Jump to content

Talk:Richard Carrier/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

XLinkBot paid a visit, presumably triggered by a you-tube link, and reverted three days' worth of edits by IP96. I don't like seeing bots make such extensive edits, and I didn't see any problem with most of IP96's new citations that were reverted by the bot. But I did find myself wondering if we really need so many links to video blogs; or, for that matter, if we need any of them. Per WP:EXT, external links "should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." JerryRussell (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed the older links, the newer ones include expert commentary on the CMT. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Badly written, many problems, needs fixing

This page contains numerous problems and a lot of rewriting/deletion needs to be done. Here's a few examples throughout the page;

"Other scholars who hold the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint or "Jesus atheism" viewpoint,[18] include; Arthur Droge, Kurt Noll, Thomas L. Brodie, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, Raphael Lataster, Hector Avalos and still others like Philip R. Davies, who have opined that the viewpoint of Carrier et al. is respectable enough to deserve consideration.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]"

Earl Doherty and Raphael Lataster, however, are both not "scholars" at all. There's also the problem that this belongs to the 'reception' section of the page, rather than in the 'Career' section. (I've already transferred it). The 'Jesus Ahistoricity section' says;

"Per the Gospels' status as reliable historical sources, Raphael Lataster writes, "The Gospels, and indeed all the sources concerning Jesus, are not primary sources; they are not contemporary to the events they describe, nor is it reasonable to assume that they were written by eye-witnesses. The extant sources concerning Jesus are, at best, secondary sources."[73][74][75]"

But Raphael Lataster isn't Carrier, and so placing Lataster's views on Carrier's page is completely irrelevant. If a ref could be provided for Carrier making these claims, then that can be added in. This, however, is irrelevant and belongs in the Christ myth theory page (however, given Lataster is an unreliable source, this is also debatable).

Furthermore, many of Carrier's claims are made in this page with reference to those who support him (Lataster, Doherty), however, no sources that challenge him. This is odd, given the relative abundance of such sources. I've begun working on this page which, excluding the Reception section, looks like one long advertisement for the Christ myth theory. As the editing I've already done shows, many of the citations are also irrelevant for what's being mentioned in the article and so have been removed. One example of one of the changes I've already made is removing Thomas Thompson from a list of scholars who are mythicists. Thompson isn't even a mythicist, and the claim had no citation anyways. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you but please don't put Raphael Lataster onto the Christ myth page, Lataster is not notable at all, he is just a cheerleader for Carrier, who has a big fan base. "One long advertisement for the Christ myth theory" is exactly what this article is "excluding the Reception section" which I put in except for the "other scholars" bit, which I am going to remove as that is nothing to do with reception of Carrier's works, and the review from Lataster. I have felt that I shouldn't really try to revise the rest of the piece as I think Carrier's views and writings are completely wrong headed. I encourage you to try to make the article neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right, Lataster is not notable at all, nor does he have any relevant credentials or publications in any publisher of historical work. I'll try to summarize this article some more, remove irrelevant references, etc. I also think you're right in completely removing that part of the reception section, since it has nothing to do with Carrier at all.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
" Nearly all contemporary scholars of ancient history[7] and biblical scholarship have maintained that a historical Jesus did indeed exist.[8][9]" Why is this put into the text? 1. it is very misleading as it does not explain that MOST scholars sign or pledge to NEVER investigate this issue to maintain their academic position. 2. it is an obviously fearful application of the fallacy of authority by someone not interested in truth but afraid others may take the article seriously.Jiohdi (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
MOST scholars sign or pledge to NEVER investigate this issue to maintain their academic position- where in the world did you get this idea? Absurd.it is an obviously fearful application of the fallacy of authority by someone not interested in truth but afraid others may take the article seriously-wrong.Smeat75 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)



Smeat75, i wrote this before reading this debate above, but do please tell me whats the intellectuel or even reason for that kind of phrase be inserted after most subjects dealing with this even before the arguments start? Instead of quirky writing wrong, instead tell what function it has other then to "shield" or self-convincing, to put ONLY that phrase before?. Because its not true, its VERY dishonest, and i dont know another subject matter that has that kind of quick mention, and for your to just say wrong to Jiohdis " it is an obviously fearful application of the fallacy of authority by someone not interested in truth but afraid others may take the article seriously" wich is VERY valid, because there is no factual statments or links or what criteria they used. Its funny when you find bible literalist and books from 1950s quoted (being very obsolete) in the list of "all serious scholars". I think its self evident this phrase should be stated as ARGUMENTS, and mostly in its own section, not on every other theory, and i cant see the defence of it, and you did offer none. Unless its ok for muslims to add in before each subject "but all serious scholars (ours, like the christians) have confirmed that jesus was not the son of man" there can be no defence of this kind of qoute. Also on Jihods point again, these quote by abstaining from mentioning anything else then "confirmed" shadows the fact that many that hold this position hold MINIMALSTIC views of jesus, the two most common being the crucifiction and jesus baptism. This is missleading, above everything else, giving the picture that those scholars who hold these points are confirming the jesus of the bible(when they are not). Just on this point its enough for these phrase to be taken down and another placed instead. Im eargly waiting for your reply in defence of this. Also more shadowing is that biblical scholarship is diffrent from how classical historians go about researching, and it lacks methodological soundness or uniformity, but they are portrayed like their education is researching the past and not more basically in theology ( exegetics like) and having reliance on consensus instead of working from primary sources (or even stating why) is kind of dishonest in that it gives the impression that its clear cut, wich is far from.

Also Biblical scholarship have a looong standing critism for being overly apologetic due to the people it attracts. To say - where in the world did you get this idea? Absurd. means your remaining alof in this matter cause its been brought up and talked about before and now. If you had answered his questions mine would have been aswell.

Im irratated after years of reading wiki, i dont know what the defence of letting it stay is, but for the dishonesty it potrays. Again, to write after each mention of jesus,that consenus among muslims scholars is that jesus was not the son of god therby confirmed, is absurd yet if your christian its ok? their sources are as valid as the bible and on the same arguments.

Let people read what arguments people have, instead of stating that by consenus ( not true) at the start of the article what is and not, with each refrence of historical jesus, for somekind of argument from authority effect. So childish not even to put it in its separe colum but insert it after each critism of jesus.

Long post, but wikipedia is not for propagating your faith , stop putting them back in withouth a argument why its needed right there.

Now what i wrote before before reading this discussion above.

'Just a quick question to the Christiansthat have to, basically convince themself, to insert into every article and page on the historical debate this paraphrased qoute "But according to most major ancient history researchers and theologians, the historical reality of x(jesus in this case) is confirmed". And then you look and its ALL belivers of Jesus existing before doing their "research", saying he did. Also, POINT OUT were we can reads this facts. Infact, i reason its not put there cause this is some kind of self convincing that hurts the eyes when trying to read a article.

Why not just say these guys are using "multiple sources" from the same bible veryfing each other, using criterion of embarrassment as bulletproof, in other words there is no evidence to that conclusion other then the bible and theoretic arguments using the bible. Even on Josephus book every mention of jesus not appearing in the early transcripts is followed by "but all serious scholars have no doubt". I look into the links, and there are Roman Catholic priests used as a authority??? why not STATE how he come about that instead. What is the need for such a qurip but to cloud the issue?

