Paul�s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

[robrecht]

No, because Carrier is presumably doing that very thing in his latest book, which I think is due to be published any day now. He has a lot more relevant background knowledge than I do. And for those who care about such things (which they certainly should), the book has been through peer review.

I'm not quite sure that Carrier agrees with me about the gospels being fiction. I've heard him very occasionally express opinions about what they are, but his intended meaning was not entirely obvious to me on those occasions. (Or it could just be my lousy memory.) I'm expecting that he have something unambiguous to say in the book about what he thinks the authors were up to.

Doug, do you know who the publisher is and if the peer reviewers are anonymous?

[Doug Shaver]

Does that get us any closer to the plausibility of Jesus, whose existence you've stipulated, being executed by local Roman authorities in Jerusalem?

I don't see how a stipulation of John the Baptist's execution by Herod has any bearing on the issue.

I'm intrigued by your reference to "local Roman authorities in Jerusalem." I am not challenging the proposition that Jesus was executed by Roman authorities. That is accepted by virtually everybody except ahistoricists as common knowledge.

[OingoBoingo]

Doug, do you know who the publisher is and if the peer reviewers are anonymous?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

[Doug Shaver]

Which competent scholars think this?

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are competent. If you want to say I'm wrong, go ahead and say it, and I will leave it at that.

[robrecht]

I don't see how a stipulation of John the Baptist's execution by Herod has any bearing on the issue.

I'm intrigued by your reference to "local Roman authorities in Jerusalem." I am not challenging the proposition that Jesus was executed by Roman authorities. That is accepted by virtually everybody except ahistoricists as common knowledge.

Just as Herod was the local Roman authority in parts of Galilee, the local sanhedrin and Pilate were the local Roman authority in Jerusalem and Judea.

[OingoBoingo]

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are competent. If you want to say I'm wrong, go ahead and say it, and I will leave it at that.

When you make a claim that "competent scholars" say such and such, its silly to become defensive when someone questions the claim.

[Doug Shaver]

Doug, do you know who the publisher is and if the peer reviewers are anonymous?

Sheffield-Phoenix, University of Sheffield, UK. The last announced publication date was: sometime in June of this year. But it's already been moved back at least once. It was originally supposed to have come out this past February.

I remembered Carrier mentioning sometime last year that the book had gone through peer review, and I've always been under the impression that peer reviewing is normally an anonymous process. Checking back on his announcement, I was a bit dismayed to notice that he chose the peer reviewers himself. I have no idea how atypical that might be. I also have no idea whether their identities have been or will be made public. I do assume though, knowing nothing to the contrary, that the publisher knows who they are and regards them as having the relevant expertise.

[Doug Shaver]

When you make a claim that "competent scholars" say such and such, its silly to become defensive when someone questions the claim.

It would be silly, if I were claiming their support for something I was claiming. Since I said I disagreed with them, I don't see that it matters much.

[Doug Shaver]

the local sanhedrin and Pilate were the local Roman authority in Jerusalem and Judea.

Would the members of the Sanhedrin have agreed with that characterization? Or do you think it doesn't matter what they would have thought about it?

[OingoBoingo]

From Carrier himself (based on the link I posted) [emphasis mine]:

Source: Richard Carrier

It works the same way in history as in science. An academic press will often even ask you, as standard procedure, whom you think would be best suited to peer review your submission (they will ask for as many names as possible, because being unpaid, most when asked will decline). They might not go with names you recommend, but they will consider them. And the process after that is usually triple-blind

© Copyright Original Source

[OingoBoingo]

It would be silly, if I were claiming their support for something I was claiming. Since I said I disagreed with them, I don't see that it matters much.

Then why mention it at all?

[Doug Shaver]

Then why mention it at all?

To make a point about what may be counted as background knowledge.

[OingoBoingo]

To make a point about what may be counted as background knowledge.

You don't think then that its important to reveal who these scholars are, so that the readers can judge for themselves the relevancy of your point?

[Doug Shaver]

Thank you, OingoBoingo.

[Doug Shaver]

You don't think then that its important to reveal who these scholars are, so that the readers can judge for themselves the relevancy of your point?

I don't regard their identities as relevant to the point I was attempting to make regarding what can count as background knowledge.