Second edition of Carrier's "OHJ" green lighted by Sheffield Academic Press

[Chrissy Hansen]

1. YECs have published in peer-reviewed journals. How can that be if they are wrong?

I would be interested in seeing some specific examples that validate the comparison.

For one example: John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (eds.), Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003)

This volume is by and large just a pro-YEC screed, with the vast majority of figures involved in the volume being intelligent design proponents.

Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117, no. 2 (2004): 213-239.

These are the two main ones I am aware of. But needless to say, YEC peer reviewed work happens on occasion. This latter article likely only happened because the editor, Sternberg, was an intelligent design proponent himself, but it did apparently get "peer reviewed" (though who the reviewers are is unknown, because Sternberg refuses to identify them).

The journal publisher declared regular practices were not followed, and the article was later retracted. Notably, this journal would usually publish a list of its peer reviewers for the year after it finished with the issues, but the list for 2004 is (for some reason, hmmmm) gone.

But needless to say, at least on one occasion (the volume above) it passed peer review in an unsketchy manner.

[GakuseiDon]

YEC peer reviewed work happens on occasion. This latter article likely only happened because the editor, Sternberg, was an intelligent design proponent himself, but it did apparently get "peer reviewed" (though who the reviewers are is unknown, because Sternberg refuses to identify them).

That's it. YECs use Intelligent Design as a 'gateway drug' to show that neo-Darwinism is a "field in crisis! But scholars are too scared to admit to it!". As evidence, they almost always point to the Discovery Institue, an ID proponent website, and its list of peer reviewed papers.

I'm not saying that those papers are therefore any good or support YECism, or even deserved to pass peer review. I'm only talking about the claims being made by YECs. (To repeat: I don't assume those papers are any good or support YECism! Sometimes when you explain a position, people assume you believe it yourself!)

From here: "PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN"
https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises from an intelligent cause. The form of information that is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI).

This PDF from 2017 gives a list of 90 peer-reviewed papers (again, I'm not saying therefore they are good or support YECism! Just what YECs claim):
https://www.discovery.org/m/2018/12/ID- ... y-2017.pdf

While intelligent design (ID) research is a new scientific field, recent years have been a period of encouraging growth, producing a strong record of peer-reviewed scientific publications. In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. As of 2015, the peer-reviewed scientific publication count had reached 90.

Few, if any, are about proving a Young Earth. YECs cite them to show that there is a problem with neo-Darwinism. If there is a problem with neo-Darwinism, then -- their logic goes --, that adds strength to their own cause. Logically though it doesn't fly, but YECs don't care. YECs, in my experience, are much more concerned about proving that there is a problem with the consensus on new-Darwinism than they are in proving that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. "Field in crisis!" is their mantra.

[dbz]

For one example: John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (eds.), Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003)

Although a Discovery Institute-owned website (www.darwinanddesign.com) falsely advertises DDPE as a “peer-reviewed science book,” it was published as part of MSU Press's Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series.

---

--Barbara Forrest, "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, eds.", Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 44, Issue 6, December 2004, Pages 510–513, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/44.6.510

Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117, no. 2 (2004): 213-239.

These are the two main ones I am aware of. But needless to say, YEC peer reviewed work happens on occasion. This latter article likely only happened because the editor, Sternberg, was an intelligent design proponent himself, but it did apparently get "peer reviewed" (though who the reviewers are is unknown, because Sternberg refuses to identify them).

• Meyer, S. C. (2004). "The Origin Of Biological Information And The Higher Taxonomic Categories". Proceedings of The Biological Society of Washington. pp. 213–239.

[P]ublished in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal

---

--Elsberry, Wesley R. (24 August 2004). "Meyer's Hopeless Monster". The Panda's Thumb.

[maryhelena]

Dr Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" is a badly written book with terrible arguments. Many terrible, terrible arguments. Some of his analysis is just laughably bad. (I hope I've got my unsubtle opinion across!) Most criticisms on his book seem to focus on a few items, like the stupid Rank-Raglan argument, a few other things. But his arguments are uniformly bad across the board.

I've been planning to start my own podcast series on Youtube called "Myth Adventure - Myths Old and New" where I talk about ancient beliefs and modern ones. One of them is a deep-dive into Carrier's book. I've been mulling about putting it all out on this board first, letting people more knowledgeable and less biased than myself have a look over and offer their criticisms.