Im going to change this article to remove that but i will wait for answer before touching" , and put a reference link to the page debatting the historical jesus instead, and change the sentence " all serious scholars have confirmed it" and instead state that belivers in criterion of embarrassment and the 4 gospels counting as multiple sources, are content with that they have verified the historical jesus, however withouth trying to figure how what he did, said, or anything contrary to the bible.

No other subject has this shielding of critism even before it is said, and gives the FALSE view that researchers on this subject are all clear, wich they arent and in 2019 alot of new research is IN, for people to be still qouting a book from 1955 (yes) as a "confirmation.

Not a rant, but found it on every mention of critisms of the historical "records". Whats the point? its dishonest and anti-intellectual, but i would like to know the point of putting that in other then belivers feel the urge to do this, rather then state the opinions and let the reader himself decide. There is no other page that starts with "your going to read some research here, but dont mind them since all serious scholars have confirmed this page false".


Il wait the week out for a answer why i shouldent remove all those notes that is worthless to the subject written about in the article, then il will start to this. Because its dishonest and not done in anyother article, it should be written in its OWN subject page, not every mention of jesus on wikipedia.

WP:BLP violation fixed

Contentious material

I removed the mention of Carrier's adherence to a fringe theory. Per BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The statement that Jesus myth theory is fringe is poorly sourced, the sources cited in the article say otherwise. Thus, Tucker, Aviezer (February 2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs Jesus Christ", History and Theory 55 (February 2016), 129-140 says:

"The Bayesian perspective on historiography is commonsensical: If historiography is not certain like a priori knowledge or sense data, and it is not fiction, historiography is prob-able. Richard Carrier’s book argues for a Bayesian, probabilistic interpretation of histori-ography in general and of the debate about the historicity of Jesus in particular. Jesus can be interpreted as a historically transmitted reference of “Jesus,” as a bundle of properties, or literally. Carrier devotes too much energy to debating literalism that confuses evidence with hypotheses. But evidence preserves information to different degrees; it is true or not. Carrier proposes to apply objective, frequentist Bayesianism in historiography despite the difficulties in assigning values. He argues that ranges of values can determine historio-graphical hypotheses. Carrier does not analyze in Bayesian terms the main method for Bayesian determination of posterior probabilities in historiography: inference from multi-ple independent sources. When the prior probability of a hypothesis is low, but at least two independent evidential sources, such as testimonies, support it, however unreliable each of the testimonies is, the posterior probability leaps. The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere. Carrier’s explanation of some the evidence in the Gospels is fascinat-ing as the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism and mimesis. Historians attempted to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence. I leave open questions about the degree of scholarly consensus and the possible reasons for it."
Such a review published in History and Theory by no means may refer to some fringe theory.
Furthermore, another review on Carrier's book (also cited in the article), (Lataster, Raphael (December 3, 2014). "RichardCarrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of Religious History. 38 (4): 614. ) says:
"As a result, this work far outdoes anything the typically amateurish mythicists haveproduced to date, but is also methodologically superior to the work of more respectedand mainstream historicist scholars. "
That is an absolutely unequivocal proof that the claim that Jesus Myth theory is fringe is at least questionable. Therefore, this statement must be immediately removed per BLP.
I will be busy next two weeks, so I will not be able to respond. Please, do not restore removed material without a serious reason, at least, without detailed discussion, because BLP violations are severely punishable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this subject. The best course of action would be to look for books and other sources related to the subject to see how they describe that theory. A quick look at what I could find online tells me that there needs to be some additional searching. Especially for the most recent scholary works.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't plan to participate this discussion, but I'm letting the folks over at Historicity of Jesus know about it so they can respond if they want. This isn't really something that should be discussed on an article by article basis.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The fringe-qualification is sourced, by Gullotta; that's not a poor source. And it's not about Bayesian probability, but about CMT, which is most definitely considered to be a fringe-theory. See Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception for more sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You may want to look at Paul's recent edits at Tacitus on Christ as well, I can't really judge.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: you better take notice of the meaning of fringe theory, and the current status of the CMT in the acedemics, where it plays no part whatsoever in scholarly research or scholarly discussions. Two reviews, one by a collaborator of Carrier, does not establish Carrier's work as mainstream. Treatening to take the matter to ANI, without responding to talkpage-comments, isn't very helpfull either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It may be not mainstream, but it is not fringe either. As a rule, fringe theories never have positive reviews in reputable scholarly journals. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way, Bayesian analysis is a very serious methodology, which is pretty common among scientists and scholars working in different disciplines, from genomics to genocide studies. A new person bringing new methodology to some old field is frequently seen and a revisionist by the adepts of more traditional approaches, but one must be cautious not to make premature assertions. Bayesian approaches helped us to reconstruct old history of life, why it is not applicable to the analysis of Biblical texts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: see Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception and Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree". The problem is not per se with the specific methodology, but with the basic point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I am just familiarising myself with this area, so I cannot judge about that. However, what I already learned demoinstrates that some WP articles writing on this topic are inaccurate, and they interpret the cited sources too liberally. That is why references to them are hardly an argument. Anyway, the theory that was proposed in XIX century and that survived in a deeply hostile environment (remember, to believe Christ never existed meant you could face serious problem in your real life, even now that may cause problem in Wikipedia), implies it is hardly fringe. Anyway, I am going to independently find sources that resolve issue. Will be back in few weeks.
Re "most scholars agree", they are more cautious. They usually say "I am not aware of serious scholars who support this idea". The problem is that they really unaware, as the example with Ehrman demonstrated. Just read the intro to his book "Did Jesus Exist?" --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Good intention, to search for sources yourself. As for the mainstream, I can really recommend James Dunn, Jesus Remembered; and Larry Hurtado Lord Jesus Christ. They convinced me that serious research presupposes the existence of Jesus. See also Quest for the historical Jesus, and Salvation in Christianity#Paul, for recent (alas, last 40 years; "New perspective on Paul") developments. It's fascionating topic. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I tried to check reviews on Dunn at jstor.org to establish notability, and I found a very interesting phrase in one article authored by Brad S. Gregory (University of Notre Dame) "No Room for God? History, Science, Metaphysics, and the Study of Religion". History and Theory, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 2008), pp. 495-519 who raises a totally different question:
"Because so few secular academics bother to read biblical scholarship by contemporary exegetes and historians such as Richard Bauckham, Raymond Brown, Samuel Byrskog, James Dunn, Birger Gerhardsson, John Meier, Graham Stanton, or N. T. Wright, they are apt to be stuck in simplistic nineteenth-century or Bultmannian assumptions about the supposed demythologization of the Bible and the alleged post-Enlightenment "eclipse of biblical narrative," just as some of them still seem to be living in a world innocent of the revolutions in science effected by post-Newtonian physics.(fotnoote 22)"
The fotnote 22 says:
" For just a few examples of works by these scholars, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997); Samuel Byrskog, Story as History?History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tubingen: Mohr, 2000); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003); Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001); John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001); Graham N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004); N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996). For the classic work about the marginalization of the Bible in Western intellectual culture, see Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974). Jonathan Sheehan has recently argued that the Bible's place in eighteenth-century German and English Protestantism was transformed rather than eclipsed, but he does not examine the assumptions underlying the historical process of its reconstitution as a cultur ally central rather than religiously authoritative text. Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)".
I haven't read this article in full, but I have a feeling that my hypothesis about secular and religious scholars, who are living in "parallel universes" got a second confirmation from another side (the first confirmation is the Ehrman's words that I presented on the ANI page). In other words, it seems the authors you are talking about are simply unaware of the works of secular scholars, and secular scholars totally ignore the works of Dunn and similar authors.
I did a simple experiment: I checked who is citing Dunn and Gregory. These are the reference to Gregory (interesting, the first work that cites him is "Quantum mind"), these authors cite Dunn. Do you see how different these two universes are? It is a disaster that only one of them seems to be represented in Wikipedia as a mainstream view.
It may require a significant time, but it could be an interesting research if someone built a graph of cross-references (I'll try to ask, one friend of mine, an expert in graph theory and network studies may be interested to do that). It is quite likely they form two distinct and poorly connected domains.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Your theory would only be true if you could find reputable and widely cited "secular" scholars arguing that there was never a person named Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk)

