ApostateAbe

I use a definition of "misquote" that is common in the EvC debates, and I take it to be a more useful one. If a writer uses a quote to mislead a reader about the meaning intended by the author of the quote, then it is a misquote, regardless of whether or not the words technically match the original writing. This is most often done by taking a quote out of its essential context. But, I have also seen it done by replacing relevant text with ellipses. It can be no less dishonest than inventing the words of the quote. For example, I can quote you as saying, "I don't see the confusion that you claim, although it is possible...that makes Carrier guilty of all the sins that JPH claims." All the words match, but it is still a damned misquote.

Carrier seemingly used that ill quote to make it seem as though it is historical Jewish law that a blasphemer or a criminal would have a temporary one-day burial. That is essential to his thesis. It is also an essential claim of his that "...a body could not remain hanging into the night." The complete rendering of the latter portion of the misquote of Josephus actually seems to contradict that claim!

Since Carrier got the footnote citation of Josephus wrong, I am willing to concede that I may have jumped the gun on concluding that Carrier was being outright dishonest. If he was careless enough to get the footnote wrong, then he may also have been too careless to interpret Josephus correctly, and he made a somewhat risky decision to unite two distant passages of Josephus that he mistakenly thought were of the same subject. This doesn't reflect too much better on Carrier, unfortunately.

Switch89

No, I don't believe he's honest. And yes, I think there are many problems and instances of special pleading/fallacious reasoning embedded in Turkel's writings. I've written about these on my blog, aigbusted.blogspot.com

Just do a search.

But all this misses the point. Turkel is dishonest and engages in fallacious reasoning, Sure. But that doesn't mean his accusation against Carrier is not true, or deserves no consideration.

Toto

You need to distinguish between misquoting, quote mining, and omitting relevant parts of the quote.

Carrier's stated reason for quoting Josephus was to show the importance of taking down a body before sundown (which marked the beginning of a new day.)

I don't think so -are you taking into account that sundown marked the end of one day and the beginning of a new day in Jewish reckoning?

I don't think he got Josephus wrong, other than mixing up JW and AJ. The two parts of the passage were on the same subject: the necessity of burying the dead, however they died.

Switch89

Let's put all this in perspective:

Carrier quoted Josephus in a way which could be very misleading to his readers and in a way which also just so happens to support the thesis he was arguing for. However, he does not explicitly point out how the misquoted passage supports his case. If he had done so, he would have created a very damning indictment against himself. Nevertheless, the fact that he didn't do this doesn't mean that he wasn't being dishonest in the quotation.

Carrier originally got the citation wrong, which may be due to sloppiness, or perhaps he wanted to cover his tracks (making the citation more difficult to check so that he would not get caught, or purposefully using the wrong citation so that, if the misquote was discovered, others would be more willing to attribute it to sloppiness).

I'm not on a crusade to slander Carrier. I don't want to jump to conclusions. I'm just on a search for the truth. I've exchanged quite a few emails with him, and have always found him to be very honest in the way he approaches things. Furthermore, I know that Carrier is a very bright guy (much brighter than myself, in fact) and so that leads me to question whether he would actually be willing to take such a foolish risk. Further, I have trouble understanding why (if he was dishonest, which is as yet unproven) he would feel the need to fabricate evidence against apologetic arguments. They aren't that strong.

So, giving Carrier the benefit of the doubt, my tentative conclusion is that he made a sloppy mistake.

Toto

Carrier has always said that he is willing to correct his mistakes when they are pointed out to him.

In this case, the idea of reburial is a minor point. It is one of the many theoretical possibilities that is more likely than the resurrection as an explanation of the empty tomb, but not one that Carrier endorses as the most likely.

Switch89

I suppose that's a good point, one which counts against the possibility of deliberate fraud, which I've already decided against (for the time being, anyway).

Toto

I don't get this whole thread. JPHolding thinks he found an error in Carrier's work, and he goes ballisitic and announces that this is a major fraud, a lie, a crime against nature. But there was no misquote, there was no misrepresentation. There was an error in attribution (unless there is more to that), and there is the possibility that someone might misinterpret the quote. But this doesn't seem to matter to Carrier's argument in any case.

Does JPH deserve this amount of attention?

judge

The problem is that if we become apologists for richard carrier and excuse him here or even minimse this, then how can we take fundamentalists to task if they do the same?

Toto

Fundamentalists do much more than this.

What do you think the real issue is here?

judge

Yes...and?

Fundamentalists are dangerous enough (to us all) without giving them excuses to be even more blinded by a lack or reason.