In a previous, now-closed thread, RfMer "Human" describes historian Richard C. Carrier as "a scholar to question, prima facie. . . . Question: What has Richard Carrier translated, and what does he plan to translate next? . . . Question: What is Richard Carrier’s specialty? . . . Question (my last): What in Richard Carrier’s work prompts his readers to trust him?"

("What is a Scholar: Micheal Grant v. Richard Carrier," by "Human". on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 19 December 2014)


My original question back to “Human”: "Where have you been when it comes to Richard Carrier?"

NOTE: I initially went on to answer "Human's" Questions #2 and #3, but am now just getting around to answering his Question #1: "What has Richard Carrier translated, and what does he plan to translate next?" The answer to that question comes directly from Richard Carrier:

"Richard C. Carrier,

"October 7, 2014

"LANGUAGES (translation competency):

"French*German*Latin*Ancient Greek (including papyrology and paleongraphy)"

("Curriculum Vitae: Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.," 510-932-9536, rcarrier@infdels.org, p. 2, 7 OCtober 2014, at: richardcarrier.info)


Now, where were we?

Oh, yes. For those still earnestly wishing to dismiss Carrier's research as purportedly being non-academic and non-serious may be interested to know (or maybe not, if facts still don't mean all that much to them) that his work on the make-believe, non-historical character--otherwise known as "Jesus"--has, in fact, been peer-reviewed and is now available through a reputable academic publishing house. I have since added some more information which I hope can humanly internalized, as found in the following damnable link:

"Bad News for the Carrier Bashers: His Research Has Been Peer Reviewed," by Steve Benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 19 December 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463300,1463490#msg-1463490


Allow me, if you will, to offer up in the name of historical honesty some teasers in behalf of that unforgivable-anti-livable-Lord case.
_____


--Let's start with something RfMers can relate to--Carrier compares Christianity's supposedly "historical" Jesus to Mormonism's supposedly "historical" Angel Moroni:

"I think it is more likely that Jesus began in the Christian mind as a celestial being (like an archangel), believed or claimed to be revealing divine truths through revelations (and, by bending the ear of prophets in previous eras, through hidden messages planted in scripture). Christianity thus began the same way Islam and Mormonism did: by their principal apostles (Mohammed and Joseph Smith) claiming to have received visions from their religion’s 'actual' teacher and founder, in each case an angel (Gabriel dictated the Koran, MORONI PROVIDED THE BOOK OF MORMON)." -emphasis added
_____


--Carrier synopsizes the essential problem with the "historical" Jesus position as one that is not only hampered by traditional Christian assumptions which are ignored by secular historians, but that is simply out of sync with the actual historical evidence:

". . . I can summarize the reasons for suspecting we’ve been wrong all along about how the Christian religion began. . . . [A]s Philip Davies recently said, 'a recognition that [Jesus’s] existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.'"

"A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase 'the overwhelming consensus says . . . ' Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth. . . .
_____


--For those who don't consider Carrier to be a credible scholar, his voluminous research backing the "Jesus Myth" has been peer-reviewed and reputably published--facts that leave concerned Christians quaking in their Bible-believing boots:

"There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I [Carrier] am one of them. And I have recently published the first-ever peer-reviewed academic study making the case for this conclusion. ('On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt' was published this year by the University of Sheffield (Sheffield-Phoenix, 2014). It continues the case I began in a prior peer-reviewed book, 'Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' (Prometheus Books, 2012), on why the methods employed in Jesus studies today are not logically valid, and what must replace them."

On hearing the bad news that Carrier's research pointing to the palpable lack of "historicity" for "Jesus" has actually been peer-reviewed, Christians have been fit to be tied (if not crucified). One asks anxiously:

"I'm a little bit worried because:

"1) How on earth could his book pass peer-review? I mean the 'Jesus mythicism' movement is virtually disproven. It would be like arguing that the earth is 6000 years old. There's just so much evidence against the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was based on myth and legend.

"2) I thought that if something is 'peer-reviewed' that it was considered factual? How are we supposed to know what is factual and not factual, even if it passes 'peer-reveiw'?"

"3) Should we be worried? Or is this just another book? Am I misreading the article wrong?

