Historical Research around the Blogosphere

Historical Research around the Blogosphere May 6, 2013

Kevin Brown has finished reviewing Richard Carrier’s book.  I’ve shared other parts previously, but now you can read part threepart four, and part five. In the final part of the review, Brown sums up his assessment this way:

All in all, I found this book to be pretty mediocre. Richard Carrier states in his bio on his blog that he is a specialist in Christian origins and with this book he has tried to make a name for himself in the field. But he has failed. Abysmally. This book only goes to demonstrate Carrier’s lack of familiarity with the field he is trying to navigate.

It has been funny to see the blog Vridar criticize Richard Carrier for criticizing the non-scholarly mythicist contributions to a volume to which he also contributed. If mythicists are going to not take seriously the one individual with a PhD in history who supports mythicism, is it any surprise that mythicism is not taken seriously by others?

Tom Verenna blogged about recognizing fiction in history.

Mike Kok shared a handout about the fact that Christianity did not appear in a historical vacuum (and another about the Synoptic problem).

Duane Smith mentioned a new, free journal of ancient history.

Ken Schenck suggested that, for “most scholars think” to be a meaningful phrase, most scholars need to make their work freely available online.

James Tabor discussed whether historians exclude the supernatural a priori.

Finally, Hieroi Logoi mentioned Morton Feldman’s avant garde setting of the Turfan Fragments.

Browse Our Archives