Talk:Richard Carrier

Reception and Criticism / BLPLEAD

The phrases "Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists, and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe"." should be moved to Reception and Criticism. That is where it fits. The introduction already contains a link to CMT which is useful and sufficient for contextualization.--Grisselbaer (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But Carrier's theories have specifically been called fringe, and their reception has been controversial and unconvincing to specialists. That's what he's mostly known for, why would we remove it from the lead?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I fear there might be a misunderstanding. Do you claim Carrier is mostly known for what Tucker, Gulotta and Littwa published about his theories? --Grisselbaer (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you claim that the fact that scholars in the field think that his “theories” are nonsense isn’t a relevant fact about him (and them)? Is suggest checking out wp:FRINGE. When we discuss fringe theories, we have a duty not to make it sound like scholars take them seriously. The fact that QAnon isn’t mostly known for whatever has been written by scholars about them doesn’t mean we leave out the fact that they’re ideas are viewed as nonsense by all authorities. Additionally, MOS:LEAD says the lead needs to summarise the article - a great deal of which is devoted to Carrier’s “theories” and their (negative) reception. Based on that alone the sentence should stay.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since QAnon has nothing to do with this article, I guess you want to discuss, if the lead fits the criteria of MOS:Lead then? I suggest we should take the more detailed guidelines of Biography#Lead_section into account too. In case you got me wrong: Contextualization of Carriers theories is important. So is the contextualization of the critique.--Grisselbaer (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is certainly in line with MOS:LEAD since Richard Carrier is known for radical views that are not inline with mainstream scholarship and constantly complains about consensus views and scholarship in most of his works. Certainly Carrier has focused on mythicism for much of the past 6 years and seems to be his only focus now. He is a leading voice for mythicism now - it defines him and so does his war with critics of his mythicism [1]. He really spends lots of time trying to respond to his critics - when all other researchers use academic publications to build their cases and responses. This article is not about mythicism but about Carrier's life and works - which have resulted in so many criticisms of his mythicist views and his defenses of his views precisely because he has pushed for mythicism for a while now and has constantly complained about the consensus views. I am sure you will agree that Carrier is controversial in almost everything he does - which all is linked to his hard atheism and activism. What contextualization of his theories would you be referring to?Ramos1990 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Im not sure how the BLP section of MOS:LEAD is in any way relevant to whether the fact that Carrier is scoffed at by everyone in the field should be included in the lead. It is an important fact about him; he doesn’t just have a minority scholarly opinion or something, he is a fringe figure who no one takes seriously.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to see what the actual proposal was about. I agree with you. But since User:Grisselbaer brought up MOS I was just noting that the lead was inline with that already. It does not bar criticism from the lead, especially if criticism was a relevant part of the person's biography - which it is for Carrier as his blog clearly shows. I am still curious about "Contextualization of Carriers theories" as what that would even look like...Ramos1990 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if that looked like I was disagreeing with you post, I was actually responding to him not you.—Ermenrich (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ramos,

my argument was that these two sentences (as quoted above) in the lead should be moved to reception and criticism since it is reception and criticism. Then Ermenrich brought up MOS:Lead to argue that these sentences need to stay in the lead for summarization purposes. That’s when I mentioned MOS:BLPLEAD.

Now, you have added other important points about Carrier’s work and “significance”, e.g. his ongoing dispute with academic consensus, his activism, the criticism of his mythisism etc. I want to make clear that this is not what I am addressing. I neither want to argue against the oppinio communis doctorum, nor do I want to defend Carrier’s position.

To avoid possible misunderstandings, if the consensus on this page is that reception and criticism needs to be summarized in the lead, then MOS:BLPLEAD also says that the summary must reflect the entirety of the article correctly. Do you think that this is the case?

Thank you for your answer. Best regards, --Grisselbaer (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

then MOS:BLPLEAD also says that the summary must reflect the entirety of the article correctly. Yes this is true - but I'm unclear how this means we should remove the sentence? Or what is it your suggesting?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Grisselbaer, glad to hear your thoughts. In looking at the amount of criticism that is in the article (not just the reception and criticism section), it seems to amount to about 1/5 of the whole article at least and this makes sense since Carrier is quite controversial with his ideas and his behavior towards fellow academics. That being the case, the small mention of how he is viewed as fringe in the lead is pretty mild since it is only one sentence and yet it summarizes a significant portion of the article contents like leads are supposed to. All of the other sentences in the lead summarize Carrier's works and views like they are supposed to too. Does this help? I suppose that if Richard Carrier were not as abusive in his treatment of other scholars or their ideas then there would have been less sources available that criticize him. But he seems to know how to push the wrong buttons from scholars and in doing so creates more reliable sources that criticize him and his views.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ramos,

Hello Ermenrich,

Thank you for your reply. Hopefully my answer is sufficient for two recipients. My first impression was, that the two sentences from above should be moved, because it’s only two sentences. That was just it. Ramos has pointed out understandably that criticism and reception should be summarized in the lead. Summarizing a large and important section of this article with (just) these two sentences and also some vague and ambiguous expressions do not reflect this article correctly. But I am also aware of the fact that a lead must not be “hypertrophic”.

So I would like to propose an alternative phrasing/wording to clarify some expressions and to add some context. I will not alter the central aspects of the criticism, that we agree about btw (“fringe status”, methodological flaws, numerous rejections of his conclusions). I want to point that out, because the sections above reveal that some of Carriers proponents tried to “acquit” him.

Shall we discuss the wording in detail? Do you have objections? Best regards--Grisselbaer (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What is it you propose?--Ermenrich (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think criticism does not belong in the lead section of a biography. Scholar consensus on a theory doesn’t tell us if the theory is wrong or right. Paradigm-shift theories usually also start with very low scholar acceptance. Many theories that started as “fringe” are now widely accepted (and the contrary is also true). For example: the historicity of Moses, the heliocentric system, evolution, prions, germ theory, continental drift, etc. The lead section in a biography should be about the person and his/her work, not about other people think about this person or work. Criticism and praise belong in the “Reception and criticism” section (this is my first edition on a talk page, sorry if I did anything wrong)Tirantloroig (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

Criticism absolutely does belong in the lead section. Otherwise readers will come away with the idea that Carrier is a real scholar that other scholars take seriously. We don't leave out criticism of other figures either. In the unlikely event that Carrier's completely unconvincing and largely nonsensical theories do ever become the scholarly consensus, Wikipedia will be changed to reflect that.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard Carrier has a PhD in History from Columbia Univ, and peer-review publications in this field, therefore he is a real scholar. This kind of personal attacks and bias should be avoided here. Criticism of Carrier's work should be restricted to scholars with a PhD and peer-reviewed publications in a relevant field. And, to maintain neutrality, it should be balanced with praise from other scholars. A lot of criticism come from people without relevant credentials, who doesn’t understand Dr. Carrier methodology, and/or who work in institutions where doubting the existence of Jesus would result in their dismissal. All these relevant scholar praise/criticism need to be balanced and should be accompanied by reliable sources/references, etc. This is why it belongs in “Reception and criticism” section.Tirantloroig (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

There is no “praise from other scholars”, the only positive review by any scholar is someone who collaborated with him.Carrier is not taken seriously in the field and lives as an atheist attack dog, he is not employed by any academic institution, whatever his credentials. Trying to remove that fact from the lead isn’t going to happen.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Collaborators are scholars with independent minds, careers and research projects. Their opinion is relevant. I have a Ph.D. and collaborate with other researchers in my field; this is perfectly normal and expected, even encouraged. Carrier has a Ph.D. in History, and he has peer-reviewed publications, which means that other historians reviewed his work and found it has merit. About “he is not employed by any academic institution”: one doesn’t need to be in an academic institution to produce good academic research. Remember Einstein was working in a patent office when he published his first “groundbreaking articles” in 1905 (the same year he obtained his Ph.D.). And I believe Charles Darwin was not in an academic institution when he researched for and published “On the Origin of Species”.Tirantloroig (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

This article's situation has already been resolved because this is not about some ideal about someone with a PhD as to whether or not he is a scholar. Carrier certainly is a scholar, but he is scholar who has been heavily criticized for his fringe views by other scholars. The lead reflects the contents of the article and we have to follow wikipedia protocols, not principles or arguments about whether Carrier is close to the truth or not. Clearly there are more critical sources from academics on him than positive ones and the article reflects the views his own colleagues have on his arguments. It is so bad with Carrier that he cannot even publish his updated research findings in peer reviewed journals. He resorts to independent or partisan publishers now. Most academics, even other fringe ones do not have this problem.

