Is Richard Carrier Reliable?

[dB-Paradox]

I was watching a video on YouTube by a user named David Withun who was talking about the history of the logos.  He talks about Philo of Alexandria making the logos/God connection which the gospel of John later expands on.  I sent him an email asking if he thinks Richard Carrier is a reliable historian, and he cautioned me as to his accuracy of information.  Does anyone here know if Carrier is reliable or not? 

[Joshpantera]

Carrier can be a bit of a schmuck at times when he's cornered about errors in judgment or interpretation. But I don't know if he's necessarily unreliable as an historian, just a bit of a douche bag from time to time... 

[TrueFreedom]

Agreed.  He's a scholar but can get a bit superior and defensive, as can some of the company that he keeps.  I enjoy taking in his perspectives as well as those of Loftus, Avalos, and the well-known scholars collaborating on wonderful projects, but none of them are perfect (and some are more meticulous than others).

[M4rio]

I have long appreciated his essays and more recently his debates. I'll admit sometimes in his blog he gets a little abrasive. But, in his defense, because of how harshly his research criticizes the fundamentals of supernatural beliefs, hard-core supernaturalists are often very ugly and vile toward him in a way that I doubt is really deserved! He pulls no punches with criticizing the content of ideas, and conclusions formed in what he sees as error, that is for sure. I think some of his best work is his debate portfolio, especially against Mike Licona, who argues for a literal, bodily resurrection in the same physical body.

 

Carrier advocates a belief in a new body, though spiritual. This is a view held by a number of Christian scholars, including I believe Marcus Borg. But, Carrier maintains an exhaustive FAQ on that subject if you Google Richard Carrier Spiritual FAQ.

 

He currently has a beef with Bart Ehrman's historicity of Jesus, and says that Bart will no longer speak to him because Bart thinks Carrier was too mean in his rebuttal to a Huffington Post article about the historicity of Jesus. If that subject is of interest, Google Carrier Ehrman Recap.

 

On the logos issue, I have been reading and listening to Ehrman lately and he also makes those connections between Philo's logos and the Gospel of John.

 

Not only does he make the connection he says in his Historical Jesus course from teach12.com and his Misquoting Jesus book that the first part of John about "the word made flesh" is likely a later addition as it does not cohere with the rest of the book. (He is discussing the history of the Canon in the chapter)

[♦ ficino ♦]

I read a lot of Carrier's earlier papers. He was nice to exchange a few emails with me about the contradictions betw Matt and Luke on the date of Jesus' birth. I get the impression that mainstream academics think that mythicism is too risky to handle, so they dismiss Carrier's work. We'll see how that goes, say, ten years from now.

[M4rio]

I think that's his own assessment of the situation too. And, from what I've seen in his public videos, he is very aware of that and accepts the challenge. I've started reading Proving History and gotten through the part where he outlines how he plans to handle that skepticism. In summary: Proving History is his first book in the attempt, to be followed up by On the History of Jesus. He has an update of that book's progress in this blog post.

 

For further information on the fallout with his comments over Atheism+ and charges against him of divisiveness, he catalogs it here http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2412.

 

He states that his position is this:

 

"Note that I will not speak at events run by organizations that are unwilling to repudiate sexism, racism, and homophobia, or that do not endorse the values of reasonableness, compassion, and integrity. You do not have to make a public statement or policy on this. You don’t even have to specifically mention it. But I must feel comfortable that you are an organization that shares these values. And I will assume you are, unless I have reason not to. But if you consider my taking a stand on this to be divisive, don’t ask me to speak at your event (unless it is specifically to debate our moral differences in a reasonable manner). Otherwise I will work with any organization that approves of this value statement, even if it is not an atheist organization or is even an explicitly religious organization."

 

Pretty solid if you ask me.

 

I read a lot of Carrier's earlier papers. He was nice to exchange a few emails with me about the contradictions betw Matt and Luke on the date of Jesus' birth. I get the impression that mainstream academics think that mythicism is too risky to handle, so they dismiss Carrier's work. We'll see how that goes, say, ten years from now.

[Aggie]

He strikes me as extremely intelligent but over-confident.  He seemed way too dismissive of/insulting towards Ehrman to me.  Perhaps Carrier's right, but with all the different opinions on the historical Jesus out there (and the incomplete evidence) I would think that he would be a little more tentative.  

[Aggie]

If interested, 

 

Here's Carrier's critique of Ehrman:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

 

And an Ehrman response:

http://ehrmanblog.org/acharya-s-richard-carrier-and-a-cocky-peter-or-a-cock-and-bull-story/

[♦ ficino ♦]

of his tone, there may be more than one cause: perhaps temperament plus what he thinks will serve the interest of his still young career. There is something to be gained from being an "enfant terrible."

[Blood]

His degree is in Ancient History but I'm only aware of his writing on Christianity. I imagine that a lot of people in the humanities agree with Richard about Christ being a mythical god-man, but they value their careers too much to come out and say it. Academia has very tight rules and you aren't supposed to step out of your area of expertise, and you need a master's in New Testament Studies to qualify. The only people who can suffer through that are hardcore believers. 

 

He's not a great historian like his teacher Alan Cameron, but overall, I think he's generally reliable. His videos on "why the gospels are myth" are, I believe, very instructive, the stuff I wish I knew 20 years ago.