Richard Carrier Responds

Richard Carrier Responds September 10, 2012

Richard Carrier has posted a response to my review of his book, Proving History. I'm not sure that there is anything that needs to be said by me in response, since he clearly is hedging on whether the earliest Jewish Christians thought that Jesus was a God, accepts what is perhaps the clearest example of a scholarly consensus that reflects bias resulting from religious conviction (the view that Jesus was considered a pre-existent divine person by Paul), criticizes me for not couching my criticisms in math while not responding with math himself, and objects to my demand that terms like “anointed one” which could refer to different kinds of figures be treated with the necessary specificity. But click through and have a read, and if readers of this blog feel that I should address any of the points he makes there, let me know and I will try to do so.

 

"I never thought about it before, but Paul stressing Jesus was of David's line is ..."

Genealogies and the Age of the ..."
"James said: I've thought that Q might have had some reference to Jesus being born ..."

Genealogies and the Age of the ..."
"That's a great question. That two authors independently decide to add infancy stories and genealogies ..."

Genealogies and the Age of the ..."
"Was there a primitive genealogy in Q that Matthew and Luke built their's from? It ..."

Genealogies and the Age of the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Here’s a link to another review of Carrier’s book:
    A Mathematical Review of “Proving History” by Richard Carrier.

    It is primarily reviewing the mathematical aspects of Carrier’s book, so I see it as complementing your earlier review.

  • smijer

    Speaking as a person persuaded of historicity, I would not like to see you let yourself off the hook so easily. So… if no other reader offers points for further discussion, I have a few in mind.

  • smijer

    Speaking as a person persuaded of historicity, I would not like to see you let yourself off the hook so easily. So… if no other reader offers points for further discussion, I have a few in mind.

  • smijer

    Speaking as a person persuaded of historicity, I would not like to see you let yourself off the hook so easily. So… if no other reader offers points for further discussion, I have a few in mind.

  • smijer

    Sorry – disqus was giving me an internal server error.

  • Guest

    Readers here might be interested in a mathematical review of Carrier’s book. Spoiler – Carrier is well outside his expertise writing about probability theory and Bayes Theorem. http://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/

  • I came across your blog by way of Richard’s. I’ve tried debating him a little bit but it’s very difficult as you can wait a day or two before he allows a comment to be seen.

    As an agnostic I am very disappointed in the online atheist community. On scientific matters I’m in agreement but… holy crap… on social issues…. Richard has an entire post in praise of insults and the slur… wtf??

    Are these things really that hard to figure out?

    I know it’s irrational but the stunning display of out right assholery and even the praise for it… tends to cause me to doubt the validity of everything else people like Richard Carrier or other prominent online atheists have to say.