Toto

The other thread was about the content of Carrier's article, and I didn't want to get it thrown off-topic by discussing Carrier himself.

I suspect that Sven puffed Richard up a bit. But that's all irrelevant. He was not claiming that a certain fact is true because the well known authority Richard Carrier said so. He was only commenting on the irony of a rank amateur like praxeus criticizing Carrier's professionalism.

I really don't care to get into a clinical dissection of Carrier's professional status, and I don't think anyone else does either. That's not the purpose of this forum.

jgibson000

But Sven made his "point" about Carrier's "professionalism" by citing certain "facts" about Carrier. Now don't get me wrong. I agree with the evaluation of Steve's status. I'd even go so far as to say that to call Steve a "rank amateur" is to insult those who deserve the title. But if the facts cited to prove that Richard is a published and "respected" historian are untrue, the "point" doesn't stand.

Who here is asking for, or has engaged in, such a dissection?

I'd just like to see some evidence that supports the claims Sven made that RC has published historical work (or for than matter, on matters Greek) in peer reviewed journals and that he is "respected" by professional historians (and Greek scholars).

I take it that your equivocation above about what's going on here means that you have none to give.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

I take the fact that Richard Carrier has a Masters in History and Philosophy from Columbia and is working on a PhD thesis as indicating that he is no slouch. I think very highly of what he has written on a variety of subjects. But I am not a professional historian and have no access to their opinions.

I was under the impression that JHC was peer reviewed. That might be what Sven meant.

But in any case, this is not an appropriate topic here. I will be closing this thread.