Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-14-2002, 11:42 AM

Partial post by Toto:

Quote:

By that analogy, the true founder figure of Christianity is Paul.

We don't agree on this point:
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock (stone/pebble/
whathaveyou) I will build my church" and other
utterances (not to mention a mission or two)indicates that some sort of leadership structure, albeit an embryonic one, was being formed while Jesus was alive. All the denominations with which I have any type of familiarity, take Pentecost as the beginning of
the active role of the church. On that first Penecost, Paul was years away from being
converted (say 4 to 6 years). What were those
early Christians, chopped liver? No, Christianity, whatever one makes of it, existed (and so was "founded") years before Saul/Paul converted.

I merely brought in these other religions to try
to determine whether it was indeed true that "routinely" founder figures are wholly ahistorical
('mythic' in that limited sense).

I don't believe most scholars of ancient history
consider Buddha to be ahistorical.

Cheers!

Sauron · 10-14-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Layman overstates the appeal that Herod had with the Jews. There is no reason to believe that the Jews would have rolled over and quietly accepted a census by Herod, but revolt in the streets and reject one from Quirinius.

I did not overstate Herod's usefuleness as a client-king. I simply noted what many historians have pointed out--one reason that the Romans let Herod govern Judaea was beause of its hostility to direct Roman rule.

But your alternative scenario, that Herod would be acceptable as a census-giver, while Rome would not be, isn't plausible.

The most likely scenario, the FAR most likely scenario, is that neither person would have been acceptable and any attempt to institute a census would result in uprisings. As it did in 6 AD.

As for historians saying that Rome installed Herod because Judea was hostile to direct Roman rule - you'll have to provide a source for that. Nothing I have found so far indicates that such was the reason.

Quote:

I never claimed that Herod was beloved or even popular. But he was less offensive than a Roman governor.

Except you have no proof for that, and the available evidence disagrees with you.

Moreover, you still have no confirming evidence for any such punitive action by Rome, forcing Herod to engage in such a census. You have six or seven years of emptiness to account for, and you haven't even tried. You're on a fishing expedition, with an empty hook.

Quote:

1. In the first place, Herod's bloodline and lifestyle made him repugnant to the Jews.

Nothing about my statement requires that all or even most or even a majority of Jews view Herod favorably.

Your assumption is that Herod would have been more acceptable than a Roman governor. However, given his lifestyle and his bloodline, a stronger argument is that Herod would have been *less* acceptable, since he was an racially impure Edomite and mixed blood with Arab, through his mother. While the Jews might have chafed under a Roman governor, they wouldn't have cared about the racial makeup and such a governor wouldn't have had the same religious overtones as an Edomite. Add to that violations of the Mosaic law, plus ten marriages, and it's easy to see why Jews despised Herod.

You invoke Herod as a way to create a situation of governorship that would be less objectionable than a Roman governor. So far, there is no evidence of that.

Quote:

2. Secondly, Herod had committed specific acts of sacrilege that had enflamed the Jews (see below).

Yes, he did. But he ruled succesfully with no major rebellion for decades.

Huh? There was a rebellion as soon as he was installed. Josephus mentions it:

<a href="http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/fj01.html" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/fj01.html</a>

Furthermore, Herod was merciless in dealing with uprisings:

<a href="http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html</a>

It comes as no surprise that Herod sometimes had to revert to violence, employing mercenaries and a secret police to enforce order.

Again: it is still your argument that Herod:
a. conducted a pre-Quirinius census, as
b. a punishment for Nabatean war;
c. without any Roman records of such a command from Rome;
d. Without any local records of such a census taking place in Judea; and
e. without any precedent for a census in any other non-provincial area in the Roman Empire

You are stacking five ad-hoc assumptions on top of each other, without a shred of proof for even one of them. Why not accept the far more likely scenario: Herod had no large-scale uprisings precisely *because* no such census was ever ordered in his reign.