The dilemma is whether to wait until the Second Edition comes out. To be honest I doubt that Carrier will admit there are any major mistakes in his first one, so probably okay to get it all out now. I'll start a thread here of my deep-dive into Carrier's book, detailing his horrible horrible arguments. There's a lot to cover. I apologise if it leads to Carrier overload. I know some people are sick and tired of the topic. Most of it will be new criticisms so hopefully it will be fresh for them.

GDon - Carrier is something of a Johnny-come-lately in regard to Jesus mythicism - or more correctly, in my view, an ahistoricist approach to the gospel Jesus story. While Carrier has taken the mythicist position into a cul-de-sac with his Jesus from Outer Space, this does not in any shape or form, devalue either his scholarship or the mythicist position. Scholars come up with all sorts of interpretations of the NT story. However, Carrier has become a lighting rod for Jesus historicists, the easy target for their frustrations with their own inability to either shut him up or provide historical evidence for their own historicist interpretation of the gospel story.

The ahistoricist view - that the gospel Jesus is a literary creation not a historical figure - is alive and well. Attempts to knock down Carrier's version of the ahistoricists, mythicist, position in no way can discredit this position. There is no chance under heaven that a nobody Jesus interpretation of the gospel story can put an end to, can discredit, the ahistoricst position.

By all means lay your cards on the table - produce an argument that puts Carrier to shame. Nit-picking his arguments might feel good - but negativity is not the way forward in this continuing debate over the gospel Jesus figure. Produce an argument that strives for positivity - that seeks to bridge the gap between the Jesus historicists and the Jesus ahistoricists. That might require taking the debate away from the NT with it's thousand and one nights of endless speculation and interpretation of words on papyrus....Clear the decks and allow the waves of history to expose the bedrock from which the NT story draws it's strength.

[GakuseiDon]

The ahistoricist view - that the gospel Jesus is a literary creation not a historical figure - is alive and well. Attempts to knock down Carrier's version of the ahistoricists, mythicist, position in no way can discredit this position.

Absolutely agree. The ahistoricist position is more than just the celestial Christ theory. The idea that the Gospel Jesus is a literary creation -- not one formed from oral tradition -- is a strong one. In fact, as I'll show in my evaluation of Carrier's theory, Carrier actually leans that way himself, though he doesn't recognise it.

There is no chance under heaven that a nobody Jesus interpretation of the gospel story can put an end to, can discredit, the ahistoricst position.

That's confusing two things: (1) strength of the minimalist Jesus, (2) strength of the ahistoricist position. It isn't a zero-sum game. The ideas run parallel in a lot of areas. The problem is that some simply reject the possibility of a minimalist Jesus. They can't conceive that as a feasible option. It seems to be "Gospel-like Jesus" or nada. I put you in that category, maryhelena. I don't understand your rejection of the idea. It's a plausible option. For me the evidence leans strongly that way.

By all means lay your cards on the table - produce an argument that puts Carrier to shame. Nit-picking his arguments might feel good - but negativity is not the way forward in this continuing debate over the gospel Jesus figure. Produce an argument that strives for positivity - that seeks to bridge the gap between the Jesus historicists and the Jesus ahistoricists.

It's a noble idea, and I'll certainly give the positives I see in Carrier's book. But the purpose is to do a deep-dive into his arguments, which I haven't seen from anyone else. Most critics have concentrated on a few key areas, and so haven't seen his shocking analyses of early texts.

[mlinssen]

Physician, I hear myself say, Heal thyself.

Talk about Christian origins

IS said there is no Prophet receiving in his village, not usually physician makes be Heal them who know him

Great coherence between the two phrases as usual in Thomas: both actors fail to exercise their trade successfully in an environment that is familiar to them

Luke 4:23 [Jesus] said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to Me: ‘Physician, heal yourself! Do here in Your hometown what we have heard [that] You did in Capernaum.’”

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν· ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναούμ, ποίησον καὶ ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου.

24 Then He added, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown.

Εἶπεν δέ· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ.

BeDuhn doesn't restore the last phrase:

23 And he said to them, “No doubt you will say to me this analogy, ‘Physician, cure yourself—[the things that we heard happened in Capharnaum do here as well].’ . . .”

Tertullian, Marc. 4.8.2. Tertullian says that Jesus was thrown out of Nazara “for one single proverb,” but does not quote the proverb itself.
Note the reference to prior deeds in Capharnaum, which does not fit the order of Luke, where there is no previous scene in Capharnaum by this point of the narrative. Although none of our sources for the Evangelion directly quote the clause “the things that we heard happened in Capharnaum do here as well,” the whole logic of the sequence unique to the Evangelion here depends on the presence of these words.