"Please answer, I'm very upset and discouraged because I think Richard Carrier is very wrong and pushing an agenda to the internet atheists."

Oooooh. And the Christians don't have "an agenda" of their own aimed at pushing legend of the "living" Christ?

**********


Regardless of how earnestly Carrier's critics attempt to dismiss his scholarly work, it has:

1) passed peer review;

2) been published by a reputable academic press; and

3) is substantiated by compelling historical evidence.

One, two, three strikes, yer out, at the ol' God game. Satan truly rules the Earth.

(OK, and let's repeat that anti-Lord link one more time for good measure):

"Bad News for the Carrier Bashers: His Research Has Been Peer Reviewed," by Steve Benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 19 December 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463300,1463490#msg-1463490



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:03AM by steve benson.

Steve,

You're a 60 year old man who's just embarrassing himself.

Peer reviewed means just that, reviewed by someone. It does not mean that something is necessarily true.

I don't know why you're defiantly proud of your anti-intellectualism.

. . . offering a substantive counter argument when it was pointed out to you that his supposed support of Jesus' alleged "historicity" was nothing more than a crude forgery.

(Your "reasoning": http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1461009,1461568#msg-1461568. My response: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1461009,1461669#msg-1461669. Your rebuttal: None)

If my counterpoints are, as you defiantly claim, "not necessarily true," then demonstrate your supeior "intellectualism" by cracking a book, collecting the references and proving your point.

Yes, I am 60 years old.

Meanwhile, you're approaching this like a 6-eyar-old.

To borrow from the old observation:

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.

"If have the citations on your side, pound the citations.

"If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

"If you're really desperate, throw a temper tantrum and embarrass yourself by pounding your foot on the floor."

Pound away, as you fall "flat." :)



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 08:24AM by steve benson.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve,
>
> You're a 60 year old man who's just embarrassing
> himself.
>
> Peer reviewed means just that, reviewed by
> someone. It does not mean that something is
> necessarily true.
>
> I don't know why you're defiantly proud of your
> anti-intellectualism.

Westy, have a look at bona dea's list of how to evaluate a scholar at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463010,1463104#msg-1463104

Steve's post here specifically addresses points 2 and 3: "2. Has he published and been peer reviewed?. 3. Who published his work?"

Please don't accuse Steve of misundersanding the process of peer review when all he did was show that Carrier has jumped through a hoop that historicists had hoped he would never be able to get through. Please start defending the historical Jesus with facts rather than insults, it makes for a much more interesting read.

(Question #1 from "Human"): "What has Richard Carrier translated, and what does he plan to translate next?"

(Answer to "Human's first question, from Rchard Carrier:

"Richard C. Carrier

"October 7, 2014

"LANGUAGES (translation competency): French*German*Latin*Ancient Greek (including papyrology and paleongraphy)"

("Curriculum Vitae: Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D.," 510-932-9536, rcarrier@infdels.org, p. 2, 7 OCtober 2014, at: richardcarrier.info)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:29AM by steve benson.

You just declared: "Peer reviewed means just that, reviewed by someone. It does not mean that something is necessarily true."

Yeah, "Flat Tire," I know that and have already made that point. You mentioned the age thing. Are you too young to read? Perhaps you should pump up your wheels before you again careen off the road and, well, embarrass yourself. Here's what I already posted that either you missed or are ignoring, as it regards the process of "peer review." Ironically, what you were saying about it had been previously addressed here by an individual who, alas, was far more articulate than yourself on the subject (and who, ironically enough, basically agreed with what you were trying to convey). Dr. James F. McGrath, a New Testament professor at Butler University, made the following observation about what constitutes "peer review." (McGrath, by the way, is a critic of some of Carrier's conclusions, while a supporter pf others):

"'Peer review' assesses whether work is undertaken using appropriate scholarly methods of analysis and argumentation. Even then it isn't foolproof by any means.

"But it isn't an assessment of whether the argument is correct, only whether it is scholarship. Every PhD is an attempt to find something new to say about a topic. Most of them turn out to be wrong. But if we couldn't even get them published and read by other scholars, then the few ideas that will in fact pan out under closer scrutiny would be lost, too.