In addition, the Roman rule coincided with a religious timeframe where people were expecting the messiah; evidently there was a widespread belief that in the 77th generation after creation, the messiah would come. That coincided with Roman governorship, not with Herod's rule. Therefore, uprisings under a Roman governor would be more likely anyhow - but not due to the Jews preferring Herod.

<a href="http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm</a>

Quote:

On the other hand, as soon as the Romans took over, there was a significant rebellion lead by Judas, another one by Theudas, and the full-blown Rebellion that lead to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

And the original rebellion, led by Judas in 6 AD, was caused by the census - not because it was a Roman governor.

<a href="http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm</a>

Archelaus ruled so badly that the Jews and Samaritans unitedly appealed to Rome to request that he should be deposed. In 6 CE, Judaea became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. A tax revolt lead by Judas the Galilean, was repressed by the Syrian governor Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

Quote:

Herod built a Roman theater in Jerusalem, Roman amphitheater just outside of Jerusalem, instituted Roman games, and offered daily sacrifices to the Roman Emperor.

Yes. I know. But he did not order a census.

Quote:

3. And third, Herod was already engaged in levying heavy taxes in Judea, as pointed out by Josephus (below). Thus a hypothetical additional census would be an even more onerous financial burden on the inhabitants of Judea. Therefore
contrary to Layman's assertion, a census would have been even more likely to cause Jewish rioting. (Reminder: a census is not the same as taxation.)

And a registration is not necessarily the same thing as taxation.

A registration is a census. And a census, complete with taxation to pay for the Nabatean war, is what you claimed took place during Herod's reign. All without proof. You are speculating without any reasonable boundaries, in an attempt to rescue this lame Herodian census idea from the dustbin.

Are you speculating on a registration of names and property, for some purpose *other* than taxation? Because if so, you'll have to provide a plausible reason and some precedent from Roman history. So far, you haven't been able to do that for a census *with* taxation, so I doubt you'll be able to to it for a census without taxation.

Quote:

And you have gone astray from my point, which was that the conduct of a census by Herod would be less offensive than one conducted by a direct Roman governor--such as Quirnius.

I'm aware that was your point - but your point is not supported.

* You have offered no evidence that Herod was less offensive than a Roman governor would be.

* The revolt you point to was caused by the census of Quirinius, and not due to the fact that the governor was a Roman.

* I have given reasons why it is at least as likely that Herod would have been *more objectionable* than a Roman, due to the religious implications of Herod's bloodline and lifestyle.

Quote:

Whether an additional, unspecified burden on the Jews (if not already part of their regular system of taxation) would result in a significant rebellion is very speculative.

Utter nonsense, Layman. The taxes were already outrageously high, 19.3% - nearly unheard of in any pre-industrial society.

<a href="http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax</a>

The orthodox were not to only ones who came to hate the new king. The Sadducees hated him because he had terminated the rule of the old royal house to which many of them were related; their own influence in the Sanhedrin was curtailed. The Pharisees despised any ruler who despised the Law. And probably all his subjects resented his excessive taxation. According to Flavius Josephus, there were two taxes in kind at annual rates equivalent to 10.7% and 8.6%, which is extremely high in any preindustrial society (Jewish Antiquities 14.202-206). It comes as no surprise that Herod sometimes had to revert to violence, employing mercenaries and a secret police to enforce order.

Sauron · 10-14-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Josephus only mentions one census for Judaea -- the one under Quirnius. And the only reason he mentions it is because it inaugurated direct Roman rule and therefore caused a significant disturbance/rebellion under a man named Judas.

The only reason he mentions it? How do you know? You're speculating without evidence again, Layman.

The fact of the matter is that Josephus also mentions civil unrests and episodes that occurred before the establishment of the Judean province in 6 AD. So Josephus' reasons for listing such incidents must include more than just noting when Roman direct rule started.

Which (of course) strongly implies that had there been any such Herodian census as you speculate, there would have almost certainly been accompanying uprisings and civil unrest. Which Josephus would have likewise noted.