Different universa, maybe, but also different research-topics. In contrast, mythicists and mainstream Biblical scholars have the same research-topic, but arrive at different conclusions, and proceed in different ways, following these conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Two comments:
  1. Absent clear, and very strong WP:BLPSOURCES, calling Carrier "fringe" - such language should be absent from our article.
  2. This journal article - Lataster, Raphael. "The Fourth Quest: A Critical Analysis of the Recent Literature on Jesus’(a) Historicity." Literature & Aesthetics 24.1 (2014). treats Carrier as anything by fringe - "Carrier convincingly argues that the sources are better explained by the hypothesis of minimal mythicism; that Jesus was initially believed to be a purely celestial figure who communicated with his disciples through revelations. Even when practicing restraint, Carrier’s relatively conservative calculations justify a sceptical attitude towards Jesus’ historicity.". I'll not also that the journal article concludes with "It is recommended that historicists refine and elucidate their methods, and either discover (and reveal) the sources that would prove their case, or simply admit that agnosticism over Jesus’ historical existence is entirely reasonable. Finally, given that Jesus’ historical existence is paradigmatic to the typically insular field of New Testament scholarship, it may paradoxically be ideal that those investigating the question be historians and Religious Studies scholars of other – though related – specialisations.
Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
As noted above, Richard Lataster is one of Carrier's mythicist collaborators, so of course he'll claim NT studies need to be conducted by people not in the field and that its insular. I'm not sure Literature and Aesthetics is where I'd go to get a sense of what's mainstream Jesus scholarship. The journal is not even peer-reviewed [1].--Ermenrich (talk)
  • Regarding WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion, and the statement The statement that Jesus myth theory is fringe is poorly sourced, the deleted part is as follows:

His recent books arguing against the historicity of Jesus have established him as a leading supporter of the fringe. (Source: Gullotta, Daniel N. (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2–3): 310–346. doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), quote "[Per Jesus mythicism] Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." P.312)). Note: See also Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception.

The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is published by BRILL; I don't see how that is "poorly sourced." Aviezer Tucker, on the other hand, does not write in support of the CMT or its credits; instead, he states I leave open questions about the degree of scholarly consensus and the possible reasons for it. So, this does not mean that the CMT cannot be considered to be fringe.

In the main, however, scholars (of all religious or non-religious stances) have tended to view Carrier as more of a polemicist than an original scholar, at least as concerns questions about the historical Jesus.

He is not expert in the very subjects on which he writes in these books, and his mishandling of the evidence shows this all to clearly. I conclude that, in so far as scholarly judgment of the matter is concerned, Carrier’s often-strident efforts will be judged as the last hurrah of the “mythicist” claim, although internet die-hards are likely to remain doggedly committed to it.

Surely, surely, one doesn’t have to go through the 700 pages of Carrier’s tome treating every one of his various arguments. The one key claim that I’ve treated here is sufficient to show that he bases his larger zealous claim about a “mythical Jesus” on specious arguments, resulting from a lack of adequate expertise in the relevant sources.

I will not try to guess how much of Carrier’s book Hurtado has read, but I am quite sure that there is no academic who has not stopped reading a book without finishing it because the part they had read was so atrocious, they could determine on that basis that the rest was not worth reading…

If that's not enough, this is what Robert M. Price, a mythicist, says about the stance of mainstream scholarship, in Secret Scrolls: Revelations from the Lost Gospel Novels, p.200:

today's neo-traditionalist “mainstream” biblical scholars smugly dismiss the christ Myth theory as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought

For the balance, this is from Patrick Gray (2016), Varieties of Religious Invention, chapter 5, Jesus, Paul, and the birth of Christianity, Oxford University Press, p.114:

That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his oife or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet.

  • Lataster is indeed a one of Carrier's mythicist collaborators, and not an independent source.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree that citation list of Carrier does not look impressive. Moreover, the article presented by Icewhiz was published in a journal founded by its author, who is one out of three editors. However, when you do a search in jstor, you see Carrier's article, but when you look for "Richard Carrier as False Prophet", or Hurtado Carrier, you get nothing. As a rule, if some article is not present on jstor that tells it is unlikely that it is scholarly. The same applies to Price. Unfortunately, I have no time to analyse all sources presented by you, but I gave you an example of my approach to their evaluation.
In connection to that, I am wondering about the procedure you are using to obtain sources in a neutral way. By "neutral way" I mean the procedure that is used by a person with no preliminary knowledge about the subject. That is important because if one wants to find a source confirming their point, it is quite likely they will succeed, for Internet is huge. However, will this result reflect a scholarly consensus?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition, yesterday, I myself found a mention of McGrath and decided to read it, but google scholar search gave no results. I suspect you are using google for search. Am I right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In regards to

today's neo-traditionalist “mainstream” biblical scholars smugly dismiss the christ Myth theory as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought

- having looked at the source - [2] - not very convincing - Scare quotes around "mainstream". Being dismissed by neo-traditionalists ("the deliberate revival and revamping of old cultures, practices, and institutions"[3]) - does not make one fringe. Furthermore the quote doesn't refer to Carrier. If you want to label Carrier (a PhD, published by reputable publishers) as "fringe" - please bring very strong sources that refer specifically to Carrier as such. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, Price is a mythicist. Of course he's going to call the people who oppose him "neo-traditional" at the least. That's like taking an article in which the US Democratic party is labeled "communist" or the US Republican party is labeled "fascist" and assuming it's true. He's completely open about the contempt other scholars have for the position though.
Paul Siebert, I suggest you click the links provided by Joshua Jonathan above if you want to find out what they are.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of discussing CMT generally (which has a wide range of proponents of various nature - many with lesser credentials than Carrier) - we discuss Carrier specifically - both due to WP:BLP and to avoid WP:SYNTH. Sources used to label Carrier or his views - should refer explicitly to Carrier. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, yes, that does seem like a more profitable course of action.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz and Ermenrich, I am interested to discuss this issue with Joshua Jonathan and come to some common opinion. Please, allow us to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by that last remark. Consensus is not meant to be established by two editors only.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I am interested to reach a consensus with this particular user for only him (and, occasionally, you) presents thoughtful, well supported and addressable arguments. I am not interested to hear !votes. The discussion with this user may help me to understand if I am right (I suspect you yourself never asked such a question).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Still discussing