Check out his own blog page to see how much peer reviewed work he has done on Jesus [2]. Almost nothing. Most of it is self-published, not peer reviewed. So he is not up there with actual academics who continuously publish in peer reviewed journals. Carrier seems to have bypassed the academy most of the time on Jesus.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ramos, Hello Ermenrich, unfortunately, I am very busy at work and couldn't come up with a constructive suggestion. However, I am on it. Thank you for your patience. Best regards --Grisselbaer (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ramos, Hello Ermenrich, Hello Tirantloroig,

after giving the rephrasing in the lead some thoughts, here is what I came up with. It is important that the rephrasing should not mitigate the ciriticism. I have put more suggestions (not sure yet) in brackets. Further explanation of the rephrasing is given below.

Carrier’s hypotheses and conclusions from his Christ-myth approach contradict established academic standards. Furthermore, his Bayesian approach has been criticized to be inconsistent with historical methodology. Since Carrier claims to have proven by probability that Jesus is a myth, he has not met the scientific consensus and provoked controversies. Several scholars in the field of biblical history [etc.?] have rejected Carrier’s claims as unconvincing [and untenable?]. While he has contributed to the controversies about methodologies used by scholars in the field of historic Christianity, Carrier’s hypotheses have been identified as “fringe” [due to his theoretical orientation?].

• It is problematic that the academic field(s) the criticism and Carrier’s work originate from is not mentioned at all. I think this might be a reason for some people constantly arguing about the fringe status. “Biblical history” would be preferable, but maybe there is a better description (referring to [etc.?]).
• Following from this: The term “specialists” is meaningless without context. One would probably have to grant Carrier a “specialist” status as well. Therefor the lead should outline the academic context and make the criticism a bit more precise.
• “[and untenable?]”: Untenable fits the criticism best, but it is just used by Gullotta. So I am not really sure if it should be used for summarization.
• “proven controversial and unconvincing” I guess the intention in the actual version is to emphasize the controversy about Carriers work, though it is inept. Neither does the controversy to be proven nor does one need to prove that scientists/scholars are not convinced. The criticism is based on empiric work and critical evaluation, therefor it is not interesting if the referenced scientists/scholars are convinced or not. That is implicit. So, I propose “rejected C.’s claims as unconvincing”. “Inconclusive” could be a better word, but I think “unconvincing” is used now in reference to Gullotta.
• To comply with BLP:Lead I added one contribution by Carrier to the field of historic Christianity (that most scholars agree on) so the lead is not “overwhelmingly” emphasizing the criticism.
• Since CMT is fringe, it is not necessary to point out that his hypotheses have often been identified as fringe. One could add “due to his theoretical orientation” to make the criticism more tangible.

So, what do you think?

Thank you very much in advance for your input and answers.

Best regards

--Grisselbaer (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That is too much wording for the lead. The lead is short and to the point. One need not be so detailed in the lead as the article sections flesh out the details. However, your paragraph wording seems good as an intro for the "Reception and Criticism" section with a minor adjustments. Furthermore the lead is not overwhelmingly citing criticism. Criticism is only one sentence. Most of it highlights his career and activities he is known for. Also, no one has really disputed his fringe status except only a few editors throughout the years. Very infrequent so it is not an issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Ramos. Also, the field isn't biblical history, it's Religious Studies. Carrier is defined as fringe simply because he spends all of his scholarly energies trying to prove Jesus didn't exist as a human being, which is a thesis not taken seriously by other scholars in the field of religious studies or classical history. That's certainly how I understand Litwa calling him "on the fringes of the academic guild." I'm also not sure how he's contributed to "controversies about methodologies." If there's a controversy about methodology, it's not being driven by Carrier.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Grisselbaer, this is very thoughtful but it is too long and, while you are trying to remain neutral, it is unnecessarily negative. I would not say “Carrier’s hypotheses and conclusions from his Christ-myth approach contradict established academic standards” but, if anything, I would say that it “contradicts academic consensus”. As far as I know, Carrier meets academic standards (this is why he has been able to get a Ph.D., and publish peer-reviewed articles and a peer-reviewed book). It is most historicists who don’t meet the academic standards common in other fields of research (let’s say physics or geology). The fact that the historicity of Moses and other biblical figures was the accepted academic consensus until recently is a proof that the standards of this field are embarrassingly poor.

On another side, I agree with Grisselbaer that not all opinions in the field are equally valid. One cannot say “scholars reject this theory…” because you are including here only negative opinions and, also, you are including the opinion of authors with no Ph.D. in a relevant field. Not to say the obvious: that Christian scholars are not equipped intellectually to investigate on the historicity of Jesus (they will disregard any evidence against historicity since these evidences would contradict their beliefs). Therefore, we should only take into account criticism from non-Christian scholars with relevant credentials, since they don’t have an inherent bias on this topic. Jewish, Buddists, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, etc…, in principle, don’t have preconceived ideas on Jesus’ existence, just on Jesus’ divinity. Actually, this is not even true, because basically all non-Christian scholars learned as kids that Jesus existed.

I don’t agree with Ermenrich that this is not biblical history. We are talking about the historicity of Jesus, therefore the best qualified scholars to research on this topic are historians experts in classical antiquity. Biblical scholars, can rely on their expertise on the bible but, to contribute to this field, they need to wear a historian hat. Another problem is that most scholars that read Carrier’s work are unable to understand (or don’t care to understand) the Bayesian methodology used by him. Saying that “Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists, and he and his theories are often identified as fringe” is biased because you only are including the negative opinions (even from people with non-relevant credentials) and ignore praise from a few scholars. Also, saying in the introduction that the theory is fringe suffers from the same bias and it is “poisoning the well”. Only a few people in the world have the credentials to have an unbiased opinion on Carrier’s work. And Jesus mythicism is not a fringe theory anymore as more scholars admit (some in private) it has some merit and shouldn’t be immediately discarded without thought. Even historicists like M. David Litwa says that “JMT has gained currency in recent years” (and has dedicated a chapter to JMT in his book “How the Gospels Became History”). I have seen several articles or books chapters by historicists about JMT, which they wouldn’t do if it was a fringe theory. I think the most neutral way to finish the introductory section would be something like “Carrier's methodology and conclusions about the historicity of Jesus have proven controversial and unconvincing for the majority of scholars in this field” or, even better, “Carrier's methodology and conclusions about the historicity of Jesus have proven controversial and, so far, lies outside the academic consensus” On another topic, in some parts of the article there is too much gossip and little substance. And Carrier’s new book (Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ) needs to be added to the list of publications.Tirantloroig (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

Hi. It seems you are very new to wikipedia. But much of what you said is beyond the scope of a biography. Also, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. When reliable sources make statements they are valid to use on wikipedia. We do not gauge the merit of an viewpoint here as editors - that is, wiki editors do not make proclamations on what they think the status of the field is - we only state what the sources say on the matter. Only the sources can make claims on anything posted on wikipedia. We merely cite what reliable sources have to say on Richard Carrier. Please look at how we gauge reliable sources [WP:RS]], and also WP:OR. You and I and everyone else is not an expert on these topics so our personal opinions do not carry weight on wikipeida. We have to follow what the sources say. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What he said. The fact that you (or I or Ramos or Grisselbaer) is unconvinced by a scholar's argument doesn't mean we get to substitute our own logic for it. There are a number of problems with your post besides that, but suffice to say that our policies on original research and reliable sources do not allow us to make the kinds of changes and arguments you want. On Wikipedia, reliable sources are king, see WP:Academic bias, in particular WP:CHOPSY. Basically, Carrier doesn't make the test.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramos and Ermenrich: the problem is to cite only "reliable sources" that have a negative opinion on this author while ignoring other "reliable sources" that have positive opinions. Ignore my long text: my proposal was just to make the last sentence more neutral (while acknowledging Carrier's work doesn't agree with academic consensus) saying “Carrier's methodology and conclusions about the historicity of Jesus have proven controversial and, so far, lies outside the academic consensus”. I don't think criticism belongs in the lead section but, if the consensus here is to include opinions of "reliable sources", it should include negative, neutral and positive opinions from "reliable sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirantloroig (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that Ermenrich provided some helpful links on how wikipedia works. Very much appreciated. In terms of your latest comment, I am sorry but you seem to think that there actually are some sort of equal number of sources that are negative and positive on Carrier. But looking at even Richard Carrier's blog who keeps track of reviews of his works (he really gets butt hurt when anyone disagrees with him) shows that there are more scholarly criticisms of his ideas than actual positive reviews on him [3] (has more than 35 scholars who criticize his works - that's a lot!!). In fact you mentioned his latest book "Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ" - it is a follow up to On the Historicity of Jesus and it is published by a partisan publisher, not an academic publisher. Carrier is not as much of a grand or revolutionary scholar as you think. He is pretty fringe and his career actually shows it with him never being able to land a university position EVER and constantly being economically dependent on his fans to fund his life and research. So much Conflict of Interest... Regular researchers do not have fan bases that fund them directly. They have grants and institutions that do that because what they propose for funding has merit, unlike Carrier's topic.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramos, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and “significant minority” views that have appeared in those sources are covered WP:RS. There are several reputable scholars that agree with Carrier’s conclusions in that there are powerful reasons to doubt Jesus ever existed: Arthur Droge, Kurt Noll, Hector Avalos, Thomas Brodie, Thomas Thompson, Robert Price, Raphael Lataster. In addition, there are historicist scholars that agree JMT is a respectable point of view: Philip Davies, Zeba Crook, Francesca Stavrakopolou, Tom Dykstra, Justin Meggitt. This list (item 22 at www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794) includes 12 sitting and retired/deceased professors and independent scholars (with relevant credentials) that think JMT has merit. These are “significant minority” views. I am not trying to say Carrier is right, only that the “fringe” label should be removed from the lead section. And there are plenty of researchers who have done paradigm-shifting research independently while not teaching in an academic institution (Darwin, Einstein, Ramanujan, etc.).Tirantloroig (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