*Had* there ever been any such Herodian census, that is.

leonarde · 10-14-2002, 01:14 PM

Partial post by Sauron (though I take it that this
is from a URL he/she gave):

Quote:

In 6 CE, Judaea became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect.

Now we are getting somewhere (well, on a small point): I think someone (forgotten who) was claiming earlier that Judea itself became
a Roman province in 6 CE, rather than merely became an AUTONOMOUS part of the province of Syria. This makes sense of some stuff that I have
been reading lately and thank Sauron for the
heads up....
(I have no idea how this impacts the census/taxation question).

Cheers!

Layman · 10-14-2002, 02:06 PM

Quote:

The most likely scenario, the FAR most likely scenario, is that neither person would have been acceptable and any attempt to institute a census would result in uprisings. As it did in 6 AD.....You invoke Herod as a way to create a situation of governorship that would be less objectionable than a Roman governor. So far, there is no evidence of that....Why not accept the far more likely scenario: Herod had no large-scale uprisings precisely *because* no such census was ever ordered in his reign.... And the original rebellion, led by Judas in 6 AD, was caused by the census - not because it was a Roman governor.

You seem to have this idea that census = large-scale rebellion. What is your evidence for that? The 6 CE census? Not hardly. In fact, that rebellion, though limited, is itself evidence that the Jews resented direct Roman rule more than even corrupt local rule

The notion that the Jews had an obsessive or even dominant religious loathing of census is largely unfounded. While there is one example of God disfavoring a census in the Old Testament, there are many more examples of God commanding or approving of census taken before and after the reign of King David.

Exodus 30:1 ("When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.");

Numbers 1:2 ("Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.");

Numbers 1:49 ("You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites.");

Numbers 4:2 ("Take a census of the Kohathite branch of the Levites by their clans and families.");

2 Kings 12:4 ("Joash said to the priests, 'Collect all the money that is brought as sacred offerings to the temple of the LORD--the money collected in the census, the money received from personal vows and the money brought voluntarily to the temple.'");

2 Chronicles 2:17 ("Solomon took a census of all the aliens who were in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600");

Ezra 2:1-70 (The list in Ezra 2 (compare Neh. 7) puts the number (of returning Jews) at 50,000. This could be an expanded census list from the time of Nehemiah several generations later.... B. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, at 460);

Nehemiah 7:5 ("So my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration by families. I found the genealogical record of those who had been the first to return.").

As Paul Barnett explains, the objection to the census was not a religious one, nor even a financial one, it was a problem with Roman rule:

Quote:

Quirinius' visit to Judea in A.D. 6 to register people and property for purposes of direct taxation was a major historical landmark. Augustus, having dismissed the ethnarch Archelaus, made Judea a Roman province under a military governor. Because the people now had to pay their taxes to Rome rather than to Archelaus, it was necessary to conduct an apographe, "registration," of the people in order ot make an apotimesis, "assessment," of their property for taxation. Josephus describes in some detail this registration as well as the uprising against it led by Judas the Galilean. In Judas' mind, it was not merely a matter of the mony involved; God's rule over his people was now being handed over to the despised Gentile....Submission to Quirinius' assesment was, in effect, a recognition of Augustus rather than God as master.

Barnet, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 97-98.

But perhaps even more important for our purposes is the fact that Josephus tells us why some people revolted in 6 CE, and it had nothing to do with religious objections to a census and everything to do with the assumption of direct Roman control:

Quote:

Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. Although the Jews were at first shocked to hear of the registration of property, they gradually condescended, yielding to the arguments of the high priest Joazar, the son of Boethus, to go no further in opposition. So those who were convinced by him declared, without shilly-shallying, the value of their property. But a certain Judas ... who had enlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of rebellion. They said that the assessment carried with it a status amounting to downright slavery, no less, and appealed to the nation to make a bid for independence.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1.

And:

Quote:

Judas the Galilean, that redoubtable rabbi who in the old days under Quirinius, had upraided the Jews for recognising the Romans as masters when they already had God.

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.433.

And:

Quote:

But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

Antiquties 18.23.