Leaving out the phrase would be entirely correct from the point of view of "Marcion", as he would be adjacent to his source, and LukeMatthew likely unaware of it, or at least inattentive to it. Yet BeDuhn has a very strong point of course, to which I grudgingly must concede: only careless copying can have introduced it into Luke

DeConick, for all the utter lack of arguments regarding her interpretation of Thomas and her own kernel / accretion fables, does have great material on parallels:

W. Schrage argues that L. 31.1 supports the Lukan reading δεκτός and ϣⲏⲡ which he considers redactional on the part of Luke, as does H. von Schumann. Thomas also omits εἰ μὴ and two καὶ ἐν phrases which Luke also omits from Mark. Further Thomas agrees with Mark and Matthew, reading Οὐκ ἔστιν, against Luke. This proves, he says, that Thomas depended upon Mark 6.5 and Luke 4.24. K. Snodgrass thinks that δεκτός is almost certainly a Lukan redactionary element influenced by the use of the same word in the quotation of Isaiah 61.2 in Luke 4.19. The word, he says, is a hapax legomenon, appearing nowhere else in the Gospels.

Sure, Thomas depends on two sources... We all know that Luke depends on Mark to a degree, and on *Ev to a great degree - but let's just ignore that and invent a Thomas who copies from Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, all kinds of epistles and even the FF, shall we? Thomas must have had a library twice the size of that of Alexandria, yet certainly a desk the size of a football field

The argument to Οὐκ ἔστιν is nonsense, as Thomas only has ⲙⲛ - which is frequently used yet nowhere to be seen in the canonical copies save here. Hidden-revealed, begotten from woman, city on mountain, keys of knowledge, etc:

there-is-not ⲙⲛ- Particle of non-existence 2, 5, 6, 15, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 46, 47, 50, 62, 71, 74

The δεκτός argument makes sense as the verb δέχομαι means 'accept, receive' and ϣⲱⲡ means 'receive, take, contain' - whereas the ἄτιμος of Mark / Matthew also is a hapax legomenon save for 1 Cor 4:10 (yet then there's John 4:44 which alludes to precisely this feature, of a prophet being without honour in his hometown - while using it to make Jesus a Samarian and placing his hometown in Συχὰρ, Sychar).
The relatives phrase in Mark gives away the core context of Thomas, and naturally Matthew ditches it

And as always it is amusing to see how the canonicals repurpose Thomas content by not only twisting and turning it but also appropriating it to "content of their own" which usually is a falsified Tanakh quote, yet not in this instance: Luke merely implies what Mark and Matthew explicitly state, namely that he couldn't achieve anything in his "hometown"

Regarding the Thomas translation: I've opted to translate the intransitive verbs in the Stative with the (Present) Continuous, and the transitive ones with the (Present) Perfect. A rule is a rule, it works most of the time

[maryhelena]

The ahistoricist view - that the gospel Jesus is a literary creation not a historical figure - is alive and well. Attempts to knock down Carrier's version of the ahistoricists, mythicist, position in no way can discredit this position.

Absolutely agree. The ahistoricist position is more than just the celestial Christ theory. The idea that the Gospel Jesus is a literary creation -- not one formed from oral tradition -- is a strong one. In fact, as I'll show in my evaluation of Carrier's theory, Carrier actually leans that way himself, though he doesn't recognise it.

There is no chance under heaven that a nobody Jesus interpretation of the gospel story can put an end to, can discredit, the ahistoricst position.

That's confusing two things: (1) strength of the minimalist Jesus, (2) strength of the ahistoricist position. It isn't a zero-sum game. The ideas run parallel in a lot of areas. The problem is that some simply reject the possibility of a minimalist Jesus. They can't conceive that as a feasible option. It seems to be "Gospel-like Jesus" or nada. I put you in that category, maryhelena. I don't understand your rejection of the idea. It's a plausible option. For me the evidence leans strongly that way.

Our disagreement is over a nobody Jesus - a theory that can never be historically verified. That is why, in my view, names have to be named, historicity has to be established. Once that is demonstrated - then by all means build up stories of great deeds etc. My view of the literary gospel Jesus is that this figure is a composite - allowing for various historical figures to be relevant to the gospel writers. I have named the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean Antigonus, executed by Rome in 37 b.c., as the model for the gospel crucifixion story. That identification relates to one element of the composite, literary Jesus figure. Leaving open other possibilities for historical figures that were not crucified to be included in the composite, literary, Jesus figure. Antigonus as the man of war - leaving open space for a man of peace.......

