Peter Clarke, in his article, summarizes Richard Carrier’s argument for the Jesus Myth Theory with a third point. It is a response to the argument from embarrassment that uses details that are not helpful to the story as evidence for historicity. The response is this:
But the premise of this argument is false because there are many good reasons why that specific town would have been contrived for a mythical messiah.
In many ways this is the heart of the Jesus Myth Theory: no matter what is said, there is always another explanation. Even if there is a indisputable example of a historical event or individual, there is always a way of explaining it in such a way to make it fictional.
This is part of the reason why I do not debate Jesus Mythicists. If there is a passage in a text that points toward historicity, it is possible it is an addition or a forgery. There is no piece of evidence that cannot be explained away with another explanation.