And,

Quote:

AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.

Jewish Wars, 2.118.

Of course, I agree with you that Herod's ruthelessness was a factor in his ability to govern Judaea in a comparatively unrebellious state. Pilate could be pretty rutheless to, slaughtering the Samaritans and putting down revolts pretty ruthelessly. But he did have to put down revolts against Roman rule. So obviously, the fact that he was not a Roman governor representing direct Roman rule was crucial to his success as well.

Barnett again: The Roman policy was to install a 'client' king over a conquered people as a first step toward more direct Roman rule in a Roman province under the administration of a Roman governor. This policy made good sense. The Romans shrewdly recognized that an indigenous appointee was more likely to be able to control his people than the Romans themselves could...."

Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 72.

As for your "rebellion" against Herod, are you referring to: Herod went in haste against the robbers that were in the caves? This is hardly an uprising against Herod as an established ruler, its an extension of the Roman civil war and Herod's consolidation of power. It happened well before any of the events we are discussing and does not appear to be related to religious objections to Herod as king.

And nothing in my points requires the fact that there were no uprising against Herod. I am asserting that the people would resent direct Roman governance more.

Quote:

it is still your argument that Herod:
a. conducted a pre-Quirinius census, as
b. a punishment for Nabatean war;
c. without any Roman records of such a command from Rome;
d. Without any local records of such a census taking place in Judea; and
e. without any precedent for a census in any other non-provincial area in the Roman Empire

There are no Roman records of any census in Judaea, including the 6 CE one. Only Josephus records it. If you have such Roman records, please provide them.

And I think there are probably three possibilities about a pre-Quirinius census. Herod used census' himself for his own tax gathering practices, Rome ordered or encouraged strongly Herod to conduct a census, or Luke is referring to the attested 7 BCE registration of all Judaea to take an oath of allegience to the Emperor.

And since we have no Roman records of any census in Judaea, it's not suprising that we would not have any Roman records of one before Quirinius. Nor would we expect there to be Roman records of census' carried out by Herod of his own inclination.

Quote:

In addition, the Roman rule coincided with a religious timeframe where people were expecting the messiah; evidently there was a widespread belief that in the 77th generation after creation, the messiah would come. That coincided with Roman governorship, not with Herod's rule. Therefore, uprisings under a Roman governor would be more likely anyhow - but not due to the Jews preferring Herod.

What a coincidence? We have rising messianic expectations when a pagan power assumes direct control over Isreal? Who whoda thunk? As Josephus discussed above, he marks the assumption of direct Roman rule with the rise of the "Fourth School" of philosophy -- the zealots who were determined to throw off Roman rule.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. There is no evidence that messianic expectations had anything to do with the reaction to the 6 CE census under Quirinius.

And you seem to think that the assumption of direct control by a pagan power had nothing to do with the increase in messianic expectations? That's a fault assumption, since most Jews saw the Messiah as one who would come and defeat the pagans in battle -- just as the Maccabbes had done against the Seleucids.

Quote:

Utter nonsense, Layman. The taxes were already outrageously high, 19.3% - nearly unheard of in any pre-industrial society.

Your still just speculating. First, you are speculating that a census was not an established part of the existing tax structure. Second, you claim to know exactly what level of taxation would cause a rebellion. Perhaps you know the magic number? 19.5%? or 21.7% perhaps? Neither assumption is justified, and the second is ridiculous. The fact is that we know Herod was squeezing his people for taxes and is unlikely to have overlooked an efficient Roman style of doing so: with a census.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-14-2002, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


The only reason he mentions it? How do you know? You're speculating without evidence again, Layman.

The fact of the matter is that Josephus also mentions civil unrests and episodes that occurred before the establishment of the Judean province in 6 AD. So Josephus' reasons for listing such incidents must include more than just noting when Roman direct rule started.

Which (of course) strongly implies that had there been any such Herodian census as you speculate, there would have almost certainly been accompanying uprisings and civil unrest. Which Josephus would have likewise noted.

*Had* there ever been any such Herodian census, that is.