By all means lay your cards on the table - produce an argument that puts Carrier to shame. Nit-picking his arguments might feel good - but negativity is not the way forward in this continuing debate over the gospel Jesus figure. Produce an argument that strives for positivity - that seeks to bridge the gap between the Jesus historicists and the Jesus ahistoricists.

GDon: It's a noble idea, and I'll certainly give the positives I see in Carrier's book. But the purpose is to do a deep-dive into his arguments, which I haven't seen from anyone else. Most critics have concentrated on a few key areas, and so haven't seen his shocking analyses of early texts.

It's your time to spend as you like GDon

For myself - I'm too busy developing my own ideas to really be concerned about Richard Carrier's ideas. I didn't take up an ahistoricists position by reading Carrier or Doherty - so really have no need to either nit-pick their arguments or defer to either of them. Both these men have pushed forward the ahistoricist/mythicist position - but work still remains to be done........

[ABuddhist]

2. "Evolution is a theory in crisis!" Just look at all the criticisms about current neo-Darwinism coming from scholars, like Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium. In the next 20 years, the older scholars will die off and evolution will, finally, be looked at objectively. But those scholars who know there are problems with academia are too scared to say anything.

With all due respect, I get the feeling that reconstructing the historical Jesus based upon the gospels - which is the mainstream position - is in crisis. The criteria of authenticity are being undermined, increasing scholarly attention is being paid to the gospels' distinctive features' derivativeness, and the best refutations to mythicism which I have read - and accept - agree that the gospels are fundamentally not reliable, being based upon deeds and actions originally not linked to Jesus.

[GakuseiDon]

With all due respect, I get the feeling that reconstructing the historical Jesus based upon the gospels - which is the mainstream position - is in crisis.

Just musing on that: is it in crisis, or is it in transition? The whole point of academia is to move forward. Academic theses are written often to critique mainstream positions, not to uphold them. Positions change, that's the nature of academia. What would be a crisis is if the mainstream NEVER changed, that it was locked into one view.

Take Dr Ehrman for example. Ten to fifteen years ago he was widely lauded by mythicists for his books "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" and "Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are". Field in crisis!

Now he is considered so mainstream that many mythicists turn up their nose at him. Yes, that is partly because of his book "Did Jesus Exist?" in 2012. I remember predicting at the time that Ehrman had just drawn a big red circle on his back, and I was correct. He went from being a hero for mythicists to an example of academic capture. But his views moving into the mainstream are the slow grinding wheels of academia. Schweitzer, EP Sander's "New Perspective on Paul" are other examples.

[dbz]

Next year will mark the 10th anniversary of OHJ’s publication. . . . I have already completed a 2023 Revised Edition, and that has now replaced the original in print
[...]
I am in contract to produce a new volume with Sheffield, and that was first imagined as just a more substantively updated edition of OHJ (not a mere Revised Edition but a full Second Edition). But in consultation with their editorial team we are considering the possibility of instead producing a second volume rather than a second edition, which would address the top controversies launched by On the Historicity of Jesus in the past decade, possibly even in dialogue with other fully-credentialed scholars.

This makes sense, as I am finding that the sorts of things I would change in a second edition are not very substantive: updating the references to cover publications since 2014 (none of which change any conclusions but only reinforce them); updating the wording in some passages to head off the kinds of disingenuous misreadings of the original that critics have undertaken (none of which is necessary for a sincere reader); and adding responses to, at least, those critics who attempted anything like a proper academic review (as in, published in a real academic journal). But that last can be accomplished in more fitting ways: with a dedicated chapter (or chapters) on that point in a new volume (rather than adding pages to the already overlong current volume, which would be necessary even if I could find material safe to subtract), or by publishing in the new volume actual debates or dialogues with other scholars on the point; or both.

If we do settle on this decision (nothing has yet been finalized), that would leave one thing still needed: a useful index to my blog articles updating (or defending against criticism) any argument in On the Historicity of Jesus. This will serve. Below I have organized those articles by subject or purpose. And I intend to keep this updated (so even if the date of this article remains 2023, it will include entries after that year, as they are produced). So readers who want to know if anything has changed, or how I’d respond to anything, since the 2014 edition, in any matter substantially affecting its thesis, can now bookmark and consult this annotated article index.

---

--Carrier (10 July 2023). "An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.