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

[ABuddhist]

Cannot say that I am surprised, and cannot say that I think it will change much. OHJ did not make much impact to begin with, outside of online atheist and secularist circles, and subsequent "editions" like these are seldom as popular as their initial prints either. So, I will be surprised if much comes of this.

If Carrier is such a bad scholar as you claim, then how did his book get through peer review at a university's press?

It isn't a university press.

Also, plenty of trite gets through peer review. Peer review doesn't make your work good, it just means it coheres to the standards of the press and with basic academic rigor upon reading it. Sheffield Phoenix Press is not a university press. It is an independent publisher, and was spiritual successor to the now defunct Sheffield Academic Press.

As a case in point, I know of a young earth creationist book that passed peer review at an actual university press (Michigan State University Press, in fact).

It is actually even harder to peer review when it comes to books like Carrier's because he covers so many (mostly extraneous) topics in the course of his study that there is no possible way to even find someone who specializes in all of it (or even most of it).

It isn't hard to get something through peer review, which is why it is rather unnoteworthy that Carrier did. It is just a basic expectation of the field. I myself (who is not a specialist and have no advanced degrees in the field or even relevant to the field; I studied philosophy and Creative Writing) have around 15 peer reviewed publications, mostly all on topics surrounding early Christianity (and with more on the way).

I thank you for your explanation. Have you considered replying to Dr. Carrier's critiques of your publications?

[Chrissy Hansen]

No. I have better things to do with my life than waste it responding to an angry polemicist and his grumpy blog posts. Most of the time he misconstrues me, and if not that he is insulting me and degrading my character. If that is the low he must stoop to then there isn't anything worth responding to.

If he wants me to respond, he can offer criticisms in a collected and respectful manner in a peer reviewed journals (and not his pet journal SHERM with GCRR, I'm talking a specialized journal in ancient history and early Christianity). Until then, I couldn't care less.

[ABuddhist]

If he wants me to respond, he can offer criticisms in a collected and respectful manner in a peer reviewed journals (and not his pet journal SHERM with GCRR, I'm talking a specialized journal in ancient history and early Christianity).

Would any peer-reviewed journal refuse to publish him, though, because he refuses to accept that Jesus was historical figure? I ask because I recall a quotation from an editor sayingthat he would refuse categorically to publishg anything in favour of mythicism. I can look up the quotation if you want me to, but such hostility towards mythicism and anything sympthetic to mythicismn seems to dominate mainstream Bibilical Scholarship.

And please do not take me to be conflating you with such figures. If more were willing to engage in-depth with mythicists' caims as you are, there would be better understanding among mythicists about why their ideas are wrong.

[Irish1975]

The man’s publications are beneath my contempt.

That’s why I don’t waste my time on him. His publications are trash, having no academic legitimacy, and no impact on anyone who matters, but only his online goons and trolls. The 2nd edition of his book is altogether meaningless to me.

And the “Sheffield” publisher? Founded and managed for decades by the late “emeritus professor” at “University of Sheffield,” David J.A. Clines? What a joke. It’s now a “spiritual” outfit for an unwashed atheist readership. And even if he did get “peer review”—as though it were some academic publisher, which it ISN’T—so what? Meaningless. Even someone as unaccomplished and humble as myself can made it through peer review. Which I did, like, 15 times or so.

AND, I would never stoop to the level of ad hominem polemics.

Thus, as you can see, I have nothing to say about the man, whatsoever. Couldn’t care less!

[Chrissy Hansen]

If he wants me to respond, he can offer criticisms in a collected and respectful manner in a peer reviewed journals (and not his pet journal SHERM with GCRR, I'm talking a specialized journal in ancient history and early Christianity).

Would any peer-reviewed journal refuse to publish him, though, because he refuses to accept that Jesus was historical figure? I ask because I recall a quotation from an editor sayingthat he would refuse categorically to publishg anything in favour of mythicism. I can look up the quotation if you want me to, but such hostility towards mythicism and anything sympthetic to mythicismn seems to dominate mainstream Bibilical Scholarship.

And please do not take me to be conflating you with such figures. If more were willing to engage in-depth with mythicists' caims as you are, there would be better understanding among mythicists about why their ideas are wrong.

