O’Neill couldn’t have known that before the book came out. Yet he seems to think I “prove” Gnosticism doesn’t exist in my book, and acts astonished by that, and says he doesn’t know what my argument could be.
So I can’t explain how he came by any of these confusions. I must have been subconsciously charitable and assumed he said the only thing it could possibly have made sense of him to say about what I newly argue in my book!
Yes, O’Neill is just retailing half-heard blather about a book he hasn’t read (nor even seen a synopsis of, it would seem).
Ehrman, who’s talking exclusively about Gnosticism here, allows (hyperbole about Jews and Romans aside) that ‘plenty of people think the term is too broad’.
So he seems aware that there’s a debate – but do you think he understands what that debate is actually about? Should he?
Yes, Ehrman is making a soft admission. He is vaguely aware something big happened in the field of Gnosticism studies recently but doesn’t have a firm idea of what exactly.
He then is simply reacting to O’Neill’s disingenuous framing, and (again) foolishly believing O’Neill.
So when Ehrman balks at claiming Gnosticism doesn’t exist, he clearly mistakes this as saying the sects previously classified as Gnostics don’t exist. That mistake comes from his trusting the liar he is being interviewed by. But I cannot account for O’Neill’s lie, as he conflates what’s in the book with what I wrote about elsewhere, without having read either and thus even knowing what my position is (which is the mainstream specialist position now).
Is O’Neill the victim of some long telephone game whereby “Carrier wrote an article about scholars abandoning the label of Gnosticism” got garbled with “Carrier says he disproves Docetism existed in his new book” and this got garbled in O’Neill’s mind as “Carrier claims to prove Gnosticism didn’t exist in his new book”? Or does he know everything he said to Ehrman is a lie? Because I’ve caught him doing both before.
I should note that a competent scholar would not believe the statement from O’Neill and would suspect O’Neill confused something and asked whether he meant Carrier sides with the new scholarship critical of Gnosticism as an identifier. In fact a decent scholar would in that moment have explained what that new position is and asked whether that’s the position I take or whether I take some other position, and what that “other” position is.
Instead Ehrman acted like a gullible buffoon.
And that’s not on O’Neill. That’s on him.
P. 331, second paragraph
”Because that passage is part of an extended allegorical argument that never relates to real mothers as all.”
should end with “… at all”. Not “as all”.
Good catch. Added.
Sorry, I only started looking when I realised you were collecting records of errors. These were a few I found:
Page 122 (towards the top): says “on Cyprus” instead of ‘in Cyprus’.
Page 176: says “uniformed priors” instead of ‘uninformed priors’.
Page 181 (paragraph 2): says “it’s” instead of ‘its’.
Thank you. The “on Cyprus” is correct (it’s an island). But the others are well spotted. Added!
One more minor one:
Page 219 (paragraph 2): says “Then the final odds on Socrates” when it should be for Spartacus.
“Odds on” is a regular expression.
Indeed, but my point was that I think the odds being referred to were for Spartacus, not for Socrates.
Ah! So sorry. I missed that. Thank you. And good catch. Added.
Page 247 (final paragraph): in some parentheses it says “independent of Bible” instead of ‘independent of the Bible’.
Good catch. Added.
Unsure if it’s just a difference in citation conventions (I’m an APA guy), but I noticed this one:
Page 278 (note 42): says “61-61” for the page range.
Oh gosh! I don’t think any citation system would call for that. It’s supposed to be 61–62. Added.
Two more, but the first one I wasn’t sure about.
Page 284 (note 51): says “So Litwa”. I can see how this would make sense, but thought that ‘See’ or ‘So argues’ was what was actually meant.
Page 304 (note 6): says “Romans 1:3-4 as as Unified”.
Litwa on p. 284: that’s an academic idiom I often use (it is an ellision of “so argues”). It means Litwa is someone who agrees; that that is his conclusion and not just mine.
I’ll add the duplication on p. 304. Thanks! (It also needs replacement on p. 389, so I added that as well)
Yeah, I suspected that was what was meant, but thought I’d throw it in, just in case. One more minor one:
Page 317 (paragraph 2): says “that it’s being fitted” instead of ‘its being fitted’.
Thanks. Added.
Some more minor ones and then a few that aren’t errors but which I feel read a bit cleaner with minor amendments (IMO):
Page 323: says “this verse is of no use establishing” instead of ‘for/in establishing’.
Page 329 (paragraph 1): says “sit a then-eternal throne” instead of ‘sit on/upon a then-eternal throne’.
Page 352 (paragraph 2): says “This is not a very strong evidence”, where ‘a’ is not necessary.
—
Then there were three non-error ones that I thought were worth bringing up, regardless. Could just be a matter of personal style, so no need to even respond regarding these if you disagree:
Page 326: says “So the Christian’s options were aplenty”, which I think reads a bit better as “the Christians’ options”, even though both make grammatical sense and make the same basic point.
Page 337 (preceding the block quote): says “precisely here that we find Paul say”, which might be better expressed as “precisely here that Paul says” or “here that we find Paul saying”.
Page 374: says “was already made twice now” which I think reads better as “has already been made twice now”.
—
Anyway, thanks for the read. Very happy with my purchase and learned a lot of new details from this follow-up work.
Those are all correct grammar.
You appear to just not be familiar with the idioms employed.
Referring to the first 3, not the latter 3? I’ll defer to your judgement there; maybe I’m too rigid. Many thanks again.
All six are grammatically correct.
You can research each one. They are all known grammatical constructions.
Hello Dr. Carrier. I’m not sure if this is something that warrants a correction. It’s possible I have misconstrued what is being said. If so, please disregard.
The top of p. 134 reads as follows: “The reasoning is sound. The problem is that the premise is not.”
I was unsure about the wording here since, in the parlance of logic, the property of soundness relates to the truth of the premises, given that they are situated in a valid argument (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises if they are true).
I wonder if a more accurate rendering of the idea would be something like: “The reasoning is valid but unsound since it relies on a false premise.”
I noticed this because typically you employ the proper distinction between validity and soundness, which is probably why this jumped out at me. Or I could have missed something and your original wording is preferable. Either way, excellent book!
Indeed I do often but not always, and for a reason.
Hence, I could say what you suggest but most readers would be confused as that isn’t familiar English to most readers. And if I were to be that hyper-precise, I could not say “the reasoning” is valid but “the argument” is valid, since otherwise I’d be mixing up vocabularies as well.
So I use colloquial discourse instead, and with as much precision as is necessary for expert readers not to be confused, nor inexpert readers to be confused (or lost).
Since you understood my point, obviously I had no need of the obfuscating vocabulary. So, I succeeded.
While anyone else will understand an argument form that is sound (not a specific example of the use of that form) can still lead to an unsound argument by virtue of an unsound (i.e. dubious, shaky) premise. So they won’t be confused either.
It’s a literary win-win.
And that’s the goal of a writer writing to both audiences at the same time. Which should describe most historians most of the time. This isn’t a technical treatise in philosophy. It’s a history book written for multiple audiences.
Ah. Yah. I wasn’t sure if it was worth bringing up, hence my hesitation. I take your point. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
And worth asking about.
Because, yes, in technical literature validity refers to structural soundness (in the common tongue) and soundness to premise validity (in the common tongue). It’s just that this distinction can be confusing to those not up on the technical dialect.