"I think that many people outside of academia really don't understand how this system works, and how impressively well it works for all its flaws and shortcomings."

(James McGrath, posted in commentary section under "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 10 months ago, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.html)


And here's what McGrath also said about the peer-reviewed scholarship of Carrier:

"I’ve long described Richard Carrier as the last, best hope for [Jesus] mythicism. While other mythicists have been content to self-publish shoddy pseudo-scholarship online or elsewhere, Carrier has been a voice of sanity, recognizing that a scholarly consensus is not something to be treated lightly, and that, if there is to be a serious case for mythicism, it needs to be made by trained scholars approaching the matter in the appropriate scholarly manner.

"His book, . . . titled, 'On the Historicity of Jesus,' has passed peer review and so can be expected in print within the next half-and-a-year or so."

(James McGrath, "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 18 July 2013, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.htm; both above McGrath statements were initially quoted in "Bad News for the Carrier Bashers: His Research Has Been Peer Reviewed," by Steve Benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 19 December 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463300,1463490#msg-1463490)_
_____


Reading is fundamental. If you're having trouble keeping up with the conversation, then may I suggest that you at least try to review your own posts before you let loose, which only ends up tightening your own noose. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 08:26AM by steve benson.

Our OP has a habit of taking possibilities and spinning them into certainties. Is it possible Jesus never existed? Some scholars say "yes."

Is there any concrete proof or ancient documentation supporting any alternate theory to the actual existence of the person Jesus? No.

Our OP bears testimony that scholars proclaiming the possible are in reality declaring some indisputable truth. Unfortunately, none of his sources are willing to follow him down that path. They stop at the same place he should: It's possible the historical Jesus never existed.

I still eagerly await a topic started by the OP wherein he presents his alternate theory for the emergence of the Jesus myth with supporting documentation from some time earlier than the 18th century.

I won't hold my breath.

. . . who was deleted for resorting to crude sexual attacks when his intellectual reserves had been exhausted and who has yet to respond to any of the arguments made for the non-historical Jesus case put to him in a thread from nearly a month ago (a fact noted at the time by other posters, as well).

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1442863,1442863#msg-1442863


Do I think you ever will respond? I won't my breath.

And now you're refusing to deal with the arguments made against the alleged "historical Jesus made in the OP of this present thread.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463300,1463490#msg-1463490


Do I think you ever will respond? Again, nope. :)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 03:44AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . who was deleted for resorting to crude
> sexual attacks when his intellectual reserves had
> been exhausted and who has yet to respond to any
> of the arguments on the non-historical arguments
> made to him in a previous thread nearly a month
> ago (a fact noted by others posters, as well.
>
> (see:
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1442863,1442
> 863#msg-1442863)
>
>
> Do I think you ever will? I'm not holding my
> breath. :)


Yes, I was rude in a previous post, and I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to you for it. Likewise to any members of our community who may have seen my offending remarks before they were removed. I will endeavor to never repeat the event. I was wrong.

I would be interested in hearing a couple of things from you:

1. Since the scholars you cite argue simply for the possibility that there was no historical Jesus, do you join them in recognizing that it's possible Jesus was an actual person?

2. If there was no actual historical Jesus, will you please explain your understanding of the origin of the myth with some historical documentation or evidence to support your position?

. . . continuing your tactic of avoiding dealing with questions/issues presented not only in this post but in the previous one referenced.

In those postings of mine, I have, in fact, provided "historical documentation or evidence" in support of the proposition that there is "no actual historical Jesus."

Again, for your benefit:

--1) my post on the non-historical Jesus that you refused to deal nearly a month ago, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1442863,1442863#msg-1442863[ and

--2) my post on the non-historical Jesus you are presently refusing to deal with, cited in the OP of the present thread, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463300,1463490#msg-1463490

So, here's my question for you: Do know how to click on links? :)
_____


P.S.: Harking back to a previous dust-up of ours, in the event that you say I didn't bother to watch your referenced "theistic" video, I immediately realized that your previous OP--in which you praised the youtube video, "Inspiring Philosophy: Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism"--was nothing more than a warmed-over version of god-driven "creationism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM


My suspicion in that regard was justified because you described that production in the very first sentence of your OP (i.e., in your post's subject line) as being an "[i]nteresting video arguing that quantum mechanics supports theistic creation."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1460768,1460768#msg-1460768


Indeed, the video in question aggressively attacks the concepts of "materialism" and "realism," while demonstrating a clear sympathy for what it calls a "Cosmic Consciousness" and a "larger mind" that "looks at us" and is "observing us." It concludes by openly advocating for a male-pronoun "He God," calling for acceptance of "a theistic view of our existence" to the exclusion of all other explanations. Science, the video dramatically declares, "has not buried God, but has revealed Him" (cue the dramatic photos of beams of sunlight piercing through the clouds above).

So, you see, I did watch that nutty video.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 07:09PM by steve benson.

All I can do is again ask for your forgiveness of my previous rudeness. I became angry and posted comments that were completely out of line. I assure you I will refrain from that in the future.

You were kind enough in the midst of my earlier rudeness to offer me some advice on how you felt the interchange should occur:

"It goes like this: Step 1: First person posits. Step 2: Second person offers rejoinder to the posit. First person responds to rejoinder. Second person responds to the response to his rejoinder. Repeat as needed. Not all that complicated. However, due to your curious refusal to participate, we are still stuck at Step 1. I suspect you haven't been trained how to competitively box for your position. Hence, you are in a box--otherwise known as your corner."

Cited from http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1442863,1443096#msg-1443096

Following your advice, I read your post, and I believe the following qualifies as a rejoinder. If you disagree, will you please advise me again on how I could properly word this to get a response from you?

If we grant your argument that you've located some scholars who believe there is reason to doubt the existence of the historical Jesus, are you also able to recognize that the scholars you cite allow for the possibility that Jesus actually existed?

Is there some reason why after repeated requests you refuse to reveal to us your opinion for the actual cause of the Jesus myth? You seem more convinced about it than even the scholars you cite, but seem to avoid the question each time it's asked. Is it a secret you only tell a chosen few? Is there someone else I can contact who may be familiar with your specific understanding of the source of the Jesus myth?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 05:12AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

I have shown no sympathy in my postings for the notion that this "Jesus" character was an actual, living person. In fact, you are the first person whom I can recall that has accused me, despite "repeated requests," of "refus[ing] to reveal to us your opinion for the actual cause of the Jesus myth?"

Huh?

First of all, who is this "us" that you purport to represent? Have you been designated by them to be their spokesperson because these unidentified folks somehow think I've been holding back on my opinions about the "Jesus myth?" Good gawd, man, you and your "us" need to read my damn posts.

With that out of the way, because there is no compelling empirical evidence of there ever having been an "historical Jesus" to "forgive" you or to "save" any of "us," I suppose that, per your request, this now becomes my assignment-- at least as far as offering you my brand of human-pnly absolution. Very well, go thy way and "sin" all the "hell" you want--and thanks for your apology. :)

Peace to you during this glorious Pagan Winter Solstice season (one which the Xtians, through the conniving Emperor Constantine, stole for use as a government-established religious framework for worshipping the mythical Jesus in order for Constantine to advance his political power-consolidating church-state agenda).



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 05:31AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have shown no sympathy in my postings for the
> notion that this "Jesus" character was an actual,
> living person. In fact, you are the first person
> whom I can recall that has accused me of "refus
> to reveal to us your opinion for the actual cause
> of the Jesus myth?"
>
> First of all, who is this "us" that you purport
> to represent? Have you been designated by them
> to be their spokesperson because these
> unidentified folks somehow think I've been
> holding back on my opinions about the "Jesus
> myth?"
>
> Good gawd, man, you and your "us" need to read my
> damn posts.
>
> With that out of the way, because there is no
> compelling empirical evidence of there ever having
> been an "historical Jesus" to "forgive" you or
> to "save" any of "us," I suppose that, per your
> request, this now becomes my assignment-- at
> least as far as offering my brand of absolution.
> Very well, go thy way and "sin" all the "hell"
> you want--and thanks for your apology. :)
>
> Peace to you during this glorious Pagan Winter
> Solstice (one which the Xtians, through the
> conniving Emperor Constantine, stole for use as
> a government-established religious framework for
> worshipping the mythical Jesus in order for
> Constantine to advance his political
> power-consolidating church-state agenda).