I deal with this above.

The landmark event that is ocurring is the assumption of direct Roman rule, not the mere fact that a census is being taken. Teh census signified the direct administration of a Roman census by Roman authorities. Because this census was directly administered by Romans and inaugurated direct Roman rule, it caused an uprising by Judas. Therefore, Josephus refers to it.

Layman · 10-14-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

1. Barnett's claim is based upon Tacitus - but Tacitus does not indicate that Cappadocia was a buffer state.

2. Tacitus does, however, indicate that Cappadocia became a province in 17 AD - thus invalidating Barnett's claim that this was equivalent to Judea during Herod's time.

3. I doubt carrier would support your claim that Archelaus and Herod were similar, and I *KNOW* that he understands the difference between a buffer state (like Judea) and a full province (such as Egypt or Cappadocia). In any event, I have emailed him for clarification.

4. You have no proof that Herod conducted any such census, and you have utterly failed to answer the many reasons why such an event would *not* have happened in a buffer state.

These arguments are unpersuasive for a number of reasons.

It overlooks our ignorance of the intervening time between 17 and 34 CE, as well as ignoring the clear similarities between what we know of King Herod and what Tacitus and Josephus tell us of Archelaus the Younger, ruler of Cappadocia.

Here is Tacitus' account of how Cappadocia was reduced to a province in 17 CE:

Quote:

King Archelaus had been in possession of Cappadocia for fifty years, and Tiberius hated him because he had not shown him any mark of respect while he was at Rhodes. This neglect of Archelaus was not due to pride, but was suggested by the intimate friends of Augustus, because, when Caius C�|sar was in his prime and had charge of the affairs of the East, Tiberius's friendship was thought to be dangerous. When, after the extinction of the family of the C�|sars, Tiberius acquired the empire, he enticed Archelaus by a letter from his mother, who without concealing her son's displeasure promised mercy if he would come to beg for it. Archelaus, either quite unsuspicious of treachery, or dreading compulsion, should it be thought that he saw through it, hastened to Rome. There he was received by a pitiless emperor, and soon afterwards was arraigned before the Senate. In his anguish and in the weariness of old age, and from being unused, as a king, to equality, much less to degradation, not, certainly, from fear of the charges fabricated against him, he ended his life, by his own act or by a natural death. His kingdom was reduced into a province, and C�|sar declared that, with its revenues, the one per cent. tax could be lightened, which, for the future, he fixed at one-half per cent.

Annals 2.42.

However, while it is clear that Archelaus (father) had been demoted in 17 CE, his son -- again according to Tacitus -- appears to have been restored to a high level of leadership as a client-king by 36 CE.

Quote:

At this period the Cietae, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian prince Archelaus [the younger], resisted compulsion to supply property returns and taxes in Roman fashion by withdrawing to the heights of the Taurus mountains where, aided by the nature of the country, they held out against the prince's unwarlike troops. But the divisional commander Marcus Trebellius, sent by Vitellius with 4,000 regulars and picked auxiliary forces, constructed earthworks round two hills held by the natives.... After killing some who attempted to break out, he [Trebellius] forced the rest to surrender.

Annals 6.4.

Tacitus clearly places Archelaus (Younger) as the ruler of Cappadocia, noting that the tribe of the Clitae were "subject" to him. Tacitus even refers to him as a "king" or "prince" -- demonstrating his status as a royal leader of his own, native Kingdom.

Moreover, Tacitus clearly has Archelaus (Younger) governing his own territory. He is taxing his people and conducting a census (whether at the instigation of the Romans or on his own is debated, although I lean towards at the suggestion of the Romans). Archelaus also has his own army and is using it to enforce government policy. But perhaps most important -- there is no Roman governor directly ruling Cappdocia

This is very unlikely -- even unprecedented -- in a strict Roman province. Provinces were generally governed directly by a Roman governor; that governor enforces the laws and relies on Roman troops to do so (though local auxilaries may sometimes be called on). Therefore, your claim that Cappadocia was more like Egypt than Judaea is clearly erroneous. Egypt -- though granted more local control than many provinces -- was ruled directly a Roman governor, not by a local king.