Ah, good, we're still discussing. My edit was a bit provocative, of course, but the point still stands: CMT is fringe. If we look specifically at Carrier and his ideas, it's clear that he's a popular author, often mentioned at websites and blogs, but irrelevant for the scholarly discourse. Which is, more or less, already mentioned at the "Reception" section. The relevant question is: is it necessary to mention that the CMT is a fringe theory? Per WP:NPOV, some mention has to be made of the academic status of his ideas, I think. And regarding Hurtado: that's a blog. By one of the top-notch scholars on Bible research and the origins of Christianity. Search for "early High Christlogy," if you like; the guy is one of the best in the field. Period. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking at the page for fellow mythicist Robert M. Price, I notice he isn't identified as fringe. However, the page also gives absolutely no indication of the academic reception of his ideas, so this could simply be an oversight/someone has removed the references. The only acknowledgment that Price isn't "in the majority" is cited to Price himself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
NB: a complicating factor is that Carrier is so irrelevant for mainstream scholarship, that he's mostly, if not completely, ignored in peer-reviewed publications. Mainstream, reputable scholars don't have any use in engaging or criticizing him in peer-reviewed publications. He's simply not worth their time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Joshua, I am still waiting for an answer about your procedure for sources search. Are you using google?
In addition, as I already noted, works of non-scholars very rarely appear during a jstor search. You are citing the author who cannot be found in jstor to prove Carrier (who IS in jstor) isa non-scholar. I found this argument shaky.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Jstor is very useful for providing online articles, but it does not provide good coverage of all fields. My own field of Medieval German Studies is very poorly covered by Jstor. Also, if you search "Larry Hurtado" you will find review after review of his books, as will happen if you search "James F. McGrath". Several articles by Patrick Gary appear, and a few by Robert M. Price. In contrast, just one by Robert Carrier will appear--Ermenrich (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Currently, almost everything is digitized, and virtually all articles that deserve a serious attention can be found in Jstor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Not true at all. de:Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, one of the premier journals in German studies, is not on Jstor, nor is the journal Viator or Exemplaria in medieval studies. The list goes on. In fact, Jstor is a singularly bad place to look for articles on medieval Germany, I've found. Plenty of other important journals in other fields are not on it, so it can't be used as an indicator of scholarly seriousness. It just shows the rights of which publishers Jstor has been able to secure. It also has a definite anglophone bias.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Paul, yes, I used Google, of course. And that's fine, because Larry Hurtado is one of the most authoritative contemporary scholarly voices on Jesus and the origins of Christianity. See Google Scholar], especially Lord Jesus Christ. To give an impression:

Magnum opus remains a term best reserved for the crowning achievement of a scholar’s life and work, the pinnacle at the top of decades of research, writing, and sharpening arguments. These great works comprehensively examine and engage their field of work and, at their best, even redefine the field for years to come. Such is Larry W. Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 746pp.). Hurtado’s magnum opus—now approaching fifteen years old—not only transformed the field of early Christian studies, but also continues to offer insights and ways forward for contemporary scholars.

If you want to understand why Carrier is irrelevant, you have to find out which questions drive contemporary Jesus-research. Which is, as stated before: what can the (Christian) sources tell us about Jesus and the origins of early Christianity? Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ chapter 1, Forces and factors, is a good starter. But see also James Dunn, Christianity in the Making, three volumes. Dunn provides some context for the development of the CMT (context, of course! You have to see the CMT in it's context, of critical Biblical scholarship). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Carrier may be relevant or irrelevant (I already told you that I myself find its citation list not impressive), the question was if he is fringe. On 30th of July, Ermenrich cited 3 sources during a discussion with me, which were supposed to demonstrate their point. One of those three sources (#3) cites Carrier's opinion about the 15.44 Tacitus fragment, and he is mentioned along with Shaw. Had this work been fringe, it would never been cited in commentaries to Tacitus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Regarding google, don't you find your answer looks like circular argumentation? The question was about the your methods of neutral search of scholarly sources (google is not good for that purpose), and you answered that there is no problem with that because Curtado is obviously notable. That sounds illogical.−
I found several very positive reviews on Curtado in jstor, but majority of them are by theologists. Israel scholars and other secular scholars find some problems in his theories.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The sources were meant to show that Carrier hadn't "definitively proven" that the Tacitus passage is a Christian interpolation, not that he was fringe. I didn't know he was associated with a fringe theory at the time. If you actually read his whole argument, it's very unconvincing anyway, it requires an otherwise unknown Jewish figure named "Chrestus" to have been persecuted by Nero and to have invited Christian interpolation. But it was published in a (as far as I know) reputable journal. Carrier does not actually go full on CMT in the article either (if he had it probably wouldn't have been published, I imagine).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Ermenrich, I beg you not to sidetrack the discussion. My point was that Carrier was cited as a representative of a group of scholars who believes the passage is not authentic. Meanwhile, the current thesis we are discussing is that Carrier is ignored as a fringe theorist. However, if a source that you yourself consider reliable and reputable cites Carrer's opinion along with Shaw's opinion (and does not subject it to criticism), that by no means is an indication Carrier is fringe or ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You'd have to define what you mean by Theologian, Paul. Christian origin scholars are not generally involved in theology, though I suppose some theologians engage in the study of Christian origins.
And no one said that Curtado's work is perfect. There's always something wrong. But did any of the more critical reviews say Jesus never existed?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It cites his opinion about the authenticity of the mention of Christ in Tacitus, not the existence of Christ. I think that's a pretty big distinction.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I found psychologically uncomfortable to pretend nothing happened at ANI, and it is not easy for me to talk with a person who reported me ANI and requested my topic ban, and who now pretends nothing happened. I think you should either join our discussion with Joshua AND ask admins to close this nonsense at ANI or leave us alone. Moreover, the very fact that we are still discussing if Carrier is fringe theorist is an indication that there are some pro et contra, which means there were no proof for WP:FRINGE by the moment your ANI request was filed, so you either abstain from this discussion for there is nothing to discuss here, or concede your report was not completely justified.
I have a lot to say, and I would be happy to hear your opinion AND serious arguments (for records: currently your arguments ARE good), but only AFTER this story ends, preferably, on your initiative.
In addition, since one of main accusations against me was that I am making too many posts on talk pages, by engaging in this discussion you are provoking me to the very same behaviour you yourself criticised. Don't you find it hypocritical?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've only voted for the topic ban, Softlavander proposed it. I guess we'll see if it gets applied still. Anyway, I have a right to discuss here just like anyone else. You don't have to be comfortable about it, and yes, there was and is proof of WP:FRINGE, you're just going to argue about it some more (which is a separate question, I think, in a certain way, from how we need to deal with Richard Carrier, just like Icewhiz said). Aren't you supposed to be on vacation now anyway?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you just voted, and you still haven't withdrawn your vote yet. And you filed a report accusing me of pushing fringe theories. In my opinion, a simple intellectual honesty requires one to chose between the two ways described in my previous posts, but not BOTH of them. Of course, that is just my opinion, and I am not pretending these standards to be universal. Yes, you are allowed to post whatever you want, but I am allowed to have simple human emotions, and I am informing you that I find it uncomfortable to respond to you in this situation as if nothing happened.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry I've made you feel that way. My intention is and was not to hurt your feelings, but to protect the encyclopedia from what I view as some pretty horrific discussion behavior. As I've said before, I'm sure you've made some good contributions to Wikipedia, but on this issue I remain concerned about your POV.
Anyway, let's please return to the topic at hand, shall we?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to protect Wikipedia from what you see as a danger. I myself see your attempts to inflict administrative sanctions on the opponent, who is ready for open and honest discussion, as dangerous for Wikipedia. Anyway, I find this discussion to be redundantly long, and it is gradually moving away from its original goal. For all these reasons combined together, I would prefer not to respond. In addition, I am really very busy, and I already waster a lot of time during last few days. I will be physicaly unavailable during next few days. I am expecting to see a positive shift in your approach to the dispute resolution process by that time (I still have a hope that may happen).---Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Only reason this man seems notable is because he subscribes to a controversial and largely discredited theory. Why have an article for this man if we can't be honest about his works?★Trekker (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am definitely not a specialist in the field. I just wanted to comment a bit on the very fine line that usually separates the contiguous concepts of 'minority' and 'fringe' in controversial areas within a certain field. The categorization of certain ideas as 'fringe,' as opposed to 'minority,' usually means that these ideas have gone beyond the limit of intellectual respectability, and have passed now instead into the realm of the non-respectable, i.e. the realm of the easily dismissable and of the conveniently ignorable. And then, of course, there is also the very fine line that separates between the so-called 'fringe' and the 'lunatic fringe.' warshy (¥¥) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, it does sounds fringe in the context of what is known about the Historical Jesus. Basically, this is a theory that a well known historical person never existed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Change the wording