I'm not questioning that you believe Jesus is a myth. I'm asking you to explain to me (or "us" if there happen to be any others reading our conversation), what you believe is the source of the myth. I've seen you post what others believe, but do you have an explanation of your own?

Now's your chance to explain what you've found is the actual origin of this myth. I even created a new topic devoted to the question, so please feel free to offer your explanation: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463613

Also, can you cite any scholars who agree with you that "there is no compelling empirical evidence of there ever having been an 'historical Jesus'?" I see some arguing for doubts about it, but have never seen any scholar make such a sweeping statement. Please let me know your source for this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 05:32AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Carrier's proposals examine them in depth and his overarching, encompassing scholarly assessments are, to me, quite compelling. I am not, at this point, ordering them in a specified list of personal preference or significance. Carrier is, in my opinion, simply the most articulate present-day critic who, in big-picture fashion, is methodically dissecting and debunking the "historicity" claims offered up for "Jesus," as well as presenting evidence for various possible "Jesus Myth" origination scenarios. I have also cited other critics--with attributions to their ideas, complete with bibliographical sourcing--who I think make a good explanatory case for the rise of the "Jesus Myth." earl Doherty and Dan Barker particularly come to mind. (I have personally known, and worked with, Barker for years on various faith-vs.-reason projects).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:33AM by steve benson.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any concrete proof or ancient
> documentation supporting any alternate theory to
> the actual existence of the person Jesus? No.

Is there any concrete proof or ancient documentation supporting the actual existence of the person Jesus? No.

Oops.

Steve,

It's clear that you don't believe in an historical Jesus Christ...but do you believe in an historical God?

ICEMAN

I'm an open-and-acknowledged atheist and have said so repeatedly on this board, as well as in other public venues.

Why, you may ask, do I not believe in "an historical God"?

Because I called "Dial a Prayer"--and nobody answered.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 04:27AM by steve benson.

Something for you to consider:

http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/

When will religionists abandon their superstitions and find science?

ICEMAN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something for you to consider:
>
> http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/


That kind of dishonest, fallacious pap is the reason so many "believers" rightly get criticized as being uninformed, ignorant, and lacking critical thinking skills.
That's not "something to consider." It's something to be dismissed as dishonest, fallacious pap.
There are *reasonable* and *honest* people endeavoring to make arguments for belief in "god." What you linked to does not fall within that category.

It's unreasonable to believe that the incredible complexity of the simplest cell in your body "evolved" out of the ooze.

Assign a number that describes how many atoms are uniquely arranged in your DNA,

...then multiply that by the # of different kinds of cells in your body,

...then multiply "that" by the # of variables which have to be exactly a certain way in order to cause all the different cell types to organize into the different organs in your body,

... then multiply "that" by a factor which causes all the organs in your body to work together so that you were able to respond to my post,

...then multiply "that" by the different complexities of the opposite sex,

... then multiply that by the complexity of the reproduction process.

That takes care of you (sort of), but then you have to multiply "that" by the complexity factors of the millions of other different lifeforms on this planet

The "odds" are laughably against there NOT being an intelligence behind it all.

. . . by the federal courts as nothing but religiously-propagandistic, pseudo-scientific nonsense thinly masquerading as real science under the cover of so-called "Intelligent Design." It's a ploy that has been dishonestly, unscientifically and surreptitiously plotted and pushed by Jesus junkies at the "Discovery Institute" as part of their ongoing covert religious agenda that it wishes to sneak into public school science courses, in the name of Christ, through the back door of backwater religious superstition. These Sunday School scammers can believe what they want but the courts have ruled that they can't peddle it as purported "science" in the public schools when it is anything but.

Read the seminal Dover court decision that exposed it all as a blatantly anti-science fraud, where the judge, in no uncertain terms, declared this religious ruse to be clearly unconstitutional and therefore emphatically dismissed its baseless pleadings in a scathing ruling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:20PM by steve benson.

ICEMAN Wrote:
> The "odds" are laughably against there NOT being
> an intelligence behind it all.