And it is not just Carrier and Professor Barnett who realize that the similiarities between Cappodica under Archeluas the Younger and Judaea unde Herod the Great. Or that Cappaodicia is acting more like a client-kingdom than a strict province. A.N. Sherwin-White also describes Archelaus (Younger) as a "client-king". Indeed, Sherwin-White goes farther than many scholars and concludes that Archelaus was responsible for ordering the census himself, but that he just conducted it in a "Roman-fashion." As he states, the census "is a matter of a client-king introducing the Roman census on his own initiative." Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, 163 n. 4. Although I lean towards believing that Archelaus was carrying out a Roman-ordered census, I agree with Sherwin-White's assesment of the state of government in Cappdocia during the census.

Thus, our contemporaneous account of Cappdocia suggests that it was more like Judaea than like Egypt. In both cases we have a client-king governing a client-kingdom with his own troops, and the absence of a direct Roman governor. Roman troops are only called in when the client-king cannot handle the situation. And since we have an undisputed example of a census under the client-king Archelaus, there is no reason to argue that there could not have been a census under the client-king Herod.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-15-2002, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


Carrier discusses and refutes Pearson in his essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod" target="_blank">here.</a> If you are going to cite Pearson as authority, you should at least read what Carrier says and reply to it.

What I find more interesting, is that if Carrier is going to "refute" Dr. Pearson without submitting his "refutation" to peer review for publication, he should at least send a courtesy copy to Dr. Pearson to get his comments. Or at least, that is what I would have expected a serious scholar to do.

It does not appear that Carrier did so.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Toto · 10-15-2002, 09:34 AM

Hi Layman -

Do you think you are just going to outlast us all with your persistance?

Carrier did better than publish in a peer reviewed journal - he published on the web with an open invitation for anyone to send him critiques. However he is apparently involved in PhD work right now and is not responding to emails in a timely fashion. You might have to put this issue on hold for a while.

Layman · 10-15-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Do you think you are just going to outlast us all with your persistance?

What a snotty excuse for your dropping out of yet another debate that surpassed your abilities and knowledge a long time ago. I've been responding to another poster and adding fresh material. Nothing about my posts has been simply posting for its own sake.

Quote:

Carrier did better than publish in a peer reviewed journal - he published on the web with an open invitation for anyone to send him critiques. However he is apparently involved in PhD work right now and is not responding to emails in a timely fashion. You might have to put this issue on hold for a while.

This is more silliness.

Publishing on the web is not better than publishing in a peer reviewed journal. Not by any serious academic standards. Perhaps getting published in a peer-reviewed journal and then publishing on internet might be nice. But doing exclusively the latter without doing the former is in no way "better."

Besides, you ignored the thrust of the criticism. If Mr. Carrier was not going to submit the article for peer-reviewed publication (which, as I have learned myself, is a lengthy and time-consuming process), he could certainly have contacted Dr. Pearson directly.

And "publishing" on the web is far less likely to draw responses from other scholars -- as Mr. Carrier well knows -- than is publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Scholars actually read peer-reviewed journals and publications to keep current in their discipline, whereas there is no gaurantee they frequent anti-religious websites to learn the latest in cutting edge history. Again, as Mr. Carrier should well know.

Of course, if Mr. Carrier really wanted to get Dr. Pearson's feedback, he could have "published" his piece on the internet, and also 1) sent Dr. Pearson a courtesy copy, or 2) sent Dr. Pearson an email notice with a link to the article.

But it does not appear that Mr. Carrier did either.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

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

10-15-2002, 09:34 AM	#239
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Layman - Do you think you are just going to outlast us all with your persistance? Carrier did better than publish in a peer reviewed journal - he published on the web with an open invitation for anyone to send him critiques. However he is apparently involved in PhD work right now and is not responding to emails in a timely fashion. You might have to put this issue on hold for a while.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.