  • Thoughts Since one person found the words "fringe theory" possibly derogatory towards the subject of this article, why not change the wording to something along the lines of "theory rejected by mainstream authorities"? Those words make no statement about the quality of this theory.
    Paul Siebert, didn't you say you were about to be too busy to contribute to Wikipedia for two weeks not three days ago? When I'm that busy, I'm lucky if I have enough time to do more than fix a typo or two, or add a reference to a sentence. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
That certainly seems like a good solution to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep; I've just edited the article accordingly diff, though I did keep the link to "fringe theory," though with a different phrasing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That "Fringe theory" is derogatory is what Wikipedia says. I would disagree with "theory rejected by mainstream authorities" for two reasons. First, I am not sure Carrier is notable enough for the claim mainstream authorities reject his theory: majority of them are just unaware of it. It would be more correct to say "theory that contradicts to what ...". Second, I have a feeling that the criterion of "mainstreamness" is vague here. Who are mainstream? The authors who claim "Jesus really existed, and he was God"? (I happened to find this statement in one source presented to me as "mainstream".) Obviously, the second part of the statement completely undermines credibility of the first statement. The problem is that overwhelming majority of sources we are currently trying to present use the thesis of existence of historical Jesus as a premise. That creates an abundant body of texts, which prove virtually nothing.
In one research article (I already cited it somewhere) I found a very smart notion that majority historians studying Christ are focused on Christ, not on the origin of Christianity. Meanwhile, it would be interesting to check what historians of early Christianity (secular ones) think about historicity of Jesus. It seems they either ignore this issue or believe Christ was a mythological character. Therefore, instead of "mainstream" I would propose "notable historians studying the Gospels" or something of that kind. And, please, remove a link to fringe, it is still BLP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Still a BLP vio, particularly with the link. Not acceptable. You need sources stating this on Carrier. Anything on CMT, without Carrier, is SYNTH.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
See Gullatto. I'me repeating myself here for the second time... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
When one author sees it as fringe, and another author says otherwise, we cannot make a general statement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
What other author? And where are these "secular scholars of early Christianity" who believe Jesus was a myth you keep telling us about? Can't you cite some?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Daniel Gullotta is an M.A.R. candidate at Yale Divinity School in the History of Christianity concentration, withan emphasis upon American religious history, Biblical interpretation, and early Mormonism. He holds a master’sdegree in Theological Studies f rom the Australian Catholic University, a bachelor’s degree in Theology (with honors)from the University of Newcastle, and a bachelor’s degree in Theology (in Biblical Studies) from Charles Sturt University".
Not impressive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a matter of one author versus one other author, it's a matter of an avalanche of respectable academic authors versus two editors who WP:DONTGETIT - versus who? Carrier and Lataster? Even mythicists like Wells and Price acknowledge that the CMT has a fringe-status in the acedemics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no! Don't start that, please :-)! Please, stay focused on the topic, I beg you. That Carrier is not the best expert, and that something form what he says is questionable, that is obvious. But the claim that the theory is fringe ... can you find it in other sources? Something better than one young theologist (I thing to believe in a physical existence of Jesus is a some prerequisite for theologists, isn't it)?.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
He isn't a theologian [4]: "He is currently a Doctor of Philosophy student in Religious Studies at Stanford University, specializing in American Religious History." He may be a PhD grad student still, (a very accomplished one though, judging by his CV) but everyone studying Christian origins isn't a theologian. Religious studies is not theology. You're misrepresenting scholars you don't agree with. Anyway, his review is published in a reputable journal. Also, he's an atheist [5]. You should really learn more about early Christian/religious studies before labelling everyone in it Christian theologians.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've offered (a link to) dozens of quotes of authors who state that the CMT is fringe. Believe me, seriously. CMT is irrelevant in acedemic discussions. Ermenrich is right: you have to familiarize yourself with the subject. Christian origins, and Biblical studies, is incredibly complex. Read Dunn, Jesus Remembered, chapter 1-6; it's jawdropping impressive how much literature he's referring to. But for a shorter introduction: Resurrection of Jesus, Quest for the historical Jesus, and Salvation in Christianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: RfC