None of that matters - reliable sources say he is fringe and that CMT is fringe. That he’s made a list of people expressing such views is not important. You could probably find a similar number of otherwise reputable academics arguing that Mohammed didn’t exist or that QAnon is real or that evolution isn’t real. Within the field itself, it is a fringe position. At this point you should wp:drop the stick, there is no consensus for your proposal.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry User:Tirantloroig, but we wiki editors do not determine if Carrier is fringe or not. No reliable source makes the claim that Carrier is not fringe - they claim his views are fringe all the way - his ideas are not mainstream at all. So we follow the consensus view in these fields on Carrier. Since Carrier's mythicism is not part of the mainstream view, it cannot be put on equal footing with the mainstream view as if it was equal in pervasiveness among academic scholars. The sources themselves make that particular claim on Carrier, not us. Even the myhticists researchers acknowledge fringe status in their works on Carrier (example Raphael Lataster's recent work on mythicism and Robert Price). Even Carrier acknowledges that (from your web link [here https://web.archive.org/web/20201117033357/https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794]) that "Which makes over a dozen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible." Only about a dozen? There thousands of researchers on religion, early Christianity, Palestinian archeology, ancient history, early and late Judaism, etc. And only about a dozen is all Carrier could even find? Some of the ones he cites are not mythicists either - they were sympathizers to mythicism. Furthermore Carrier verifies fringe status in the link you mentioned! He states in the comments "All I can say is that (a) I have read some of the old literature (pro and con), and I am fairly certain it was always a fringe idea (an outlier that never won a consensus over) and (b) I don’t know any significant proponents of the Jesus myth theory between 1950 and 1980. But maybe I’m overlooking someone. Of course, early 20th century mythicism was flawed, and so were its rebuttals, such that the consensus emerging between 1950-1980 was not necessarily well founded. But that’s a separate matter." Ramos1990 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramos, there are not many scholars doing research ON the historicity of Jesus (trying to prove whether he existed or not). Most scholars just assume he existed, which is a legitimate position since it is the academic consensus (but remember, 50 years ago the academic consensus was that Moses was historical). Until recently, there were not many good challengers to the historicity of Jesus, but in the last decade there has been two peer-reviewed books arguing that Jesus probably never existed (Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” and Lataster’s “Questioning the Historicity of Jesus”). I don’t know any recent peer-reviewed book on this topic defending the historicity of Jesus. It is not the same thing trying to prove Jesus existed or not, that writing about religion/history and assuming (without questioning) that he existed. Carrier says JMT was a fringe idea, but it is not anymore.Tirantloroig (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

Find me any evidence that these books have been positively received in the field. You won't find it. Lataster's book doesn't even have any reviews in reputable journals and not by colleagues in his own department. The only positive Carrier review I've ever seen is by Lataster. Lataster himself says people call him fringe even while he tries to argue that he isn't. The question of whether Jesus existed is simply not one that reputable scholars spend any time discussing in peer reviewed works. They consider the matter settled. The consensus position is laid out by Ehrman, Casey, and Litwa (who does not, as you claim, say that CMT is worthy of study, just that it's worth refuting: and note that he only finds THREE actual scholars arguing this, and one is from the 19th century!). As I said, there comes a time to move on. You can continue to believe that CMT is not fringe, but reliable sources prove you wrong. The article isn't going to change to accommodate your view over that expressed by reliable sources. This is approaching WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I never said Litwa thinks CMT is worthy of study; he said that JMT "has gained currency in recent years”. Actually, these 3 authors you mention have spent significant time and effort arguing against JMT. Litwa has a book chapter on the topic in 2019 (How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths), Casey a book (Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?), and we all know how much Ehrman argued against Carrier. So much effort for a matter that is settled! Every field of research needs an update every decade or so, to incorporate new research and question established dogmas. For example, a few decades ago, the historicity of Moses (which had been a settled matter until then) was superseded. Tirantloroig (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

The scholarly consensus on Moses is not that he was a mythical person, but that it is impossible to derive much on the actual figure due to the extent of time that has passed and the composition of the text. He is obscure, not made up. Even the consensus among scholars on the Exodus is that there is a historical core [4]. In terms of Casey's "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" that is a peer reviewed book on mythicism that addresses the faults of mythicism. One of the more focused ones on that topic - to remind readers as to why mythicism fails basic scholarship again. Every once in a while there There is no need to do "historicity for Jesus" research in the same way that there is no research on historicity of Spartacus or Socrates or Pythagoras. The scholarship from archeology and history already show that Jesus existed. The sources provide useful historical information that they use everyday. You do not see much growth on mythicism in the scholarly literature (only about a dozen of mythicisms according to Carrier's own count) because it is such a non-point. Like saying mathematicians must prove numbers exist or that chemists must prove that atoms exist before the fields even advance.

Carrier has not been able to publish with a peer reviewed follow up of On the Historicity and no one really cites his works for research either except to criticize his work. He had to go with a partisan publisher for Jesus in Outer Space (his latest book). Latster is not even referenced or cited. The difference is that with Moses, you have very few and incredibly distant sources in terms of time. We don't have much from the archeological record for most people going that far back (Gilgamesh? Specific people from Cannan?). Its just that simple. So naturally there is going to be more ambiguity among scholars who talk about people that far back. But with Jesus, there is certainly much more contemporary evidence and sources on him. That makes mythicism really hard to believe in as that would require a massive conspiracy theory since people are not inventing unbelivable leaders who are criminals and get punished on a cross by Romans. Heck even the Romans acknowledged Jesus in their works. Robert Van Voorst's "Jesus Outside the New Testament" marshals strong evidences on Jesus' existence on top of the New Testament sources.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramos, thanks for the article about Exodus that says “Archaeology does not really contribute to the debate over the historicity or even historical background of the Exodus itself” and that does not mention Moses. The Egyptians would have left a record of Moses and the Exodus if it was a real story. You say “with Jesus, there is certainly much more contemporary evidence and sources on him” but, actually, there is not a single author or record placing Jesus on planet Earth before the Gospel “according to Mark” (written after 70 CE, in Greek, by an anonymous Christian author, who names no witnesses or sources). JMT is not a fringe theory anymore; the main problem is that most biblical scholars are afraid to admit that they have wasted their careers writing about a fictional character. This is why they are so virulent against proponents of JMT. This has happened many times before in history, when researchers have proved that the Bible/Church was wrong (heliocentric model, evolution, Earth age, …). Accepting JMT will be even more difficult because Christians NEED Jesus to be real (whereas non-Christians don’t care one way or another).Tirantloroig (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

That source was on the Exodus, not Moses. It clearly states that most scholars believe there is historical core to it, not that it followed the Bible's narrative which is not the same as it being pure myth. That was the claim I was talking about. "While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt.." On Moses specifically, you can look at sources like the entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica [5] for the generla view. It does not state Moses is mythical person. It only states his history is obscure and interpreted in many ways. That is funny that you talk about sources that have anonymous authors becauee most of history is exatclty that way with archeological finds and inscriptions from pottery and walls that nobody knows who wrote them or even when - and yet they make the core basis of Mayan, Babylonian, Aztec, Egyptian, Chinese, Roman, Greek, and many other ancient and premodern histories. Very few documents even survived from any one of these cultures (most of which are also have anonymous authorship). So even if we were to assume a similar situation on Jesus, it would not impact the information contained therein - which overlaps with historical sources on Pontius Pilate and 1st century Israel. The fact that archeologists and historians use the New Testament as valid sources for history show that the documents are trustworthy to at least a basic extent of people being named, including Jesus, because they converge with other sources in terms of details and people. Many of the NT sources and extrabiblical sources which have survived are within a reasonable time frame from Jesus and people are not stupid enough to forget his recent activity - which is why journalists and historians even up to today can get vivid details on a person who died 50 years ago or more with no problem. The date a source is written, is not a limiting factor. People can recall accurate data from what their dead grandparents or dead great grand parents passed onto them - at least the basic facts of who, when, where, how. Mysteries from history get solved quite often.

