Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 05-25-2011, 08:26 AM

JW:
For all you fans of Dr. Richard Carrier I note that he has now been accepted as a contributing source for:

Quote:

21st century

In 2006, Richard Carrier published the 5th edition of his 1999 The Date of the Nativity in Luke essay In that work he goes over all the attempts to reconcile Luke and Matthew as well as the internal problems Luke has if one assumes that the Herod mentioned in Luke is indeed Herod the Great.

Carrier points out that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 BC and was succeeded by Quintilius Varus who held the position at least until Herod's death. He also points out "we do not even have any evidence that anyone ever served as governor of the same consular province twice in the whole of Roman history, so it would have been extremely unusual and quite remarkable--so much so that it would be odd that no one mentions it, not even Josephus, or Tacitus who gives us the obituary of Quirinius in Annals 3.48, a prime place to mention such a peculiar accomplishment."

Citing Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 62:2 (April, 2000): pp. 278–93 Carrier says that the Herod the King reference in Luke 1:5 could refer to Herod's successor Archelaus (who only called himself "Herod" on his coins) as "even Josephus, who otherwise refers to Archelaus as ethnarch, could still call him a king (Antiquities of the Jews 18.93)" and that "at the only place in the New Testament where the name "Archelaus" is used (Matthew 2:22), he is said to have basileuei, "reigned," a term that does not entail but nevertheless implies a status of king (basileus), in contrast to other verbs of governing that could have been chosen."

Based on all the evidence Carrier gathered he concluded that "if one of the two authors must be correct, then Matthew is far more likely the one who has it wrong."

The related talk page provides the traditional reasons that Wikipedia has resisted using Dr. Carrier, which have now become ironic:

Talk:Census of Quirinius

Quote:

We now have several prominent quotations on the Census of Quirinius page from Richard Carrier's online article. There was discussion on this page a year ago about whether this ought to be cited – see "restructuring &c", above – and the balance of opinion at the time seemed to be against. Andrew_c pointed out that Carrier's article was published on a website he edited, which effectively qualifies it as self-published.

The objection is that Dr. Carrier's original article is at The Secular Web site where Dr. Carrier has been an editor, so it is "self-published", and this is a proof-text against. Ironically, once an author is accepted in a Wikipedia article, this becomes a proof-text, to accept her in general at Wikipedia.

Quote:

The reference to Carrier as an "atheist historian" implies that he counts as an authoritative source because he's saying something that supports the accuracy of a text sacred to a religion he disagrees with. I think this kind of emphasis on the personal beliefs of scholars is more in the style of web-forum polemics than an encyclopedia article. If Carrier is an authority on Quirinius' census(es), we should discuss his views in general (to my mind, the best argument presented last year in favour of citing him was that he's fairly prominent online and readers would want to see how his views fit into a wider picture); if not, we shouldn't make an exception for those of his statements that support partial Biblical accuracy. I would favour removing the references to his work entirely; we should be able to find a more authoritative source saying that Luke's account is not historically improbable, even if its author isn't an atheist. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that because Dr. Carrier is an atheist he should be exorcised from the article. No related comment about supporters of historicity all being clergy.

Quote:

First of all, last time I checked, Carrier was not a recognized historian. He was simply a graduate student. To be a recognized historian, you have to have recognitions, such as a doctorate degree. You have to be published in notable historical journals (Freethought Today and Skpetical Inquirer do not count). That said, I believe the quotations from Carrier are inaccurate, or do not accurately describe his position. After saying that Luke's account could be plausible, he then states "Nevertheless, it's possible Luke deliberately added both of these features to the story for apologetic reasons." It appears he is just discussion all possibilities. Similarly, he concluded "I think Luke strained to force his story to seem more plausible than it already was when it got to him." But regardless what Carrier's actual beliefs are, I do not believe that we should be citing him as a recognized historian, nor using a webpage that he published himself without editorial oversight. He uses very thorough sources, so perhaps we should use his article as a spring board for our own research. We could dig out the books that Carrier cites and use them here. Carrier's footnote 1.4 looks like a good place to start for people who argue that Luke's account of a census contains plausible information.-Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The objection is that Dr. Carrier is not a historian. Now he has a PhD in ancient history while most of the supporters of historicity in the article do not.

Quote:

According to his own about page, [2], Richard Carrier is a grad student in Ancient History at Columbia specializing in Roman science. Although it is possible for him to do good work outside of his expertise, it is fair to say that most scholars active in this field have not heard of him (yet). Stephen C. Carlson (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And the most strange/bizarre/macabre comment from our own Stephen Carlson. Carlson confesses that at the time Dr. Carrier was a grad student in ancient history and in the next sentence refers to him doing work outside of his expertise. The only other sentence is a statement that most related scholars have not heard of Dr. Carrier even though Carlson and Dr. Carrier interact in Dr. Carrier's offending article.