I think the only way this is going to be settled is with an RfC.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Premature. Please provide BLP complaint sources (not wordpress blogs - WP:BLPSPS applies) that discuss Carrier - and not CMT generally.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan did provide a published source on Carrier specifically and you just deleted it.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Gullatto is WP:RS; so are the other sources. I've made it abundantly clear that CMT is fringe; it's up to you to prove, with WP:RS, that it is accepted within mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You need sources on Carrier - not CMT in general. Furthermore you introduced a wordpress blog - which is forbidden on a BLP page (unless it is by the BLP subject) per WP:BLPSPS.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed the blog. And, repeating myself for the third time, Gullato is specifically about Carrier. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You left other blogs. And sources written a decade before Carrier's book was published. Please provide a clear quote from each source you leave in referring to Carrier specifically. If the only source that refers to Carrier is Gullato - then he definitely needs to be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
How do you feel about the state of the article now?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Much better. Still needs some work - e.g. clearly attributing criticisms in the lead (e.g. not "critics" - but who specifically) - and possibly trimming in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Joshua and Icewhiz, I think that it is quite ok to write that critics believe his theory is fringe. Support. The same should be done with the CMT article too. Good luck, see you in a couple of weeks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation (no, not more discussion now; woke up in the middle of the night, couldn't resist the urge to take a look; shame on me). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?* apparently discusses Carrier specifically. A local library has a copy; I'll look up what it says. I do oppose watering-down criticism of the general Christ Myth Theory by just attributing all criticism to "critics"; it's considered fringe by just about everybody with relevant academic credentials, regardless of religious belief or non-belief (Carrier is notable because he is essentially the only person with a relevant credential to disagree). It's one of many fringe beliefs that is popular on the internet but largely ignored in academia, and we need to make that clear to our readers. *Yes, I know that this book is a popular one, not an academic one. Ehrman (who is an atheist, BTW, not that that should matter) is a professor at UNC, and author of one of the standard Intro to the New Testament textbooks, so he is well positioned to evaluate the extent to which the Christ Myth theory has any traction in academia.Just a Rube (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the google preview is very limited, but I can confirm that it deals directly with Carrier [6]. He says that Carrier "along with Price is the only mythicist to my knowledge with graduate training in a relevant field". In fact, he appears to list all of the prominent mythicists in the introduction. I believe the Ehrman's book, popular or not, counts as an RS for this (in dealing with fringe theories we often have to rely on popular books/reviews by grad students anyway, since they will not be cited in serious journals). Please do look up what it says about Carrier so we can add it to the article.
By the way, Joshua Jonathan, you can add this to your list of fringe quotes:

It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves.

Unfortunately the preview includes no pagination.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No need in RfC. With Paul missing from the page (as he promised) you will find consensus very soon. In fact, I think you found it already. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Bart Ehrman (2012), Did Jesus Exist?, p.20. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Raphael Lataster (2019), Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse, BRILL, p. 1: "One common criticism is that we are on the fringes of scholarship." That's from a mythicist, published by BRILL. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this. But the relevant question here, in my view, is if Lataster does respond to this criticism, and how he responds to this criticism. Does he accept the label given by the critics without any counter-argument? This is relevant because it is already known that the critics define these theories as fringe. But what is the response of this proponent to this known criticism/labelling? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 23:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Presumably by saying that mainstream scholars are "neo-traditionalist" like Price does, or various other ways of saying they are blind to the obviousness of the mythicists' conclusions. I'm concerned we're holding this to a higher standard than we would other fringe theories: do we discuss the rebuttals to points made by mainstream historians when discussing, i.e. the moon-landing conspiracy?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
On page 3 of Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman writes "a couple of bona fide scholars - not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D in the field of New Testament - have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice." On page 19 he makes it clear that he includes Carrier among them ("Richard Carrier who along with Price is the only mythicst to my knowledge with graduate training in a relevant field") and he does so again on page 30 ("the serious authors who have pusued a mythicist agenda (for example, G.A.Wells, Robert Price, and now Richard Carrier)"). Thus for Ehrman, Carrier is an unusual member of the fringe in that he is a scholar, but fringe nonethess, and though Ehrman goes on to discuss Wells and Price at length, I found (the book isn't indexed) no further mention of Carrier. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, apparently plenty of people had access to it, but I've already picked it up at the library, so I might as well share what I have found. I share the frustration with lack of indexing. As noted, the initial mention of Carrier is in a short discussion at the beginning identifying various mythicists. He doesn't even get a sentence to himself, he's included on pg. 19 in a list of "other mythicists I will mention throughout the study" and noted as one of only 2 mythicists that Ehrman was aware of who had any relevant graduate training. I did find another brief bit on Carrier; pp. 167-9 talk about Carrier's use of Isaiah ch. 53 and Daniel ch. 9 to argue that there was a pre-existing image of a "suffering messiah" that formed the myth of Jesus. Ehrman notes that the interpretation of these passages as having anything to do with the Jewish messiah is broadly rejected by all non-Christian (and many Christian) scholars. That's the only place Carrier is cited in the footnotes. It's worth noting that the book was published in 2012, so he doesn't deal with any of Carrier's later claims, but he does briefly note of the claim that the passage of Tacitus on Christ were forged (a claim that Carrier seems to have later made) "I don't know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think this, and it seems highly unlikely" (pg. 55). As the IP above me said, he deals with a couple of other mythicists in much greater detail.
On the Christ Myth literature more generally, he says on pg. 2 "none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed." And again, on page 4 "I hardly need to stress what I have already intimated: the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet." Those seem fairly definitive in labeling the Christ Myth as a fringe theory, with no acceptance in academia (and as noted, Ehrman is both specifically aware of Carrier and includes him as a mythicist).Just a Rube (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Carrier and "celestial Jesus"

BRIIL, summary of Questioning the Historicity of Jesus:

This volume moves beyond the mainstream scholarly scepticism over the Christ of Faith and considers if there is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the more mundane Historical Jesus. Using the logical tools of the analytic philosopher, Lataster finds that the relevant sources are unreliable as historical documents, and that the key method of those purporting that the Historical Jesus existed is to appeal to sources that do not exist. Considering an ancient hypothesis suggesting that Jesus began as a celestial messiah that certain Second Temple Jews already believed in, and was later allegorised in the Gospels, Lataster discovers that it is more reasonable to at least be agnostic over Jesus’ historicity.

Sounds familiair. See This link has been corrected! Messiah in Judaism#1 Enoch for "celestial Messiah." Note that Ehrman and others think that Paul believed that Jesus was a celestial being who was incarnated on earth; see Christ myth theory#Paul's Jesus is a celestial being. In this regard, it's a very thin line that differentiates mythicism from mainstream. NB: look up "celestial messiah" at Google. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a very wide line between the mythicist position that Jesus was invented and the mainstream view that Jesus existed (was born, walked the earth, and died). The mainstream view's divided between those who think he was merely a mortal human and those who think he was divine/celestial, and the latter are further divided on on the details (cf Incarnation (Christianity), Resurrection of Jesus, Homoousion, Homoiousian, Trinity), but they're all utterly distinct from the mythicist position that Jesus simply didn't exist. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the argument that Carrier et al. are making is that Jesus of Nazareth, as a historical personage did not exist (at all), that he was some mythological being that Christians told stories about that somehow later people came to believe had actually lived. The mainstream view (Ehrman being but one representative thereof) is that there was an actual 1st century guy from Nazareth named Jesus who probably had a brother named James, preached some things that upset the local establishment (Ehrman views him as part of the tradition of Jewish apocalypticism that was extremely common at that time, preaching the imminent end of the world and denouncing the powers that be as corrupt, others have proposed somewhat different interpretations), was eventually arrested, crucified by Pontius Pilate and some of whose followers believed he rose from the dead and then they and later converts spread that religion around, adding increasingly exalted religious connotations to his life and death. Those are inherently opposed positions, and one is fringe and one is not. That's not a thin line.
Also, the Messiah#Enoch link doesn't seem to work. A quick Google Scholar search for "Celestial Messiah" seems to associate the term mostly with Lataster.Just a Rube (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Messiah in Judaism#Henoch. NB: Larry Hurtado (December 7, 2017 ), Gee, Dr. Carrier, You’re Really Upset!: Carrier’s work hasn’t had any impact in scholarly circles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean Messiah in Judaism#1 Enoch?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, sorry. See also the same Hurtado blog from december 7, 2017, on Carrier and his interpretation of Philo and the archangel Jesus. Hurtado concludes his comments on this with:

In short, in De Confusione, Philo wasn’t positing or developing any “archangel named Jesus.” [...] Carrier has simply muddled things. He’s incorrect. His claim is fallacious.