JMT is still fringe by most scholarly accounts is I will stick with that. Your idea that only Christians need Jesus is weird because most non-Christian scholars - who clearly do not need Jesus - like Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic scholars generally agree that Jesus existed and never argue the opposite. Carrier only found over a dozen out of all of these hundreds or thousands of Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, and even liberal Christian scholars who were sympathetic to mythicism so that shows that your statement is very dubious. Furthermore, Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have exposed the mythicists in that they are the ones who need Jesus to not exist.

Bart Ehrman has documented this in "Did Jesus Exist?" under the "Mythicist Agenda" - "[Some] mythicists are avidly antireligious. To debunk religion, then, one needs to undermine specifically the Christian form of religion. [...] the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology." (pages 337-338)

Maurice Casey has too in "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" - "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people. Most of them are former fundamentalist Christians who were not properly aware of critical scholarship the, and after conversion to atheism, are not pproperly aware of critical scholarship now. They frequently confuse any New Teastament scholarship with Christain fundamentalism." (page 245)

To my knowledge, Carrier didn’t grow up in a Christian fundamentalist family. Also, mythicists don’t need Jesus not to exist. Actually, Carrier estimated the probability of Jesus’ existence between 1/12000 and 1/3 (which is not zero). Carrier is applying the scientific method to evaluate the data, using Bayes’ theorem. The problem is that most scholars (including some mythicists) don’t know (or don’t care to learn) how to use Bayes’ theorem to draw conclusions from the evidences. Just today I got an alert on a Nature article advancing the field of chemistry using Bayesian optimization algorithms (“Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis”). This is what serious researchers do: take into account all the evidences and calculating probabilities of different hypothesis in an unbiased manner. Instead, historicists cherry-pick the evidences and make up the assumptions that fit their (already preformed) conclusions. There are not hundreds or thousands of researchers trying to determine the the historicity of Jesus; the immense majority just assume the current consensus is true without questioning it. I mentioned that Christians need Jesus because it is Christians who dominate this field (what is published and who gets academic positions) and they have a bulletproof faith-bias towards historicity. The fact that a dozen of qualified scholars think JMT has merit is sufficient to remove the label of fringe to JMT (and leave it as a “minority view” in this field, so prone to faith bias). Very often when “archeologists and historians use the New Testament as valid sources for history” find out the Gospels are unreliable. And about extrabiblical sources, even Bart Ehrman admits: these kinds of sources are “not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus,” so “whether or not Jesus lived has to be decided on other kinds of evidence from this” (Did Jesus Exist, pp. 55, 65). The data say that the first available Christian writings are Paul’s, and he clearly says that everything apostles know about Jesus is through revelation. That alone should be enough for an unbiased researcher to basically settle the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirantloroig (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Carrier was raised in a Methodist family with his mom involved with that church and certainly has an obsession with biblical inerrancy and anti-Christainity that most academic researchers do not have. Maurice Casey summarizes this quite well and I agree with him because I have read many of Carrier's works.

In terms of Bayes Theorem, it literally is quite useless when it comes to historical claims since even other scholars have used it like William Lane Craig (vs Bart Ehrman in a debate) and Richard Swinburne in "The Resurrection of God Incarnate" to show high probability that Jesus did resurrect. Actually Thomas Bayes himself thought that his own theorem would show high probability that God actually existed too. The problem with these types of uses of Bayes is that there really are no ways to figure out if the numbers are reliable or not as no verification is possible (you will never see the results to actually confirm if your calculations are right or mistaken). Who should we trust? Carrier? Craig? Swineburne? Bayes? The all come to contradictory calcualtions. And Carrier's estimate is essentially 0 (1/12000 = 0.000083) on Jesus existing which is preposterous. He personally does not incline towards 1/3 (he only included that as a best case scenario by ignoring much of the evidence available, using really stupid and outdated Freudian stuff like Rank Raglan and silly narratives of Christian conspiracies to rewrite history - even though none of them knew if Christianity would be around past their own generation - kind of hard to write to a future audience when you don't even know if you will even have an audience in the future). Pretty outlandish stuff. No wonder it is claimed as fringe by so many academics.

Bayes is certainly very useful for empirical metrics such as chemistry, physics, medicine, astronomy, etc because these have actual results. You can see if your calculations were close or off the mark and retry until you get more accurate results. These revised calculations allow us to reused and tweak probabilities so that they become more accurate in the future. That is exactly how weather forecasting works - massive amounts of data collection, verification of errors (you actually see the results of your Bayesian calculations and adjust according for the poor match between outcome and calculation) and the repeatability capacity to refine the results. The same thing applies with Bayes on molecular models (including chemical synthesis), orbital trajectories, and so many natural phenomena. Because natural phenomena IS repeatable and since these kinds of phenomena do not vary in behavior and limited things can impact them you can reliably predict future outcomes. But once you use Bayes in very stochastic phenomena like human behavior or history or economics, you end up having many false models. They are consistent, but they can really take a turn real quick - for instance polling on politics and sociology are often off the mark and are incapable of predicting results - like in presidential elections. Most polling is off the mark consistently while using heavy Bayean models and massive data.

With history it gets way worse - you don't have reputability, most of the evidences are gone due to time, and you are only left with snapshots of events and of course biased interpretations of the past by the sources themselves. All ancient sources suffer from all of this - see Michael Grant's "Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation".

The NT is no exception. By the way, when Bart Ehrman says what you quoted: “not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus,” (p.55) he is talking about Tacitus, not the New Testament. We have better sources than this. And when he says: "whether or not Jesus lived has to be decided on other kinds of evidence from this" (p.65) his not talking about the New Testament. He is talking about Josephus. We have better sources than this. Both of these are extra pieces of evidence on Jesus, but certainly not the basis for Jesus of course. Earlier sources exist for Jesus.

Here is what Ehrman actually states: "Once it is conceded that the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources, no different from other historical sources infused with their authors' biases, it starts to become clear why historians have almost universally agreed that whatever else one might say about him, Jesus of Nazareth lived in first-century Palestine and was crucified by the prefect of Judea. It is not because "the Gospels say so" and chat it therefore must be true (the view, of course, of fundamentalist Christians). It is for a host of other reasons familiar to scholars who work in the field." (p.74-75)

On Paul, though he talks about meeting Jesus' apostles and Jesus' brother, he is not the earliest source on Jesus. He is the earliest that we have that survived through time, but not the first one to write about Jesus. Ehrman observes on page 78-79 "What is sometimes unappreciated by mythicists who want to discount the value of the Gospels for establishing the historical existence of Jesus is that our surviving accounts, which began to be written some forty years after the traditional date of Jesus's death. But they obviously did exist at one time, and they just as obviously had to predate the gospels that we now have. The opening words of the Gospel of Luke bear repeating "Whereas many have attempted to compile a narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them over to us,...." That looks pretty clear to me. Obviously people in the 1st century knew more about the situation more than they recorded and certainly knew more than all the mythicists from 2000 years in the future would. Once you see the sources on most people in history (Pythagoras, the pre-Socratics, Spartacus, Gilgamesh, you see that most of the sources are pretty limited and distant from the people or events. But none of this is used as evidence for mythicism of Pythagoras, the pre-Socratics, Spartacus, or Gilgamesh.... Ramos1990 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this getting rather wp:forumy? It seems clear that there’s no consensus to remove that Carrier is fringe or change the lead. If there are other concrete proposals for changes they can be discussed but we shouldn’t be arguing about the existence of Jesus here really.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It is all forum at this point. We certainly are not discussing fringe status on Carrier at this point as there is no consensus supporting that he is not fringe - because the sources state the opposite so that matter is closed. But its just to clarify a few things. Most of the discussion has been off tangent since the beginning (focusing on mythicism in general than what the actual sources say on Carrier). But you are right. I will step out of this discussion now. We all have our views and leave it at that.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. The way I see it, there are 2 people in this discussion (Grisselbaer and me) that think the word fringe should be removed from the lead section and 2 people (Ermenrich and Ramos) that think it should stay. Actually, Grisselbaer proposed that whole sentence to be moved to reception and Criticism, which I agree. A different discussion is whether JTM should still be labeled as fringe based on what qualified scholars have said in the last decade. We know of 12 qualified scholars that think JMT is valid or, at least, has merit (www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794). Then there is a list of more than 35 historicists (https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5730) that have written a thoughtful review on Carrier’s work... but I don’t how many of them are qualified scholars (some of them are not qualified) and a few people in the list actually think JTM has merit. I think this is enough to say that JMT is a minority view in the field and to remove the fringe label. I am aware that probably thousands of scholars assume historicity, but they didn’t take the time to critically review the merits of JMT, and/or don’t have the qualifications to do it.Tirantloroig (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Tirantloroig

Just so you are aware, fringe status is not determined by a vote or consensus of wikieditors as that would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is determined by claims made in relaible sources so there really is no room for your suggestion because all of the academic sources on Carrier, and mythicism in general too, affirm fringe status. Pretty much all of the critical reviews on Carrier's blog are from academic scholars too by the way. Otherwise, Carrier would not waste time on small fry. Grisselbaer agreed that Carrier and CMT is fringe too and suggested expanding the criticism in the lead, but that would be too much for the lead section as the lead section is supposed to just summarize the article contents. The longer intro by Grisselbaer could belong to the criticism and reception section though as it expands on the fringe status of Carrier's works.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

question about a statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{The following statement above:

"...[the] mythicism of Pythagoras, the pre-Socratics, [of Socrates himself, of course], Spartacus, or Gilgamesh..."