Apparently Dr. Carrier finally got in because the editors went to a chronological presentation of scholarly positions and everyone was unable to find any 21st century scholarly presentation outside of Dr. Carrier's.

For fellow Truth-speakers, the original related Thread at FRDB is here:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

while the article at ErrancyWiki is here:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006)

Enjoy!

I've started my stopwatch to see exactly how long it takes for RiP to delete the reference to Dr. Carrier at Wikipedia.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

PhilosopherJay · 05-25-2011, 01:51 PM

Hi Joe,

Interesting and good information about this important issue. Thanks.

I like how Wikipedia now puts the issue:

Quote:

No other record of such a census exists, and the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars.[3][4] The Gospel of Matthew has a different birth narrative, with Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died c. 4 BC. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke,[5] thus casting doubt on the Historical reliability of the Gospels.

The only thing I don't like is saying that "the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars." It should read that all rational people reject the absurd notion that people would be forced to return to ancestral cities for a census.

First, then as now, the vast majority of people who had migrated to other cities would have had no money to return to their "ancestral city." Also to travel from one part of the empire to another could take two or three months. Imagine forcing millions of people to stop working, leave their families for up to half a year, so they could sign a piece of paper, thousands of miles from where they live and work.

How many people actually knew their ancestral homes? How could you be sure that they were telling the truth and not simply listing the town they lived in as their ancestral home to avoid traveling?

What would be the point of such a census? You can't tax people where they don't live and at the end of the day, it wouldn't even tell you how many people are living in any one city so you could distribute goods or services. The information obtained would be absolutely useless.

Let us say that the population of city "A" founded in 600 B.C.E. had been founded by 1,000 people, it now had a population of 10,000 and it was the ancestral home of 40,000 people scattered around the empire. The population of city "B" was 10,000 when it was founded in 200 B.C.E. and now has a population of 1,000, with 400,000 people descended from the original settlers scattered around the empire.

What possible good would this information do you? To trace migration patterns, perhaps? Each city would have a different migration pattern due to poverty, plagues, wars, trade opportunities and environmental factors. Perhaps if each person could tell you where their great great grandfathers had moved to and why they moved, you could attempt some kind of abstract thesis regarding migration patterns, but even here unless you could understand how often and why they moved, it would prove to be nonsensical information.

If I wrote "Janus Chimp lied in the time of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt's war. In the war, Roosevelt forced each soldier to carry pictures of their grandparents pets with them." Would this be evidence of the historical existence of "Janus Chimp?" Rather, wouldn't it be evidence that "Janus Chimp" is a fictional character?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ApostateAbe · 05-25-2011, 10:48 PM

Joseph, you have your own Wiki, like the representatives of so many other interest groups, and you can build up what you own. I don't think the fact that Richard Carrier is an atheist kills his credibility. The stuff that greatly hinders his credibility in the eyes of Wikipedia editors and administrators are: (1) his opinions are extremely bizarre with respect to the remainder of the scholarly establishment, (2) he does not have a teaching or research position at any accredited academic institution, (3) his only support comes from a non-academic interest group, (4) all of his positions line up strongly with that interest group.

Of course, Richard Carrier may be a very well-reasoned individual with very well-reasoned arguments. But, for editors of Wikipedia aspiring to make Wikipedia a credible outlet of information, they do not and should not make their decisions based on the uneducated judgments of the probability of ideas, but on the credibility of the experts who support them. Richard Carrier simply is not a credible expert. It matters only a little if he has a "Ph.D." after his name.

Doug Shaver · 05-26-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

How many people actually knew their ancestral homes? How could you be sure that they were telling the truth and not simply listing the town they lived in as their ancestral home to avoid traveling?

Here is another question that occurred to me a very long time ago and I have never seen addressed by either side: Which ancestor's home would have counted as one's ancestral home?

Toto · 05-26-2011, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Joseph, you have your own Wiki, like the representatives of so many other interest groups, and you can build up what you own. I don't think the fact that Richard Carrier is an atheist kills his credibility. The stuff that greatly hinders his credibility in the eyes of Wikipedia editors and administrators are: (1) his opinions are extremely bizarre with respect to the remainder of the scholarly establishment,

No, they are not, and this is potentially libelous. What exactly do you count as bizarre?

Quote:

(2) he does not have a teaching or research position at any accredited academic institution, (3) his only support comes from a non-academic interest group, (4) all of his positions line up strongly with that interest group.

I don't think he has a single source of support, and I don't know which positions you think line up.

Quote:

Of course, Richard Carrier may be a very well-reasoned individual with very well-reasoned arguments. But, for editors of Wikipedia aspiring to make Wikipedia a credible outlet of information, they do not and should not make their decisions based on the uneducated judgments of the probability of ideas, but on the credibility of the experts who support them. Richard Carrier simply is not a credible expert. It matters only a little if he has a "Ph.D." after his name.