Oh, look -- somebody who doesn't have a clue how "odds" are calculated, and who enjoys fallacious arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.

Your species evolved. So did all other life on this planet.

Just because something is complex, does not mean it finds its provenance in god.

There's lots of things we still don't fully understand:
- black hole singularities
- big bang singularity
- dark energy
- dark mass
- gravity
- higgs boson
- relativity / quantum conundrum
- consciousness
- alzheimer's disease
- lots of cancers
- arthritis
- lady gaga

Just because something exceeds our grasp to understand doesn't prove that god exists. It just proves that some things are still not fully understood by humans.

That's all.

I find Richard Carrier a breath of fresh air as a historian who is captivating as a speaker. He presents his research concisely, has a sense of humor, and is not afraid to say that he has changed his mind and might still change his mind as new evidence is presented.

. . . he's a potent scholarly force to be reckoned with who simply refuses to go away.

That's because he's really Satan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 05:28AM by steve benson.

FYI, I just posted a new topic requesting input from the community on the source of Jesus myth. This is your formal invite to explain your theory on how the myth came to be.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463613

And, now that I check, this "community" of which you speak is is none other than RfM?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1463613


Carrier has amply addressed the possible and/or likely sources of the "Jesus myth" (including writings of the Apostle Paul), as already cited by me on this board. (I just went ahead and quoted in your thread some of Carrier's thoughts on the matter). I have done the same for the ideas of other critics on the subject, as well--all of whom I have given space and citation to.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:36AM by steve benson.

My comment is focused only on judging scholarship by objective facts available regarding Carrier's two books that can be done without reading his actual work. First, I want to say that his books may be quite good, or quite bad. I would have to be a scholar in religious studies to make such an assessment, which I am not. But I am a professor at a major university and I am called on in my committee roles to assess the scholarship of faculty whose work I am not an expert in. Please excuse my writing errors, I am the queen of missing words and other such things, which is why my DW does the final read of my academic writing.

My background. Yes, this will sound 'prideful' and I apologize for that -- it is what it is. With that said I am well qualified to provide a 'general assessment' of scholarship. I have and still serve on faculty promotion and tenure review boards. This role requires me to assess scholarly work that I am not familiar with but for which I can find objective data on. I am a peer reviewer for several top management journals. My PhD is from Stanford University, one of the top three in my field.

Academia is fundamentally unfair, status oriented, and has agendas and all that other petty stuff. We are selfish and often wax eloquently on topics that are not our speciality. We are much more careful in those we know well as we know what our ideas will be judged, openly attacked by those who differ, etc. etc. The world of creating new knowledge in academia and the peer review process is a 'blood sport'. I am proud to be a part of it all -- and yes, I do sound pretty 'self-important' at the moment. Please be tolerant.

I love to read good religious scholarship that is written for a popular audience, which honestly is what we all are including myself. My search for good well thought out work that seemed to be grounded in real scholarship (what is behind it) is what drove me away from the 'church approved' sources. The church approved sources were just to sloppy, had to many logical flaws, and were just plain drivel. So sad that so many fine well-trained scholars have been so compromised by TSCC.

Now onto how I would assess Carrier as if I was reviewing him at the University level for a faculty appointment. I will only assess the two publications noted in the thread. He does have several others publications that are on his CV but alas, I do not have the time, energy, or motivation to pick it all apart.

First, Carrier is likely to be well trained to do high quality research. His PhD is from Columbia University, which has an excellent reputation in the humanities and religious studies. A big plus for him as a scholar and his capability to do very good and well thought out work.

Second, He does not have a tenure track full-time faculty appointment. But, the humanities is a very tough area to find such a positions as there are a lot more PhD graduates than there are full-time jobs. While he has worked in a university library, that would not count as an academic posting. It appears Carrier is taking a different path and focusing on books for regular readers of religious studies, which probably just about everyone on the rfm board, rather than academia. He gets 'a pass' from academia on this.

An item I would add to the above categories listed in the above thread that I would look at next is "scholarly impact". This is measured by the citations that the work has received and where and how it was published. That is, how much it is referenced in other academic publications and the peer review process used. I am sad to say he gets 'a fail' by academic standards by this criteria. Following is why.

