Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Richard Carrier Passes Peer-Review?

janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
CHRISTIANS ONLY:

Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:42:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!

Wow! you sure do know your stuff about the peer-reveiw process.:D

That's a good point. In order for the evidence to be good, it would have to persuade the majority of ancient historians and biblical scholars. But, I don't think Richard Carrier's book is going to do much, if anything at all to persuade any historians or scholars...Simply because the whole "Mythicist" movement was collasped in the late 19th and 20th century, simply because historians and scholars could not find any connection to Jesus of Nazareth, and pagan mytholgoical Gods because there was simply no idea of a Messiah in Pagan mythology, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection,etc.

Plus, Jews knew about these Pagan myths and wouldn't want anything to do with them.

I can't really see how Carrier would deny any extra-biblical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc..

These are all verified and established by historians and scholars. Plus we can verify the 4 gospel texts. The evidence is just too good.

I mean, it would be like arguing that the earth is "6000" years old. No Scientist is going to accept that becuase of all the evidence against it, and evidence for the earth being old.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 8:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:42:20 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!

Wow! you sure do know your stuff about the peer-reveiw process.:D

That's a good point. In order for the evidence to be good, it would have to persuade the majority of ancient historians and biblical scholars. But, I don't think Richard Carrier's book is going to do much, if anything at all to persuade any historians or scholars...Simply because the whole "Mythicist" movement was collasped in the late 19th and 20th century, simply because historians and scholars could not find any connection to Jesus of Nazareth, and pagan mytholgoical Gods because there was simply no idea of a Messiah in Pagan mythology, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection,etc.

Plus, Jews knew about these Pagan myths and wouldn't want anything to do with them.

I can't really see how Carrier would deny any extra-biblical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc..

These are all verified and established by historians and scholars. Plus we can verify the 4 gospel texts. The evidence is just too good.

I mean, it would be like arguing that the earth is "6000" years old. No Scientist is going to accept that becuase of all the evidence against it, and evidence for the earth being old.

Yes I agree... and not only would it have to persuade a majority of scholars, there would have to be a true movement of scholarly writing on the subject over a fairly long period of time. At least a good 10 years or more. And I agree the evidence is not stacked in his favor. But if his book is successful, we may see these 2 strings of interpretation compete with one another for a while. But I don't think it will be widely accepted.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 8:16:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 8:07:19 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:42:20 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!

Wow! you sure do know your stuff about the peer-reveiw process.:D

That's a good point. In order for the evidence to be good, it would have to persuade the majority of ancient historians and biblical scholars. But, I don't think Richard Carrier's book is going to do much, if anything at all to persuade any historians or scholars...Simply because the whole "Mythicist" movement was collasped in the late 19th and 20th century, simply because historians and scholars could not find any connection to Jesus of Nazareth, and pagan mytholgoical Gods because there was simply no idea of a Messiah in Pagan mythology, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection,etc.

Plus, Jews knew about these Pagan myths and wouldn't want anything to do with them.

I can't really see how Carrier would deny any extra-biblical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc..

These are all verified and established by historians and scholars. Plus we can verify the 4 gospel texts. The evidence is just too good.

I mean, it would be like arguing that the earth is "6000" years old. No Scientist is going to accept that becuase of all the evidence against it, and evidence for the earth being old.

Yes I agree... and not only would it have to persuade a majority of scholars, there would have to be a true movement of scholarly writing on the subject over a fairly long period of time. At least a good 10 years or more. And I agree the evidence is not stacked in his favor. But if his book is successful, we may see these 2 strings of interpretation compete with one another for a while. But I don't think it will be widely accepted.

Right, I've heard many bad things from scholars about Carrier's work being "Shoddy". I find it silly that some people think that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth(No offense to you if you do). I mean the documentation is just substantial and overwhelmingly true.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 8:39:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 8:16:25 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 8:07:19 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:42:20 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!

Wow! you sure do know your stuff about the peer-reveiw process.:D

That's a good point. In order for the evidence to be good, it would have to persuade the majority of ancient historians and biblical scholars. But, I don't think Richard Carrier's book is going to do much, if anything at all to persuade any historians or scholars...Simply because the whole "Mythicist" movement was collasped in the late 19th and 20th century, simply because historians and scholars could not find any connection to Jesus of Nazareth, and pagan mytholgoical Gods because there was simply no idea of a Messiah in Pagan mythology, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection,etc.

Plus, Jews knew about these Pagan myths and wouldn't want anything to do with them.

I can't really see how Carrier would deny any extra-biblical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc..

These are all verified and established by historians and scholars. Plus we can verify the 4 gospel texts. The evidence is just too good.

I mean, it would be like arguing that the earth is "6000" years old. No Scientist is going to accept that becuase of all the evidence against it, and evidence for the earth being old.