I believe that the mythical character of the stories related to all these characters is the majority position in current scholarship. Am I mistaken?

As for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Nebuchanezzar, and Daniel. The view that the stories associated with all these characters are primarily all myth is not considered a fringe view in current scholarship. It may not be the majority view yet, but it certainly is not considered a fringe view. Am I mistaken here too? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

this is a bit of a wp:forum question, maybe this belongs on Ramos’ talk page? Spartacus is certainly not considered a myth, nor is Gilgamesh (although obviously the epic of Gilgamesh is). You’re also very much mistaken about the historical king Nebuchanezzar, and I’m fairly certain few scholars believe that Socrates or Pythagoras didn’t exist.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Socrates certainly existed in the mind of Plato. As for existing as a physical individual in historical reality, I don't think the majority of scholars would assert that. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Was Xenophon in on the con?

The fact that the information we possess about these figures may not always be accurate doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. It is however of no bearing on whether JMT is fringe, as it is identified as such in RS.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. But I would certainly not say that viewing "myth" in general as stories for which the historical veracity cannot be ascertained is the same as saying that therefore they are immediately, necessarily a "con." warshy ^(¥¥) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren't having a philosophical discussion here about the meaning of "myth." Either Socrates existed or he didn't, and I dare you to find any source that says that a majority of scholars think Socrates didn't exist when he's referenced widely soon after his death, including independently by two pupils who knew him personally. As I said, that doesn't mean that everything we know about him is 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Anyway, if you want to claim Socrates didn't exist, I'd suggest you do it at Talk:Socrates, not here.

As for Carrier, his work is widely described as fringe, as is Christ Myth Theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is just interesting to me that when the historical veracity of the Exodus is discussed, you are as forceful in your view as you are here, but just in the opposite direction. We can leave it at that here. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Framing of Atheism+ values

I know the relevance of Atheism+ has already been discussed in this talk page, so apologies for creating a new section, but I think this may be a distinct issue.
The way this article introduces Atheism+ and connects Carrier to it raises very, very faint red flags to me as far as NPOV goes. In particular, this sentence:

Carrier strongly advocated a movement in atheism called "Atheism Plus" which held that being an atheist meant one had to have particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God.[13][14] (Emphasis mine)

It's nothing blatant or egregious, so I'm afraid I might have trouble getting my point across, but my concern is that, the way this is constructed, this provides the reader with an initial framing of Atheism+ which may not represent the aims of its founders, but may only represent Carrier's rejected interpretation of that movement — and even then, I'm somewhat doubtful that Carrier's own views are properly represented. Obviously, the very same paragraph goes on to highlight the fact that others, including the founder, objected to the way Carrier approached the movement. But, IMO, it doesn't do enough to clarify who, if anyone, defined it as "being an atheist meant one had to have particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God."
The citations for that sentence are both for Carrier, seeming to suggest that is his definition of the movement. But that's not how the sentence is written. The sentence is written to suggest the movement, itself, identified that way, and Carrier, regardless of their differences on any other points, supported that same fundamental aim. That may be true, but demands scrutiny given the movement's strong opposition to Carrier's appropriation of the label.

From what I can tell, the movement did not define itself this way. Per McCreight:

[The label] illustrates that we’re more than just “dictionary” atheists who happen to not believe in gods and that we want to be a positive force in the world. .... We are… Atheists plus we care about social justice, Atheists plus we support women’s rights, Atheists plus we protest racism, Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia, Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

One, these are arguably not political agendas. They are, if anything, social agendas (I'd be more apt to say social values) which arguably bear political implications. But what you or I call them doesn't matter, if we're to maintain NPOV. Two, the explanation makes it very clear that the mere label of atheism itself is not contingent upon these supplemental beliefs, in direct contradiction to how it is framed in this article.
So, if the definition given in the article is Carrier's, that needs to be specified. But I can't even find evidence in the citation that that description matches his understanding of the term. Primarily, he defines Atheism+ by quoting, verbatim, McCreight's definition. Unless I'm missing something...
Sorry for the lengthy writeup on a single sentence, but I think the way this is written poisons the well, perhaps unintentionally, against both Carrier and Atheism+. (And, to be clear, I don't believe I have any particular bias in favor of either of them) Wemedgefrodis (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Richard Carrier and his dealings with atheism +. As you noted, there are sources contesting Carrier's views of atheism +. This is the scope of the article. This article is not about atheism + itself as a movement. For that you probably can see if there is a wikipage for that so you can clarify it there. The NPOV policy is about representation of different voices on the matter, not about trying to explain the truth of a movement. The founders of atheism + saw their movement one way, and others see it a different way. The citations for Carrier's involvement in atheism + are properly cited under his own blog and a paper he published about it. Those who dissented from his view are also represented. Its is NPOV already which deal with DUE and UNDUE weight. Obviously in biographical articles, there is no need to WP:COATRACK about the truth of a movement. If you look at a biographical article on say Pope Francis, Francis touches on many political things but the article does not dwell on the truthfulness of his political positions. In Carrier's article you mentioned [6], he quotes McCreight's definition and it clearly is a political movement with social add-ons. For instance, it says protesting racism and fighting homophobia. Greta Christina in that source argues for policies on education. Hope that helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I want to be clear that I agree with you in that the article does not need to spend very much time at all dwelling on Atheism+. It is an article about Carrier, not the movement. I am not at all saying the paragraph needs to weigh in on the truthfulness of Carrier, Atheism+, or their opponents' positions. That would not be appropriate, and if that's what you thought I was saying, I did not do a very good job of explaining myself.

My concern is that I don't think the article accurately summarizes the positions of Carrier or Atheism+ to begin with.

(And, the specific way in which the movement was summarized, "being an atheist meant one had to have particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God," sounded faintly like the way it might be summarized by someone subtly trying to discredit it. Not that it is the role of Wikipedia editors to make the position sound credible, either. Simply to accurately summarize it to the extent necessary to provide proper context for the subject.)

I still think we have different perspectives on what qualifies within the social vs the political spheres, although obviously there's a lot of overlap. In a "social justice" movement like this, participants are fighting for social empowerment through political means. And "agenda", to me, seems to carry baggage which gave me pause. Regardless, I can see the argument for why "political agenda" is the accurate term to use here.

However, and this is the most important thing, I maintain that it is still inaccurate to claim that Atheism+ promoted the idea that "being an atheist meant" supporting these "particular political agendas." At least, the citations don't seem to back up those claims at all, and even if they did, we would have to be very careful to distinguish between Atheism+ and what Carrier says about Atheism+. But no, the sources still seem very clear to me: Atheism+ held that being a supporter of Atheism+ meant that one had to have particular "political agendas"; being an atheist still simply meant having no belief in gods. It was being billed, quite literally, as atheism PLUS those "political agendas", not as "atheism includes all these political agendas."

Minor point, but Greta Christina's statements have no real bearing on how Atheism+ is defined. Carrier's article makes it clear that her comment predated, or at least was entirely independent, of the founding of Atheism+, despite the apparently similar sentiments. Carrier made the connection post-hoc.