So far for the celestial Jesus. See also What is the general opinion of Richard Carrier's celestial Jesus theory in biblical academic circles?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Gullota: Larry Hurtado (December 13, 2017 ), New Article on “Mythical Jesus”:

With apologies to readers fed up with the “mythical Jesus” discussions, I simply note a newly published article comprising a careful, fair, and incisive critique of Richard Carrier’s book: Daniel N. Gullotta, “On Richard Carrier’s Doubt's[”]]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Mike Bird (2017), A Peer Reviewed Journal Takes Down Richard Carrier’s Jesus Mythicism:

I sit on the editorial board of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ably edited by James Crossley and Anthony Le Donne. The editorial board is quite diverse (though could use a few more women) with Americans, Europeans, and even Australians. It also has people of many different religious affiliations, there are members who identify as Jewish, evangelical Christian, mainline Christian, agnostic, and atheist. We disagree on just about everything when it comes to Jesus and the sources pertaining to him. However, what we all agree on is that (1) Jesus existed and (2) people who deny his existence are cranks or bad-historians.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: independent revision

As the above arguments demonstrate, this article is 1) in need of considerable cleanup, and 2) the subject of rather acrimonious disputes by parties with very strong feelings about what should and shouldn't be included. Skimming over the current version, I note a huge degree of argumentation about Christ Myth theory's status (specifically whether or not it's a "fringe" theory) going on in the article lead, whereas the purpose of the lead is just to introduce the subject and main topics of the article. A single statement in the lead has something like eight or ten citations, plus explanatory notes that don't even seem to be working properly. Related passages in the body are bristling with citations and notes.

As someone who only checked on this article because it seemed likely to be the subject of such disputes, relating to other ongoing discussions at Pontius Pilate and ANI, I'd like to offer my services to clean up and revise the article and its sourcing in a more neutral tone—but only if the currently adverse parties are willing to step back and let me take a stab at it! I believe there's room to discuss the contentious issues without infringing on BLP or giving undue weight to either side, and certainly it should be possible to declutter the prose by consolidating sources and notes so that they're accessible by readers. What do you say? P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I say, give it a try! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please do!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
P Aculeius, thank you for your good faith efforts, but I doubt your proposal will be fruitful. Taking into account a terrible ANI discussion that has (hopefully) came to a logical end, I am afraid, this "independent revision" will become a !vote, which will lead us nowhere. Sorry, misread your proposal. If you want to clean up the article, that would be great. the problem is that it seems it is a little bit premature. I think your contribution will be more fruitful if you wait until we (I mean Joshua and I) develop some common point of view on that account. There is nothing "rather acrimonious " in our discussion with Joshua Jonathan, he is a nice, knowledgeable and logically thinking person, who is capable of listening others, address their arguments and present their own counter-arguments. I would be happy if you all allowed us to finish our discussion. I see a progress, and I am sincerely hope to come to a consensus with Jonathan, which may allow us to resolve many problems in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, P Aculeius, you tried.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll wait until you guys are ready to take a break. P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you guys still want an independent cleanup? While it looks better now, there are still some legitimate concerns—chiefly that while Carrier's viewpoints and scholarship are disputed by many reliable authors, the amount of space and number of sources cited for such criticism may appear to violate WP:NPOV. As Wikipedians, we may or may not be persuaded by the arguments made by Carrier or his critics—but the reader doesn't want to know our opinion. The lead section is mainly to introduce the article and its main topics; it doesn't need to contain significant argumentation about whether Carrier is right about this or that. Discussion of his theories, their development and exposition, and reception by others, go in the body. Leads should rarely contain detailed claims or require more than a few general citations! While a lot of emphasis has been given to the word "fringe", the exact wording of criticism isn't really important. There's no forensic test to separate "small minority" from "fringe"; you can say that some scholars describe Carrier's views on this or that as "fringe theories", but you can't state unequivocally that they are. As Wikipedia contributors, it's not our place to decide whether he or his critics are right, any more than we decide whether God exists and whether he prefers decaf. I'm not denying that our judgment shapes how this article and others like it are written, but for precisely that reason, we have to be very careful not to overemphasize the things we find persuasive, or trivialize those we don't! P Aculeius (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

P Aculeius, I would still welcome an independent cleanup.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll happily leave you to get on with it, with one last comment: that the Aviezer Tucker review quoted under "Contentious material" as if approving seems to me to be scathing, saying that Carrier hasn't correctly performed Bayesian analysis and that the Gospels don't provide the preconditions for Bayesian analysis anyway. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I strongly endorse P Aculeius' views, and would very much like to see his attempt at a cleanup. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've done my best, hope it doesn't look like a total mess to you guys now. It might still need some trimming in places; the descriptions of Carrier's theories in his books is a bit repetitive, as is the criticism, but I hope I reduced that a good bit. I also tried to fix a lot of the opaque verbiage by trimming a lot of "per blah" passages and rewriting complex sentences in a clearer manner (at least, it seemed clearer to me; it's 3:00 in the morning so maybe it's gibberish to the rest of the world). Mainly, though, I tried to make sure everything read a bit more neutrally, and I worked to combine related sections to make the article structure more coherent. Feel free to revert what you think doesn't work, or just fix it how you think best. P Aculeius (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
P Aculeius: Thanks. From a very cursory first read, your revisions seem an improvement. Paul August ☎ 12:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree, looks quite nice!--Ermenrich (talk)
Question, P Aculeius: do you think the fact that Bart Ehrman identifies Carrier as one of two mythicists with relevant credentials deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the article?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Just skimming the above discussion of Ehrman's criticism, it seems relevant and specifically addresses some of Carrier's arguments, so it gives the impression of being as good as the things currently mentioned under "reception". So I'd go ahead and add it, but I'm going to take a crack at revising this section now, while I can keep the general thrust of my ideas in my head. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've done what I could to improve this subsection, eliminating the need for most of the footnotes. I left in one as an elaboration of a quotation that was long enough; perhaps the statement that Gullotta describes Carrier's opinions as a "fringe theory" should also be in a footnote, as this phrase has already been used in introducing criticism of Carrier's overall hypothesis earlier in the section. Ehrman is cited, but not discussed; feel free to add a paragraph on his specific criticisms. P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I added the reference to him as one of two credentialled mythicists, but I'm not sure how in depth we should go on Ehrman's three page critique of Carrier's views of a Jewish "suffering messiah", apparently in Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn't Need a Miracle to Succeed (2009), a book that appears to have otherwise been ignored by reviewers.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Not too far in-depth, I shouldn't think: there's already a lot of criticism, even if the majority of it concerns the other book or his overall claims. And Ehrman's already cited at least twice—too much and it begins to read like an "Ehrman vs. Carrier" argument, which isn't the case given the amount of criticism from other authors. But to the extent that the claims or analysis are different, you could briefly mention them without any problems. P Aculeius (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's lawsuit against atheist bloggers

The atheist Hemant Mehta just published an article entitled Judge Dismisses Richard Carrier’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Atheist Bloggers.

