Sheshbazzar

By that standard of reasoning the 'serpent handlers' and strychnine drinkers both have it right, and are setting the proper example for all.
Mark 16:18 "they shall...."

LegionOnomaMoi

However snobbish she may be, and however wrong she is about her assertion concerning Carrier's credentials, the idea that historical questions are only adequately answered by people with degrees in history is very problematic. Most historians, or at least those who deal with ancient history (rome, greece, sumeria, egypt, etc.) do not have degrees with the word "history" in it. They are anthropologists, archaeologists, classicists, biblical/N.T. scholars, and so forth. And if you look at most PhD history programs that offer a focus in ancient history, typically most of the instructors for graduate classes are from other disciplines (e.g., classics) and don't even work in that department. This includes the PhD program Columbia offers, which is where Carrier got his doctorate. His program included an inter-disciplinary collaboration between the philosophy department, classics, history, etc. That's why he has an M.Phil: it's awarded in that program automatically while one is pursuing a PhD. It's also why there are so few professors in the history department at columbia whose specialty is in ancient history, let alone ancient greco-roman history (Carrier's specialty), and why at least one of the 5 members who sat on his PhD committee is a classicist from the classics department there (I think the others are either from other schools or other departments, with the possible exception of Harris who I believe is a classicist at the history dept. there).

Most people with degrees in "history" of some sort study the modern period, or study a specific type of history (e.g., "art history"). Also, philosophers often work in this field, and are perhaps more trained than any others, as they are more familiar with epistemology and the validity of methods (and validity period; logic is still the specialty of philosophers).

Carrier is by no means more qualified simply because his doctorate has the word "history" in it. It doesn't disqualify him by any means either, of course. But it does put him at a disadvantage, because historical Jesus studies require a familiarity with Jewish studies (and, usually, Hebraic languages) as well as Greco-Roman studies. Biblical/N.T. specialists typically have at least some training in Hebraic languages, and often a great deal more. Also, given the near eastern background of the O.T., they typically have a greater familiarity with the region in general and with archaeology of this area. For one thing, classicists, romanists, hellenists, etc., have a whole lot more textual data to work with than near eastern specialists. I don't know how much Carrier has studied these fields, and I hope the relevant sections in Proving History were not indicative.

Tenorikuma

West is a funny character. On his blog, he's quite the curmudgeon and theologically very conservative, but he's also congenial to minimalism and good pals with Lemche and Thompson. Though I can't tell what, if anything, he has contributed in the way of Biblical criticism.