Carrier's 2012 book has a total of four (4) citations on Google Scholar. Google Scholar uses the most liberal criteria for reporting citations in academia. Four (4) citations for a book can hardly be considered to have had any real scholarly impact. A rule of thumb in the management and organization sciences (my academic area of research) is that a book or article needs to reach the level of having 100 citations by other academic publications before it is considered to be "in the field" as a substantive contribution to scholarship. A book published in 2012 should have more citations on Google Scholar to be on its way to 100 citations in a reasonable amount of time. However, most published work does get fewer than 5 citations (I know, a sad state of affairs when you write something and only a few people in your field actually read and use it).

The 2014 publication is also from a self-published press, not an academic 'double-blind' peer reviewed press. It does not have any citations on Google Scholar. But, it has just arrived on the scene. This would not factor in one way or another until more information is available.

Regarding the items in the thread.

(1) "Passed peer review". There is no evidence that it passed a 'double-blind' peer review process.

Rather, the peer reviews it received were likely to be 'friendly reviews' that Carrier chose himself to help him improve his work. Friendly reviews are typically sought prior to putting work into a 'double-blind' review process. A very harsh and critical process where feedback is about everything that is wrong with your work and definitely not designed to make you feel good about yourself. It also takes a lot of time to go through (like at least a year) and as such is not very conducive to getting books and/or your ideas out in a very timely manner. Popular books are great for that. There is nothing 'less' with publishing popular books, especially if you want a lot of people to read them! I would not mind publishing a few myself, but alas, academia does not reward doing them. Bottom line, there is NO evidence of true rigorous academic peer review.


(2) "Published by Reputable Academic Presses." No, there is no evidence that Prometheus or Sheffield-Phoenix are academic presses by the standards of academia.

I did some cursory research on the publishers and they are of the ilk that do 'self-publishing'. Often, the author pays the costs of publishing their book rather than the publisher. As noted above, such presses do not subject their authors to a real 'double-blind' peer review process -- instead they rely more on past track record in publishing books. Rather, they are subjected to an 'editorial' process that shapes them up for a popular audience of religious scholarship like you and me. For example, Prometheus advertises itself as targeted at the lay audience and on notes that it "MAY" require reviews of manuscripts that are submitted.

As to whether or not they are reputable 'popular press publishers', I do not have the expertise to judge that.

(3) "Substantiated by Compelling Historical Evidence". Since I have not read his work I cannot offer any assessment on this point.

Now, with all that academic criticism and mumbo jumbo above, there are a number of books out there by many wonderful authors mentioned on rfm that are well written, well-thought out, logical in their arguments, very well referenced, and at least I have found to be very engaging. I have learned a great deal from these authors and their diligent and tireless work. My own thinking has been shaped by their ideas and many of these go to the heart of psychology and sociology which are my core disciplines. They have driven me to think much more deeply about Mormonism, Christianity, God, and what it means to me to live the measure of my existence.

My conjecture is that Carrier's writing is thoughtful and clear enough that a reader can agree or disagree with his ideas. That is a great complement to pay to a scholar. Many people disagree with my own scholarship. It makes for good conversations. I may well read Carrier's book simply because it looks like many people have read and thought about his work. I expect I would think about ideas in his book in different ways than I have before.

Bottom line. Something does not have to be written for an academic audience to be good. If something makes you think in a different way or appreciate a different point of view then it is good. If it does not, then it was not worth your time. I have found a lot of Mormon books and articles to be "chicken soup for the soul of a TBM" rather than anything that really tries to make you think and seek truth. As Keats said, "Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth, and that is all you need to know" (may not be exact on the quote).

Actually, books written for a purely academic audience are very hard to read and appreciate if you are not doing research in the specific area of study. I do not read publications that are written for religious academia myself nor do I intend to. It would be just too much damn hard work. Plus, who would I be able to talk to about the ideas in them -- they would just be to nuanced and difficult to relate. It would not be near as much fun or interesting to read as what mentioned and discussed here on rfm and other like boards. Plus, I learn a lot more practical things about how to navigate what I am facing in my transition out of Mormonism, especially as it relates to trying to figure out how to keep my family relationships from blowing up in my face.