That was the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus... which kinda implies in the title what the journal is about. That said, it has also had change in leadership since then, so who knows.

But there are plenty of journals that would probably let him respond. He has been published in a few in fact. But instead of having academic discourse with his critics, he has just chosen to belittle and berate, and frankly he has acted so poorly that virtually no academics in the field want to associate or have a discourse with him to begin with. Which is also why I have been moving away from mythicism as of late. Have other topics I'm interested in and also which won't involve me getting berated and treated like crap because I dare challenge someone's opinions.

[Chrissy Hansen]

The man’s publications are beneath my contempt.

That’s why I don’t waste my time on him. His publications are trash, having no academic legitimacy, and no impact on anyone who matters, but only his online goons and trolls. The 2nd edition of his book is altogether meaningless to me.

And the “Sheffield” publisher? Founded and managed for decades by the late “emeritus professor” at “University of Sheffield,” David J.A. Clines? What a joke. It’s now a “spiritual” outfit for an unwashed atheist readership. And even if he did get “peer review”—as though it were some academic publisher, which it ISN’T—so what? Meaningless. Even someone as unaccomplished and humble as myself can made it through peer review. Which I did, like, 15 times or so.

AND, I would never stoop to the level of ad hominem polemics.

Thus, as you can see, I have nothing to say about the man, whatsoever. Couldn’t care less!

You are stooping to ad homs right now.

But beyond that, Sheffield Phoenix is an academic publisher, with full affiliation with the Society of Biblical Literature, and association with various journals and numerous noted scholars have published there.

David J. A. Clines himself was one of the most respected commentators alive, and his commentaries on Job and other texts are considered staples. But don't let that stop your crusade.

[neilgodfrey]

I have my own concerns about Richard Carrier's public persona and have found some important areas in his OHJ to criticize. But to be fair, Carrier is a mixed bag. Not all of his criticisms and responses are vitriolic. Some are professionally presented. I'd prefer to try to leave "the person" aside and try to focus on whatever publications we think relevant and professionally presented on a case by case basis. Not easy, I know, since we are human. But it's worth the effort, I think.

[Chrissy Hansen]

I have my own concerns about Richard Carrier's public persona and have found some important areas in his OHJ to criticize. But to be fair, Carrier is a mixed bag. Not all of his criticisms and responses are vitriolic. Some are professionally presented. I'd prefer to try to leave "the person" aside and try to focus on whatever publications we think relevant and professionally presented on a case by case basis. Not easy, I know, since we are human. But it's worth the effort, I think.

I did try, but his behavior towards me attempting to engage him was immediate contempt. So, I have just decided it is not worth it for myself. It also is because I have just been steadily coming to the conclusion that whether or not Jesus existed is just largely irrelevant for studying Christian origins. Been more and more seeing why Soviet marxists just abandoned the issue altogether.

[ABuddhist]

It also is because I have just been steadily coming to the conclusion that whether or not Jesus existed is just largely irrelevant for studying Christian origins. Been more and more seeing why Soviet marxists just abandoned the issue altogether.

Would you be willing to consider becoming an agnostic about that topic? And were any of the scholars whom you allude to made available in English?

[neilgodfrey]

I have my own concerns about Richard Carrier's public persona and have found some important areas in his OHJ to criticize. But to be fair, Carrier is a mixed bag. Not all of his criticisms and responses are vitriolic. Some are professionally presented. I'd prefer to try to leave "the person" aside and try to focus on whatever publications we think relevant and professionally presented on a case by case basis. Not easy, I know, since we are human. But it's worth the effort, I think.

I did try, but his behavior towards me attempting to engage him was immediate contempt. So, I have just decided it is not worth it for myself. It also is because I have just been steadily coming to the conclusion that whether or not Jesus existed is just largely irrelevant for studying Christian origins. Been more and more seeing why Soviet marxists just abandoned the issue altogether.

Oh yes, understood. I try to keep my distance for a reason. I"m attempting to express an ideal here. I was not aiming my comments at you but more generally -- I think there are some people who excuse their dismissal of some of Carrier's arguments on personal grounds and thereby avoid facing serious arguments. Carrier is certainly not without some serious points. Carrier has made himself his own worst enemy by responding in kind and worse to both real and perceived offences. He would have done far better for himself and everyone had he managed to rise above it all.