Yes I agree... and not only would it have to persuade a majority of scholars, there would have to be a true movement of scholarly writing on the subject over a fairly long period of time. At least a good 10 years or more. And I agree the evidence is not stacked in his favor. But if his book is successful, we may see these 2 strings of interpretation compete with one another for a while. But I don't think it will be widely accepted.


Right, I've heard many bad things from scholars about Carrier's work being "Shoddy". I find it silly that some people think that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth(No offense to you if you do). I mean the documentation is just substantial and overwhelmingly true.

Though theistically I am agnostic. I do accept the historicity of Jesus, and the fact that we can prove a surprisingly large amount of details about his life and death with our available canonical and non-canonical sources using historical methodology. Though these sources are inconsistent and painfully manipulated over the years we can still peal back the layers and see the historical Jesus.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 9:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 8:39:37 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/14/2014 8:16:25 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 8:07:19 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:42:20 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:29:16 PM, eNo wrote:
At 2/13/2014 11:23:10 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:15:27 AM, eNo wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:24:13 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
CHRISTIANS ONLY:


Richard Carrier is supposed to have a peer-reviewed book on Jesus of Nazareth being a myth, being released sometime in the spring.

1) How did his book pass peer-review?
2) Should we as Christians be worried, or is this just another internet "hype"?

Did it pass with or without revisions? Who wrote the primary decent??

Hmmm. I'm not sure. Here's the link to the article down below.

http://www.patheos.com...

Thanks for the link... I linked through there to his own blog explaining a little more about his peer review. http://freethoughtblogs.com...

He indicates that it passed peer-review with revisions... this is very common. It looks like he received both critical and non-critical revision requests, critical meaning he must meet the revision request in order to pass peer-review... and non-critial meaning they are just suggestions to improve the work but its up to the author whether they choose to make those revisions. He indicated he did both. Again, this is very common in peer-review.

As far as its implication to Christianity... I can see why Christians would be worried about a book like this, and its importance as the first "Jesus Myth" work to to be written by a scholar and pass peer-review is quite substantial. I'm sure their will be many atheists who will hold this work up as a banner and proof of the nonexistence of Jesus... but I personally would't worry to much about that. Its important to understand the context of this book. Scholarly opinion is not evidence of anything... its just an accepted interpretation of the evidence, and it certainly not the only accepted interpretation out there! It looks like it was only peer-reviewed by 2 scholars, so the majority of debate on his work will happen after publication, the jury is still out on this Methodology and Evidence Interpretation. And we don't know at this time whether the reviewers even weighed his interpretations... its not uncommon for reviewers of history to only judge the "technical" aspects of the work (i.e. did he use his primary sources correctly, was his bibliography comprehensive and correct, did he use the "correct" sources and translations of those sources... etc) they may not have really hammered on the arguments. But again, they could have... we just don't know. So we will have to wait and see, the majority of historical scholars will get the book when the rest of do... we will see what they say, I'm sure they will say a lot!

Wow! you sure do know your stuff about the peer-reveiw process.:D

That's a good point. In order for the evidence to be good, it would have to persuade the majority of ancient historians and biblical scholars. But, I don't think Richard Carrier's book is going to do much, if anything at all to persuade any historians or scholars...Simply because the whole "Mythicist" movement was collasped in the late 19th and 20th century, simply because historians and scholars could not find any connection to Jesus of Nazareth, and pagan mytholgoical Gods because there was simply no idea of a Messiah in Pagan mythology, crucifixion, or bodily resurrection,etc.

Plus, Jews knew about these Pagan myths and wouldn't want anything to do with them.

I can't really see how Carrier would deny any extra-biblical sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc..

These are all verified and established by historians and scholars. Plus we can verify the 4 gospel texts. The evidence is just too good.

I mean, it would be like arguing that the earth is "6000" years old. No Scientist is going to accept that becuase of all the evidence against it, and evidence for the earth being old.

Yes I agree... and not only would it have to persuade a majority of scholars, there would have to be a true movement of scholarly writing on the subject over a fairly long period of time. At least a good 10 years or more. And I agree the evidence is not stacked in his favor. But if his book is successful, we may see these 2 strings of interpretation compete with one another for a while. But I don't think it will be widely accepted.


Right, I've heard many bad things from scholars about Carrier's work being "Shoddy". I find it silly that some people think that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth(No offense to you if you do). I mean the documentation is just substantial and overwhelmingly true.

Though theistically I am agnostic. I do accept the historicity of Jesus, and the fact that we can prove a surprisingly large amount of details about his life and death with our available canonical and non-canonical sources using historical methodology. Though these sources are inconsistent and painfully manipulated over the years we can still peal back the layers and see the historical Jesus.

D