The aforementioned article indicates:

"After two years, a lawsuit that could have shut down two large atheist blog networks has been dismissed by a judge.

The lawsuit began in September of 2016, when Dr. Richard Carrier (below), the author of several books about ancient philosophy, religion, and science, sued individual atheists, Freethought Blogs and The Orbit (atheist blog networks), and the Skepticon conference on charges of defamation, interference with his business, and emotional distress. Those charges stemmed from posts made about his alleged sexual harassment, an accusation he repeatedly denied."[7]

Carrier's response is this article: You Should Judge My Sexual Harassment Case.

Given Carrier's atheist activism and the prominence of the Me Too movement, should this information be contained in the article?Knox490 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think a summary would be appropriate but it must be very strictly in conformance with policy in regard to biographies of living people, see WP:BLP.Smeat75 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Has this incident received any coverage in reliable sources? Both of the cited sources appear to be WP:SELFPUB blogs, and so neither would be compliant with WP:BLPSPS Nblund talk 20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The biologist and professor PZ Myers, who owns and writes for the Pharyngula science blog (hosted at Freethoughtblogs.com), has written/spoken about this matter at Dang, we’re still being sued for defamation, and the guy has acquired deeper pockets. Carrier has given his position on this matter at: Judging from the Evidence: Richard Carrier and Sexual Harrassment.Knox490 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The Free Law Project via their website CourtListener.com has information concerning the trial at: Carrier v. FreethoughtBlogs Network (2:16-cv-00906) District Court, S.D. Ohio.Knox490 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
These also appear to be self published/user-generated personal blog pages. These have no editorial oversight. They are generally not considered reliable sources and they definitely wouldn't be reliable for contentious material about living people. Given that this involves a claim of defamation, there's a particularly strong reason to tread carefully here and avoid publicizing this unless it has been covered by a reliable secondary source. WP:BLPPRIMARY also prohibits citing court records and other public documents in BLPs. Nblund talk 21:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPSELFPUB says There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source and then lists conditions. Carrier has written about this a lot[8] and published lots of inks to court documents and so on, [9].Smeat75 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Carrier's defenses of himself against allegations of sexual harassment are obviously self-serving (violating item #1) and involve third parties (violating item #3). Even if deemed reliable (and they really aren't), citing these allegations would probably be WP:UNDUE unless someone can show that they have been covered by reliable secondary sources. Nblund talk 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The only mainstream news report I can find about any of this is an article from the Washington Post from September 7, I am linking to it from a reprint in the Salt Lake Tribune as Washington Post is behind a paywall - [10]. The article is mainly about someone else and only briefly mentions Carrier Richard Carrier, a science historian and popular secularist speaker, has both apologized for and denied accusations of unwanted sexual advances at secularist and atheist events. He has been banned from at least one conference. I wouldn't describe Carrier as a "science historian" and it doesn't refer to his suing atheist blogs,but that might be the basis for a brief mention of the issue.Smeat75 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post article does indicate he is a secular speaker which is correct, but I agree with you that he is not a science historian. In a year or two, perhaps the court cases will go through the court system. My guess is that a secondary reliable source will be available at that time and the additional reliable source (or sources) will mention the court cases.Knox490 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75, it might make sense to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard if you feel strongly that this should be included. The WaPo source does contain a passing mention, but I still think the sourcing here is still quite weak for a BLP. Nblund talk 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That these allegations do not get a moment's attention in the article is surely a sign of serious bias on the part of the writer. They may be considered unproven, but, they are clearly a part of the subject and should be reported. They wouldn't be the only unproven allegations to appear on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.95.130 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is happening with the lawsuits. One was dismissed and Carrier dropped the other two lawsuits.[11] So a lawsuit section would be fairly pointless now.Knox490 (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New scholarly book that discusses Carrier

The 2019 book How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths by M. David Litwa discusses Carrier as one of three scholarly serious proponents of Christ Myth Theory pp. 33-43? [12]. Someone with access to the book should add this - it's a prolonged scholarly engagement with Carrier that disproves his arguments, focusing on On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Have Reason to Doubt.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:Carrier fringe - He is a trained scholar, even if he exists on the fringes of the academic guild. (p. 35).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added some material based on what I can see in the google book preview.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Atheism+

Ramos1990, can you please provide a source 1) that Atheism+ is in any way a notable movement among atheists (it conspicuously lacks a Wikipage and the criticism I removed claimed it lasted very little and became very unpopular, so not sounding very large or important) and/or 2) that Carrier is actually associated it beyond a single blog post in 2012? If you can't, this should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored your edit that included "lasted very little and became very unpopular". That is certainly true. However, I think that an article for "Atheism Plus" alone can be made for wikipedia like the Ratoionalwiki did here [13]. It has substance. Now to your question about Carrier's involvement in it, well... he has a whole section in his own blog talking about it and defending it in multiple blog posts [14] and, furthermore, he wrote a whole piece on it for the American Humanist Association in 2013 [15]. So it was a big deal for Carrier. It looks quite relevant to his biography page.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Those are primary sources. Can you provide any secondary sources besides Rationalwiki that this movement is significant? Press coverage, for instance? The Rationalwiki is sourced entirely to blogs and Youtube.
Can you provide a secondary source staying that the movement was unpopular and didn't last long? This is a fact that can't just be stated like that. Right now the text just serves to criticize Carrier for being zealous in his support of social justice.
Also: Can you provide something besides blogs associating it with Carrier?--Ermenrich (talk)
Here are some secondary sources on the movement: news source [16], academic journal [17], academic dictionary [18], mainstream publisher [19], news source [20], news source [21]. These are just some examples. Including Carrier's own publications
In terms of Carrier, sources like the piece he published to the American Humanist Association in 2013 [22] are valid in an of themselves. After all, he did write this stuff himself. Also, an interview with Huff Post reporter who wrote about that movement and Carrier [23], also Carrier's slides for the 2013 convention where he publicly presented Atheism plus [24]. Of course the commentary by the atheist community is also relevant. [25]. These are not random people, the Center for Inquiry, Massimo Pigliucci, Jen McCreight, etc are big voices in the atheist community and they often report of what goes on in their community first.Ramos1990 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Carrier/Archive_3&oldid=1087386459"