Hope that all makes sense. I still feel like I might not be connecting all my dots properly in my explanation.Wemedgefrodis (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Just read through my initial post again, and I think my clumsy wording here contributed to a great deal of misunderstanding:

the way this is constructed, this provides the reader with an initial framing of Atheism+ which may not represent the aims of its founders, but may only represent Carrier's rejected interpretation of that movement

I regret the way I said that, because it sounded like I was saying, "You should write about Atheism+ from the POV of the founders of Atheism+," when in fact, I meant "When you write about what Atheism+ promoted, it should be an accurate summary of what they promoted." Wemedgefrodis (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and adjust the sentence. Here is Carrier's actual published paper on it [7]. He argues that it no longer about merely lacking a belief in a god and promotes activism.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see where you're coming from, but he also seems to directly contradict that reading multiple times. For example, immediately after saying "Atheism is no longer just a lack of belief in god," he says,

"Though an atheist as such is still and always will be just someone who doesn’t believe in a god, what we are seeing now is a community of atheists who are atheists plus certain other things." Emphasis mine

One problem is that he's engaging in some linguistic ploys that result in sentences like, "Thus, atheism, as a movement and a community, needs to be more than just atheism," which sound kinda nice but pose problems for an endeavor like Wikipedia which cannot leave things up to personal interpretation. He's intentionally using "atheism," to mean two things, and expecting the reader to understand the difference from context. His thesis is in several stages: "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god; it already also means the community associated with that view; that community ought to also advocate for these particular sociopolitical values." Where Carrier has his whole article to provide context, I'd argue the reference here on Wikipedia leaves that too ambiguous, and kind of equivocates on the distinctions he sets up between belief/community and is/ought, implying "To believe in no god, you have to hold these political views."

Basically, my argument would be that the sentence should read something more like: "Carrier strongly advocated for a movement in atheism called "Atheism Plus," through which he argued that the atheist community ought to also share certain particular political agendas, not just lack a belief in God."Wemedgefrodis (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That works. I agree with your proposed wording.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the update.Wemedgefrodis (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"One-sided" lead

@Oska:, the summary of scholarly reaction to Carrier's works is not "one-sided" - there is exactly one scholar with any sort of academic position who has spoken approvingly of Carrier's work in the field of the historical Jesus, and he is one of Carrier's collaborators. For the overwhelming majority of scholars, Carrier is fringe, as is his pet subject the Christ Myth Theory. Carrier has never held any academic position and his books are mostly published by atheist vanity presses. He is not taken seriously as a scholar. All the lead statements criticizing his work are sourced to published scholarly works (the few that bother to engage with him at all).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So the first cited source for his "method and conclusion being controversial" is by Aviezer Tucker (DOI: 10.1111/hith.10791 which is a book review of Carrier's 2012 book) and it most definitely approves of Carrier's approach (Tucker also has a Bayesian framework for historiography), even if scolds him for not applying the method rigorously enough, in that particular book, to have such a firm conclusion. Furthermore Tucker explicitly warns that he is not an authority on the actual debate "I disclaim any expertise in the historiographical debate about Jesus", just on the methods. Tucker commends him for his Bayesian analysis of the Gospels. ("Carrier’s explanation of some of the evidence in the Gospels is fascinating because, as far as I know, it is the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism and mimesis.")

I don't want to go through the other citations but it'd be good to have some exact quotes from experts instead of blanket statements. (That he is controversial and so and so. Which might be true but a book review does not support it.) Especially since a lot of time has passed since his 2012 book, as in he published about three new books on the same subject in which his method seems to be refined. (For example Tucker's criticism that "Carrier’s zeal to reject any method that attempts to squeeze some historical knowledge from the Gospels leads him to throw Darwin out with the baptism water." explicitly not applies to Carrier's later work, where he does exactly that.) Pas (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You’re misreading Tucker. He’s quite explicit that Carriers explanation ignores more likely conclusions about the origins of the gospels. That statement and the following one are sourced to an additional four sources. Even if you think Carrier’s later work is somehow exempt from Tucker’s criticism ( his later work not at atheist vanity presses?), your opinion does not outweigh what’s actually contained in reliable sources. Carrier is not taken seriously as a scholar - you will not find anyone approving of him who isn’t a fellow mythicist, who are likewise not taken seriously by other scholars in the field.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm quite confused at this discussion. I find the lead to be one sided on a logical basis. The article is explicitly siding with non mythicists by saying Carrier's work is fringe in the lead, which then colors the entire article. And you state here that no one who isn't a mythicist would approve. But there's no justification for why non mythicists views should be taken more seriously, and it remains to be seen whether anyone but non mythicists would have a reason to disagree. It seems to me your analysis here relies on the authority of those who have come first, not on those who are most justified; an appeal to authority doesn't belong at the top of the page unless you want specifically to poison the well. I think it's perfectly reasonable for there to be a section in the article outlining the claims of Carrier's detractors, but coloring the article in the lead to suit their argument as if they are more scholarly or more respected simply because they are ubiquitous misses much of the point of Carrier's work: the evidence in either case is very bad, and even Carrier himself only states it is more likely than not that there was not a historical Jesus. His proponents, at least those listed in the criticisms section, don't attack the empirics or the historical methodology of Carrier's claims, but instead rely on attacking his quantitative rigor, or just saying that they disagree because everyone else agrees on Jesus's historicity. Logically, Carrier's work provides argumentation, of which there is good standing for, that Christian dominance over the past two millennia has similarly colored our lenses. The forging of documents, erasure of non canonical sects and their texts, and political power of Christianity since at least the middle ages provides plenty of reason for why scholars would affirm historicity. Simply put, if there is no logical retort by scholars to Carrier's work on the subject, it becomes difficult to not consider their arguments to be in bad faith, either on purpose or by way of influence. Being the first to tread new ground in a scholarly subject might be fringe, but it's important to consider the utility of wikipedia as a whole, and not poison the well when there's already a hefty spot later in the article dedicated to scholars' rebuttals. That no one among scholars is contesting Carrier's chronology of the canonical writings of the bible, or his pagan and jewish contexts, or Jesus's fictional purpose as a replacement for the temple, or the post hoc mistranslations of Jesus's family (born vs manufactured), or the parallels between Jesus and Moses as it occurs to mythologizing in the chronological context, or the logic behind the Noll thesis and Origens gambit, or the reflections of Pliny the younger, or any of the other logical arguments he makes, but instead are focusing on strawmanning him into a corner (specifically the strawman is that he ever said Jesus necessarily didn't exist, instead of that there is a greater chance he did not exist) suggests they would rather rely on labelling Carrier's work as conspiracy than rebutt his arguments specifically. This is especially ironic, because Carrier's work outlines the logic behind how conspiracies form, and how mythologizing and post hoc justification lends the historical Jesus undue weight. I just don't think it's right, given the weakness of the criticisms themselves, and their dependence upon authority and strawmanning, to label him in the lead. Tamalewolf (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with scholarship on the Christ myth theory before you claim that we are overprivileging certain scholars' views.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You're presuming I haven't as an excuse to not be required to respond to my arguments. That's disrespectful, and lazy. Personally, I'm not here to have petty personal arguments. I'm a third party who was troubled when I read the article and thought it was as good a time as any to voice my thoughts. You could rise to the occasion and meet my arguments eye to eye instead of looking down on me, or you could not respond at all. But an appeal to authority after I disputed that the discussion thus far was...an appeal to authority? We'd both have been better off if you hadn't responded at all. Tamalewolf (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's gone unmentioned as of yet by the way but it's worth noting that the principal work by Carrier we're discussing here, actually the only work we're discussing, is published by Sheffield Phoenix Press, which is a publisher based at the University of Sheffield, a school that was founded in the 19th century and hs the 11th ranked theology courses in the entire UK. SPP was founded by David J. A. Clines, a protestant. Claims that Carrier's books are published by opportunistic atheist vanity presses is either willfully ignorant, or outright bad faith. In reality, as many of his other books are published by atheist presses as they are self published. It would make sense that atheist publishers would publish an atheist writer, but no one in this talk section, or in the wikipedia article itself seems particularly concerned with Carrier's "Why I'm Not a Christian". Tamalewolf (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Most sources criticize Carrier's works and particularly his arguments, methodologies and conclusions on mythicism very strongly. The academic consensus is that mythciism is fringe and if you look at the literature he does not have any support from academics for those views or conclusions. If you read the academic criticism of carrier, they clearly criticize his arguments and methodologies. His reliance on Rank-Raglan hero archetypes and the questioning the usefulness of Bayes theorem on historicity of historical figures is an easy example of such criticism laid out against him (Gullotta, Ehrman, Litwa, Petterson, and quite a few other academics). The sources clearly detail their disagreements and do not rely on authority.

On wikipedia we rely on what the sources say and the sources on Carrier are pretty much unanimous in that his conclusions are fringe and incorrect. And no academic source can be found using his methods or conclusions despite almost a decade later from his "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" (2014).

Also, the article already has a section where carrier's ideas are fleshed out from his own books. His views are presented there.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources you're citing are unanimous in not liking what Carrier has to say, but they also aren't even remotely the only academic source on the subject. Have you considered looking at the multitude of sources Carrier cites in his enormous book? There isn't any part of his ideas that isn't already founded in academia, he's mostly just assembling and retelling widely agreed upon historical consensus, all in one place. This is why it's particularly troubling that none of the scholars cited in the page actually contend with what Carrier is saying logically, the only contend with the strawman by attacking, as you say, Rank-Raglan hero archetypes and the bayes theorem, neither of which are particularly important to his arguments. When other theologians have debated Carrier, their discussions tend to involve none of this, and instead revolve around linguistic interpretation and chronology of translation of materials. Not to mention his contemporaries like John Dominic Crossan, who happens to be fortunate enough to not be called a fringe theorist in the lead of his article, or Randal Helms, who unlike Carrier, has a page which links directly to the larger historical/higher criticism article.

