Richard Carrier’s Dishonesty

Richard Carrier’s Dishonesty September 11, 2015

It is ironic that Richard Carrier’s blog post which accuses me of lying about his work blatantly misrepresents what I wrote. No one who has read things I’ve written – or listened to things I’ve said – would ever believe that I claimed that the Gospels have no symbolic stories in them, when I have so often said the opposite. The infancy stories (which I’ve discussed before) in the Gospels are just that – and are much like the infancy stories told about other historical figures besides Jesus.

But people who have read what I have written are presumably not Carrier’s intended audience.

I’m guessing that the criticisms I’ve offered in my recent articles must be too damaging to mythicism for Carrier to respond to them in a manner that is professional, scholarly, and fair, so that instead he is resorting to deception and expletives. But goodness me, if you can’t deal with criticism in a rational and mature manner, you really shouldn’t try to produce something that even pretends to be scholarship, never mind the actual thing.

It has been an interesting day – two people have ranted about me online, with fundamentalist complaints, yet from opposite sides of the spectrum!

"You are lying about historical Jesus scholars with that last statement, and you aren’t addressing ..."

Was Paul Uninterested in the Historical ..."
"None of those things are unrealistic possibilities to explore, but they don't really address the ..."

Was Paul Uninterested in the Historical ..."
"I haven't suggested anything along the lines of Paul being a space alien, have I?I ..."

Was Paul Uninterested in the Historical ..."
"These are all judgment calls made by scholars with years of experience in discussion with ..."

Was Paul Uninterested in the Historical ..."

Browse Our Archives