Posted: Jan 26, 2012 10:13 pm
Byron wrote:If Carrier wants to show flaws in the current approach, he needs to do it justice.
The point is not to show flaws in the 'current approach' - mainstream scholars already recognize some of these criteria are flawed. Which is why the articles he cites at the beginning of the paper are there as 'required reading'.
You'll continue to miss the point if you miss out on those little details.
Notably, Carrier misrepresents the criterion of embarrassment (or material against interest, as I prefer).
People keep making this bare assertion.
What is the 'criterion of embarrassment' supposed to do in an historical argument?
And there's the wider point that Carrier's criticisms relate to a small area of historiography, testing the reliability of material. Much historical study is more concerned with interpreting established events, such as how the Black Death affected feudalism, or the extent of religious motivation in the 17th Century British wars.
This may have to do with the articles Carrier considers 'required reading' by scholars critical of certain methods found in 'Jesus studies' and why the paper was presented at this event. Apparently there's a particular problem relating to certain criteria used in this small incestuous corner of historiography.
It does nothing to counter the impression that Carrier's fixated on a single-issue, atheism, and history is a means to this end.
No reason to hold Carrier responsible for other people's fixation with him and his forthright atheism.