In ending, it is really not useful to toss around the notion of 'academically approved' to prop up the legitimacy of works that any of us would really want to consider reading. It is just apples and oranges. Much more useful to read book reviews and get references from people we trust who have read the book. That is what I do.

To Steve Benson: I love your writing and your cartoons. Your series (with Bagley) in the daily universe made many of my days at BYU in 70's bearable. So I take this opportunity to say "thank you".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 11:09AM by mannaz.

Thank-you, Mannaz, for writing this.

Human beings seem so averse to uncertainty, yet uncertainty seems to be fundamental to gathering and extending knowledge. Probably the worst agony about leaving the morg is that one is plunged into uncertainty about things that once seemed so settled.

Strong personalities will do what strong personalities must: they make cogent arguments and provoke thought. However, strength of personality ought not be taken as any sort of proof. Science will have it's way ultimately as that knowledge is chewed over by others.

. . . but that, in the wake of that review, made recommended changes to its text so that it could qualify and therefore be accepted by a recognized academic publishing house. Keep in mind that James McGarth, a respected New Testament professor at Butler University, regards Carrier's work as having been acceptably and procedurally peer-reviewed (regardless of the fact the McGarth himself has expressed disagreement with some of Carrier's research findings).

(James McGrath, "Finally, There Will Be a Peer-Reviewed Case for Mythicism," 18 July 2013, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/07/finally-there-will-be-a-peer-reviewed-case-for-mythicism.htm)
_____


For a good description of the peer review process, see: "'Peer Review' Definition," at: http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:45PM by steve benson.

Steve, I am sorry but there is no evidence that the two book presses Carrier published his work in use a double-blind review process per their websites. Quite the contrary.

In my earlier post I referred to the practice of seeking out 'friendly reviews' This is when an author either sends the manuscript directly to specific people or has the press do that and all parties are known to each other. Good friendly reviewers speand a lot of time engaging your work and make many suggestions to improve or even fundamentally reshape your manuscript. Such critical feedback but colleagues who know your area of work well is considered a gift in academia. This is what Carrier's work appears to have been through. I am not at all making a statement as to the quality of his work. I am sure it is excellent otherwise folks like yourself, who are very knowledgeable and whose opinions are respected by many myself included, would not be discussing it.

So, I must reiterate that true academic standards, meaning a double-blind review process where both authors and reviewers do not know each other, is required to label something as 'peer reviewed' in the full acadmeic context. Otherwise, it is just 'reviewed'. We sometimes call those 'gimmes' as there is little risk it the work being rejected. Most quality presses accept about 10% or less of the manuscripts that are submitted or proposed.

Now, by standards employed in the popular press not having a double-blind review process is perfictly fine and honestly preferred, as the full acadmeic process takes a lot of elapsed time to complete.

And, as I noted earlier, there is a lot of excellent scholarship that does not go through the whole double-blind acadmeic peer review process. My bone was just about using the lable of 'academically peer reviewed' as a means to infer legitimacy and thereby suggesting it has been through a process that it has not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2014 06:56PM by mannaz.

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

To a guy (me) who considers blurbs on the back of a book to be peer review, it's interesting to hear how it works in real life. Gracias.

No kidding....I love the way he exposes Charlatans like Apostle Paul and puts forward a plausible argument about Jesus did not exist..

And Human asks; "Did this guy translate anything?"
His works are out there for anyone to access; obviously the guy is doing something right in the form of relaying good information.

It is naive beyond belief how anyone chooses to pick on guys like Carrier, Dawkins...
Who's gonna be next; Darwin?

This thread represents all I know of Jesus: contention. Assholes like Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith leave a trail of arguments and condemnation and violence in their fraudulent wake. Even if Jesus was real, he was fake. No one can perform the miracles he was credited with, and that's a fact. Do whatever you want with these three dickweeds of history; I'm staying with atheism.

They are nothing but A$$holes.
Just read what the idiots preach...

http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm

It's a wonder who falls for their crap anymore....

While I follow these posts because of the interesting debates, I'm totally in donbagley's camp.