jgibson000

He has? On matters of history? Can you name these journals? And can you give us any names of other professional historians who hold RC in high regard? Is his work quoted or used by or recommended by professional historians?

Just curious.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Richard Carrier publications as of 2005

Richard Carrier's page on the II Modern Library

jgibson000

I repeat the question again since none of these publications of RC's -- with the possible exception of his entires on some ancient philosopher -- are on history, nor do they appear in peer reviewed journals (JHC is not such a one) and since you haven't suppiled anything that shows that he is hedld in high regard (respected") by professional historians, let alone quoted by them.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Let's not get off topic. Carrier is working on a PhD thesis from Columbia. When he does get his PhD, you will know more about his exact status among professional historians.

jgibson000

I repeat the question again since none of these publications of RC's -- with the possible exception of his entires on some ancient philosopher -- are on history, nor do they appear in peer reviewed journals (JHC is not such a one) and since you haven't suppiled anything that shows that he is hedld in high regard (respected") by professional historians, let alone quoted by them.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

What part of off topic don't you understand?

Steven Avery

Right. If and when.

Please note that the topic of this thread is in fact "Carrier's credentials.." .

I have used the phrase "aspiring professional historian" which I feel is a reasonable representation.

However Richard has used the phrase without any qualifer for about six years, calling himself a "professional historian", so it is a reasonable question to ask whether this has been a bit of an embellishment.

Meanwhile Richard has been a student, active in skeptic publications and with the following employment history.

http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/cv.pdf
Librarian's assistant
Teaching assistant
Graduate Student Fellow (from another url)

Sidenote:
Personally I felt that what I could see of the "Table Talk" article on Hitler looked pretty good. Some of his other stuff has been doctrinaire skeptic writings and some looked like pablum such as his article in "The History Teacher". Sometimes attempting to debunk the Bible looked to be a higher priority to Richard than accurate history and sound logic. This is painfully obvious on a close examination of 'Nativity'.

Now his 'Nativity' article has hit some 'speed bumps'. However I was a little surprised to see the 'credentials card' played, when Richard's hand is not all that hefty and his representations over these last years has been a bit questionable. I last discussed Richard's 'professional historian' assertion on a bibleapologetics forum over a year ago. Generally I am more interested in the strength of a work than its credential pedigree, whether the writer is Richard Carrier, Wieland Willker, Daniel Wallace, Martin Shue, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, Lee Strobel or skeptic sam or myself. However the topic is a reasonable discussion in any case for any writer. Most especially if they are using their credentials or professional phrase of respect as a support for their writing, possibly even to give it an air of authority or protection from possible critiques from the uncredentialed. This has been done by Richard and some skeptic supporters by referring to Richard as a 'professional historian' .

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetics

mountainman

Arnaldo Momigliano's "credentials" did not seem to matter.
Why should Carrier's?

In a recent thread in which Eusebius invention of a new form
of historiography was discussed by M, you appealed to the
forum, almost as an arbitur in the situation of the assessment
of what Momigliano was saying, about this issue.

If you can read Momigliano as you please, with your own
conservative agendas, then what makes you think it makes
any difference whatsoever whether the author of historical
commentary has credentials?

Apikorus

Hey here's a rare instance in which I agree with praxeus. I think that in order to be accounted a "professional X" one must both have relevant training, experience, and a job as an X. E.g. I am a professional scientist because I have a Ph.D., publications, and I am employed as a professor. A Ph.D. student is just that -- a student. He or she may have publications, teach classes, go to conferences, receive a stipend for teaching and/or research, etc. -- that is all part of the requisite training. But a student is a student and not a professional.

That being said, there are students whom I've met who are smarter and already better scientists than some "professionals". But by the same token, quite a few Europeans I've met know more about U.S. geography, history, and laws than most Americans, but, to state the obvious, that doesn't make them American citizens.

On the matter of Richard Carrier himself, I am agnostic. The articles of his which I've read have generally impressed me as being on a high level, but I've got rather little interest in the New Testament and he doesn't have much to say about Hebrew Bible, so our spheres of interest have little overlap. I wish him every success in his studies and I appreciate the energies he has devoted to the internet infidels project. It is rare to find people so young who have already left such a big footprint. So to Richard, if he ever reads this, I would say yasher koach!

I also agree with praxeus that it is best to independently assess the strength of an argument and not rely too much on experts. But I also think that it is good to have some understanding of where the scholarly consensus lies and why, assuming there is such a consensus in the first place.

jgibson000

I'm not sure it's me who is labouring under a misunderstanding.

The claim was made that Richard is someone who should be listened to because he has published articles on ancient history in peer reviewed journals dedicated to the subject and (explicity) that he is now "respected" by professionals in the field.

But so far as I can see, RC has published nothing on ancient history in any peer reviewed journals dealing with any type of history. And nothing in his CV says otherwise.

And so far as I can tell, RC is an unknown among professional historians. His "historical" work is, to my knowledge, never cited or acknowledged in books from academic and professional presses or peer reviewed journals, nor has his "work" received any reviews, let alone favourable ones, in professional publications -- the usual and expected indications that someone is "respected". So there is no indication that RC is, as was claimed, presently "respected" by those in the "historians" guild.

Claiming, as you do, that he will be favourably recognized once he publishes his Ph.D is not only crystal ball gazing; it is hardly proof of the claim that was made that he is presently respected.

Moreover, you have mislabled this thread. The issue that was being discussed was not RC's credentials. It was, rather, where he has published and what his reputation as an historian is among recognized professionals in the field.

So can you please cite the peer reviewed journals in which anything he has written on ancient history has been published?

Can you please quote to me anything from professional historians showing that Richard is "respected" as an historian (or as anything else for that matter) by professional historians?

Jeffrey Gibson