Upon further investigation, this page is actually a hatchet job. Source 2 in the page claims that Carrier has been accused of sexual harassment by women at conventions (a statement which has been proven untrue in court), is improperly placed in sections of the page which claim to be citing something else (specifically in the lead, citing the claim Carrier is a historian), and leads to a page about allegations of a totally different person named David Silverman. This is incredibly suspicious since Carrier WAS accused of sexual harassment and four separate court cases transpired, and all of them are near entirely freely, or otherwise at very little cost, available online. Upon investigation into the facts of the case, the wiki page is once more guilty of poisoning the well; Carrier sued his accusers for defamation, and proved repeatedly that he didn't sexually harass anyone. That there are claims of sexual harassment on this page when the character in question has essentially spent a quarter million dollars in court demonstrating that he never committed sexual harassment, and the court records are easily available, makes this entire page not only biased, but somewhat of a liability for wikipedia as the page is potentially libelous. I'm sensing that writers for this page thus far have either not read these court documents at all, or are entirely aware of their contents. Tamalewolf (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. See WP:FORUM. Wikieditor's thoughts on whether or not Carrier's arguments are successful or not; personal assessments of a field or topic do not belong here. Our views don't matter. Only what sources say matters for wikipedia, per wikipedia policy. Most sources from actual scholars deem Carrier incorrect. Even Carrier's own website has a list of scholars who have disagreed with him [8] - my gosh more than 20 it seems - so the sources all point to him not being acceptable in his views by these experts. If you think that most of these critics are wrong and that Carrier is still correct, that is your right to believe, but wikipedia only works with what sources say not what wikieditors believe.

John Dominic Crossan is not seen as fringe by scholars so it makes no sense to make such a claim on him on his page. Not familiar with Randal Helms.

In terms of the sexual misconduct stuff, do you have secondary sources on it? WP:BLPPRIMARY says we should rely on secondary sources than on trial records. It is only mentioned in a few places, but it did result in his blog (being his main resource where he does most of his activities) of being suspended and never brought back in that domain.

Carrier is a controversial person. He certainly fights with everyone from academics to scholars, to even atheist organizations and even his own atheist followers. He was also active politically in atheist groups settings. All of this has resulted in heavy amounts of sources being available to criticize him and his views. “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down”. His lack of academic publications and abundance of self-published publications does not help his case among experts either.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If the editors views didn't matter then the page wouldn't be poisoning the well in the lead, and it wouldn't have bad sources cited, and it wouldn't be possibly libelous because it's three years out of date. Humans are not objective animals, there will always be swing one way or another. It's good to attempt to be objective, but the point remains that Carrier's work on the Historicity of Jesus has tons of sources that could be cited on this page, and disputes on rank-raglan and the bayes theorem are not central to the theological rigor of his work, which is substantiated by his peers on the historicity of jesus, including crossan and helms. If the lead said something like "scholars dispute carrier's use of the bayes theorem" or something similar, it would be entirely normal. It's only poisoning the well because of the stigma that comes with being called fringe, without context, in the lead.

As for secondary sources, both Carrier and his accusers have separate websites relaying their perspectives on the four trials, as well as many links to court documents. Tamalewolf (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The court documents are useless to us, because Wikipedia has a policy that prevents us from using primary sources in most cases. See WP:PRIMARY. "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Has there been any secondary source on the court cases? Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I just linked two secondary sources. Tamalewolf (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of secondary sources is newspapers (e.g. Washington Post) or scholarly reviews - one step away from the primary sources. Personal sites of Carrier or the defendants you linked are primary sources. As everyone here has mentioned, court cases, and most of the content on wikipedia, should have secondary sourcing. Reviews of Carrier's works by peers and experts are secondary sources, and most do not show him a in a positive light as even Carrier confirms in his latest book from 2020 (Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ p.7-8) and constant blog posts complaining of how no one accepts his ideas. He confirms he is alone in his views and is not supported by experts. Just because Carrier agrees with some points that align with other scholars views, in some cases, does not make his views acceptable since the experts constantly trash him despite any agreements they have on minor points. His core conclusions and methods run against consensus on historicity and his views of Paul or the disciples never believing in a real Jesus, but making him up, runs contrary to the general views held by experts. Scholars disagree over Jesus on many points, but virtually none - not even non-Christian scholars - really believe Jesus to be a mythical being from outer space. This is what makes Carrier fringe in the eyes of the experts. I am not aware of any scholar using Carrier's works for anything advancing research, usually he has become an example of the failed case of mythicism.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Defense of On the Historicity of Jesus 's peer review status

In Killing Crankery with Bayesian Reasoning: The Kooky & Illogical Postflaviana Review Carrier addressed the claims that his book wasn't really peer reviewed spelling out that not only was it double blind peer reviewed but "It’s also not uncommon for academic presses to ask the submitter of a manuscript to supply a list of suitable peer reviewers. But whether Sheffield-Phoenix relied on any of the peer reviewers I selected, I won’t have been told."

So the claims floating around that Carrier sent On the Historicity of Jesus to friends or there was something non standard about the peer review of his book are incorrect as Carrier spells out the process.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No one is claiming it was not peer reviewed. But the work has received near universal criticism for falling short of convincing any scholars, especially the non-Christian ones. It is pushes fringe and outdated scholarship.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You are reading something into the statement that isn't there. The claim is that On the Historicity of Jesus was not properly peer reviewed (as clarified in the last sentence). In fact Carrier cites the claim that “the standard academic peer review process is seldom if ever applied to books, but only to journal articles.” and promptly trashes it.

Here is another part of that review Carrier was trashing: "At his website, Carrier describes the peer review process applied to “On the Historicity of Jesus”: he selected his own reviewers, and sent the book to them. This is not ‘peer review’, at best it’s ‘pal review’, and there’s a difference" (Richard Carrier: meet Barnum & Bailey)

Elsewhere there is this: "Was Carrier's book properly peer-reviewed? Somebody said it wasn't." then there is this: "It was sort of peer-reviewed. Carrier is on record as having solicited reviews, which is not how peer-review works." (which as the above shows is part of the peer review process)

"Carrier himself (Update on Historicity of Jesus), who has noted that he sent it to a number of friends for review before publications, thereby allowing his book to have the label of "peer-reviewed","

Sure they are typical of Sturgeon's Law but the claim that On the Historicity of Jesus was not properly peer reviewed or wasn't peer reviewed at all does exist.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Do you have a suggested improvement of the article?—Ermenrich (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Put in Carrier's statement that On the Historicity of Jesus was double blind peer reviewed so the claim it wasn't or was non standard dies.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No such claim is made in the article. Also, Carrier is not a WP:RS for that claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Though the articles does have "Carrier described his work as "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus-myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review." So not sure what the IP editor is looking for. Carrier's work is peer reviewed, but overwhelmingly rejected by scholars. It has already been debunked too.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations do not support leading section

The citations do not support the current wording which gives a biased and misleading impression that goes well beyond maintaining WP:FRINGE.

Issues (highlighting by me)

He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.

This is not a neutral summary. He isn't primarily advocating that Jesus did not exist. His monograph's subtitle is "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". He is arguing that it is historically viable that he may not have existed and assigns it a higher probability based on one particular mythicism thesis. His stated goal is to start a debate among experts.

Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians, [...]

This is not supported by the 3 citations that do not include a historian of ancient history. Carrier's academic work is unlikely to be well-known enough among historians to warrant such a specific and sweeping statement. If no academic reviews by scholars in the same field as Carrier can be cited this statement is false. Arguably even if a handful of such reviews could be cited, "most ancient historians" would still not be familiar with his specific vetting of minimal mythicism and only object to CMT in general, which the wording should reflect than.

Previous discussions also argued that "reputable scholars" don't spend time on this, and it can't be both. Even the article itself states in the reception and criticism section that according to one of his critics CMT goes "unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles".

[...] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.

This sentence implies that most of his academic work is considered fringe, but the citations only reference his work on the historicity of Jesus. It is also worded with a clear "his personal pet theory" connotation, but him vetting and advancing someone else's mythicism thesis by putting it through peer review does not make it "his" theory in a way most readers would assume.

Suggestions

The article should make an effort to differentiate "Carrier fringe" from for example "Graham Hancock fringe". If the latter's leading section notes that "his [Hancock's] writings have neither undergone scholarly peer review nor been published in academic journals" than it should also be notable that Carrier's work has. Even more so since it's unusual for fringe theories and likely not the readers default assumption. WP:FRINGE is covered by clearly stating that his work goes against the scholarly consensus and is considered fringe, not by omitting scientific rigor of the scholar.