Wikipedia has its own standards, and this does not describe their processes.

avi · 05-26-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Richard Carrier simply is not a credible expert.

Then, Abe, can you explain:

a. What parameters should be met, to attain the status of "credible expert"?

b. Which of those parameters has Carrier failed to meet?

I would offer this group of parameters:

1. fluent knowledge of at least three of these four languages:

coptic
aramaic
greek
latin

AND,

intimate knowledge of Hebrew.

Knowledge of middle Persian, Syriac, Arabic, and Egyptian Hieroglyphics would also be helpful in establishing "expert" stature.

2. some publication, in any journal, on any subject relating to the Bible, or biblical era investigations.

Does Carrier meet that list of qualifications? Does anyone?

avi

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 05:05 AM

Based on Abe's arguments, "credible" seems to include scholars such as W.L. Craig and Gary Habermas...

JoeWallack · 05-26-2011, 05:39 AM

I am a KGB (Kristian God Bible) master spy. There is a KAA-12 mole sleeper agent planted here who's Mission is to assassinate the credibility of the President of Rational and will be activated by a false prediction of the end of the world. His name is Ab. Ab State.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I am a KGB (Kristian God Bible) master spy. There is a KAA-12 mole sleeper agent planted here who's Mission is to assassinate the credibility of the President of Rational and will be activated by a false prediction of the end of the world. His name is Ab. Ab State.

:hysterical:

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Richard Carrier simply is not a credible expert.

Then, Abe, can you explain:

a. What parameters should be met, to attain the status of "credible expert"?

b. Which of those parameters has Carrier failed to meet?

I would offer this group of parameters:

1. fluent knowledge of at least three of these four languages:

coptic
aramaic
greek
latin

AND,

intimate knowledge of Hebrew.

Knowledge of middle Persian, Syriac, Arabic, and Egyptian Hieroglyphics would also be helpful in establishing "expert" stature.

2. some publication, in any journal, on any subject relating to the Bible, or biblical era investigations.

Does Carrier meet that list of qualifications? Does anyone?

avi

There are a number of things that help to establish the credibility of an expert in any field, and I alluded to them in my list.

Has a graduate degree in the relevant field from a high-ranking accredited academic institution
Holds a teaching or research position in the relevant field at an accredited academic institution
Has authored articles published in respected peer-reviewed journals
Has authored publications that are positively cited by many other experts in the same field
Has opinions that are representative of a significant portion of other scholars in the same field

There is a different list of criteria for judging the lack of credibility of an expert. In addition to lacking the items from the list above,

Has positions that are strongly ridiculed or condemned by many other experts in the field
Has positions that strongly align with the same non-academic special interest group that supports the expert's living
Has been convicted of plagiarism or other serious forms of academic dishonesty

Such criteria are somewhat universal for judging the credibility of experts for professionals from the outside of the field. That isn't to say that all experts who meet these criteria are credible--but I take it to be a set of minimum requirements.

Having evidence of knowledge of ancient languages is a plus for Richard Carrier, but I don't think that anyone outside the field can be expected to easily judge how well Carrier knows ancient languages. And, if that and his Ph.D. are his only pluses, then it seems like his credibility falls very short for the four reasons that I gave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Based on Abe's arguments, "credible" seems to include scholars such as W.L. Craig and Gary Habermas...

Neither of those experts hold a teaching/research position at an accredited academic institution (except with a loose definition of "accredited").

05-26-2011, 05:39 AM	#8
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	State I am a KGB (Kristian God Bible) master spy. There is a KAA-12 mole sleeper agent planted here who's Mission is to assassinate the credibility of the President of Rational and will be activated by a false prediction of the end of the world. His name is Ab. Ab State.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-25-2011, 10:48 PM	#3
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Joseph, you have your own Wiki, like the representatives of so many other interest groups, and you can build up what you own. I don't think the fact that Richard Carrier is an atheist kills his credibility. The stuff that greatly hinders his credibility in the eyes of Wikipedia editors and administrators are: (1) his opinions are extremely bizarre with respect to the remainder of the scholarly establishment, (2) he does not have a teaching or research position at any accredited academic institution, (3) his only support comes from a non-academic interest group, (4) all of his positions line up strongly with that interest group. Of course, Richard Carrier may be a very well-reasoned individual with very well-reasoned arguments. But, for editors of Wikipedia aspiring to make Wikipedia a credible outlet of information, they do not and should not make their decisions based on the uneducated judgments of the probability of ideas, but on the credibility of the experts who support them. Richard Carrier simply is not a credible expert. It matters only a little if he has a "Ph.D." after his name.

05-26-2011, 05:05 AM	#7
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Based on Abe's arguments, "credible" seems to include scholars such as W.L. Craig and Gary Habermas...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.