GakuseiDon

It looks terrible! The required reading is "Not the Impossible Faith", a book that responds to JP Holding's work. And it gets worse! Edward Babinski makes this comment on Carrier's blog:

Carrier also points his students to a list of some of the best modern day Evangelical Christian apologetic works by Licona, Habermas and Craig. It's not like he hasn't interacted with other people's arguments.

If this was any other course, wouldn't people be up in arms on the use of apologetic works to discuss the origins of Christianity? What do modern apologetic works -- even "the best modern day Evangelical Christian apologetic works" -- have to do with the "real" origins of Christianity?

Toto

"Not the Impossible Faith" does not in any way resemble JP Holding's work. For one thing, it was written by a professional historian. The process of responding to JP Holding did involve doing real historical research.

The Christian apologistss are only mentioned in a note for those who want to see the best Christian apologists have to offer on the historicity of the resurrection. Otherwise, the course uses some video from Bart Ehrman and essays from other respectable scholars.

What exactly would you expect to see in a short, four week course on Christian origins?

GakuseiDon

Some video from Bart Ehrman and essays from other respectable scholars.

If it is just a list of works to Christian apologists, then that's okay I suppose. But I took Babinski's comment differently.

archibald

Personally, I have my doubts about Carrier. He's a little too evangelical. I worry about bias. Also, as DCH suggests, his cv is perhaps not impressive by academic standards.

But, otoh, he is a secular, qualified historian, and an ancient historian at that.

So I think I should read him and cut him some slack.

Have ordered the book required by that course. It still hasn't come, because I entered the wrong credit card details, but I'm looking forward to it.

I was able to read the first few pages (at Amazon, as I recall). It starts with an interesting observation about Inanna, who (as I'm sure a lot of you already know) was described as having descended through various (lower) levels, then got 'crucified' (ok her already dead body was hung on a hook). After 3 days and nights, a rescue party was organized.

This is just in answer to the question, 'who would worship a crucified figure?' and Carrier does not, as far as I could see, make a meal of any possible parallells.

Toto

I think Babinski's comment was directed at the first response on the blog, from a Christian who was interested in the course to see "the other side." It was not a description of the reading list. Carrier's book is the required reading, but there are also a few videos and a reading list of essays and primary materials, that you get if you sign up.

It always amazes me how easy it is to miscommunicate on the interwebs.

Stringbean

Much as I would like to, no way..if it took a quarter to get around the world I would not get out of sight!

Doug Shaver

So do I, but do you know anybody working in this field who is not biased?

archibald

There are definitely very few of us, I think. :]