I suggest the following rewrite (citations can be kept as-is):

He has published peer-reviewed research challenging the scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus concluding that there is reasonable uncertainty about Jesus' existence. His work has seen little to no interest by other ancient historians and reviews of his methodology and conclusions have largely proven controversial and unconvincing. His work on this topic has often been described as fringe.

If there are no valid objections or better citations I would make this edit.

Lookinglasself (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And which of Carrier's books about the non-historicity of Jesus has gone through peer-review? Just having another scholar read and mention your work is not the same as peer review. Carrier exclusively publishes at sectarian atheist presses, crowd-funding his "research". Your re-write is thus inaccurate.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for OHJ's publisher Sheffield Phoenix Press does not document any bias and the word "atheist" is not in there. If there are documented issues with the peer review process of OHJ it should be mentioned and cited, not just dropped from the article. It might be rephrased to say it was published by an academic press, but unless I'm mistaken it means the same thing.

Crowd-funding research has no bearing on its academic merit. Lookinglasself (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ermenrich. I also would say the lead is enough as is currently because it does not matter if Carrier has published his fringe views in any peer-reviewed publisher since he still holds a fringe view on historicity either way + no scholars seem to accept his fringe views. The suggested re-write tries to WP:PROMO and also ignores the multiple sources on nonexistence that Carrier has written that are not peer-reviewed - the vast majority are either self-published or from atheist sectarian presses. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldnt he be on the list for American Skeptics? 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:9DB7:E707:2F00:4AAD (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Update

I gave this a year but all the issues I had outlined are still unaddressed here and unresolved in the article. The only replies both focus solely on the inclusion of "peer-reviewed" in my rewrite, but not by engaging with my argument for its necessity, but by calling the peer-review(er) into question without citing any sources.

WP:BLPs demands "particular care" and these are not minor quibbles but serious issues of outdated, likely biased and false citations and phrasing that arguably borders on WP:ATP.

The sole citation for Carrier's views on Jesus' historicity is still a book that was written before his primary work on the subject (On the Historicity of Jesus) which explicitly replaced his earlier output ("the present work should be regarded as superseding all my prior work", OHJ, p. 17) was even published (quoting the cited book: "His [Carrier's] most recent book is Proving History"). Even a positive review of the cited book titled Agnostic Historical Jesus Scholars Decimate the Mythical Jesus Popularists states that "readers will quickly encounter an acerbic, almost wholly negative, scoffing tone from Casey against the mythicists" and their given citation in turn notes that other scholars already noted the "brashness of Casey’s book" and questioned wether "Casey’s tone is beneficial".

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

— WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia [...] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

— WP:PRIMARY

Using OHJ for his current views meets both criteria and I base my rewrite on the following, easily verifiable statements from the preface and conclusion (I'm open to change "reasonable uncertainty" to a more direct "probably did not exist"):

Hence the point of the book is not to end the debate but to demonstrate that scholars need to take this hypothesis [CMT] more seriously

— On the Historicity of Jesus, Preface

We should conclude that Jesus probably did not exist.

— On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 601

Apart from the more serious issues the summary in the leading section should simply not be so vague as to leave the door wide open for all kinds of erroneous interpretations of what "advocate" might mean in his particular case. Especially not for a controversial topic with such a wide spectrum. Did he self-publish pseudo-history for a popular audience or proper research in the peer-reviewed literature? The reader can't tell and that's not an insignificant difference.

I will give this once again some time hoping for some better discussion.

Lookinglasself (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you still have no consensus for these changes. Waiting a year doesn’t reset the clock or something. Carrier and his work are fringe and have been torn apart in every review they’ve received that isn’t by a fellow mythicist.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. His views have not won over any critical scholars either in the past decade [9]. There is a consensus in scholarship that his views are fringe too. Simply having a publication does not make it accepted by the scholarly community. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I waited a full year to give others time to weigh in, make the necessary changes or find proper citations; not to reset some imaginary clock. Anyone can see that all my original points have yet to be addressed. I'm also not waiting for Carrier's work to be more widely accepted and my rewrite and arguments are not based on this premise. Any consensus challenge is by definition a fringe view. Constantly restating this logical necessity (or citing scholars who do) is not an excuse for various WP:BLPs violations. The implication that "most ancient historians" are even familiar with Carrier's work is absurd and not supported by those citations. It takes the broader assessment of previous amateur Christ myth theories and prematurely applies it to Carrier's more recent and far less known scholarly re-examination of the evidence.

The lead section isn't alone in this. The "Historicity of Jesus" section is equally confused. It quotes Michael Grant in a paragraph that goes on to say that "[f]or this reason, the views of Carrier [...] are frequently dismissed". Grant died a decade before Carrier even published OHJ. There is a more recent Patrick Gray quote sandwiched in there, but why is either quote even here when neither responds to Carrier's work?

Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University and OHJ has been published by an academic press in his field of expertise. In the absence of citations for these review fraud allegations this points towards WP:FRINGE/ALT from within the scientific community and not obviously bogus WP:FRINGE/PS. WP:FRINGE guidelines warn that "not all [...] fringe theories are alike" and call for "careful treatment", but the vague wording and sweeping statements here are anything but.

Given these hostile and acusatory replies I had a closer look at the article and talk page. I no longer think this is mere carelessness and will make separate discussion documenting the rampant bias here. Lookinglasself (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reread mine and Ermenrich's comments above this. Waiting does not alter anything. You already waited a year and no one agreed with you. His scholarship is fringe. Also you cannot push WP:FRINGE material here or suppress what numerous mainstream scholars have already said about his work. Carrier has never been a professor or held tenure at any institution and most of his work on Jesus is self-published or published under atheist presses, not academic ones [10]. He resides mostly online and his blog, never academia. The criticisms are from scholars and/or peer reviewed sources sources. Read Gullotta 2017 as an example of the reception of his work [11].

In terms of the Grant quote. The section is summarizing the consensus view on historicity. I will correct that since the source for that is Robert Price (a mythicist who does have a academic credentials and was a professor admitting that CMT is seen as fringe thought similar to holocaust denial and moon landing denial in schoalrship. Carrier himself admits that historicity is the default position among well qualified experts in OTHJ too and even gives autobiographical details of how he used to reject CMT as fringe, like everyone else. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I've read your replies, and I explained several times now that I do not repudiate that his work on Jesus' historicity is considered fringe. My rewrite neither pushes his work nor surpresses what scholars have said about it. Peer review only assesses works for maintaining quality standards. His work can be peer-reviewed and fringe at the same time.

A lack of responses is not silent disapproval. It shows a lack of interest in Carrier which leaves the door wide open for biased editors.

Carrier acknowledges (not "admits" which implies reluctance) the consensus view because PH and OHJ are scholarly responses to it. That's why I argue the lead's vague wording, which paints him as a consensus-ignoring WP:FRINGE/PS crank, is misleading readers.

Being independent, also publishing for a popular audience and running a blog has no bearing on the academic merit of his scholarly work and attempts to argue that have no place here. Lookinglasself (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As for summarizing the consensus. This should be a factual statement linking to the Historicity of Jesus article and clearly state that Carrier's work is a response to or re-examination of this consensus. It should do so in a WP:NPOV manner and not with the present editorialized writing of including the word "even" in "And [Carrier] even states 'the default consensus' is that Jesus Christ existed".

Misattributing outdated quotes (Price' book also predates OHJ by 4 years) as (not at least also outdated) views on Carrier's work and the editorialized writing rather look like a misplaced defense of the consensus by a biased editor which should warrant reassessment of the article. You improved it to some extent, but this should no be here at all. These are responses to older, predominantly amateur Christ myth theories that are neither supported by nor related to Carrier's work in any way. Lookinglasself (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to go to dispute resolution if you feel that the article is biased, but the consensus here is clearly against you. There has been no movement in favor of mythicism since Carrier came around and of course the fact that he's not in academia has a bearing on the status of his work in academia - we reflect the consensus of experts here, not the WP:TRUTH.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also his non-historicity views have been published well before OTHJ in self published writings, his blog, or non-academic presses (Ehrman and Casey criticized his views on this before OTHJ) so it is not true that Carrier even used peer review for the majority of the time to express those fringe views. Keep it generic. Since his views are fringe, it does not matter how he publishes. In the same vein, Holocaust denial literature is still holocaust denial no matter if published in some scholarly or non-scholarly manner. There are peer reviewed works on acupuncture and alternative medicine (some even have their own peer reviewed journals [12], [13], [14]), but that does not mean that articles are accepted in the medical community just because one article passed peer review. Peer review means little when the topic is fringe and even worse when it is heavily criticized by peers after publication like with Carrier. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)