Richard Carrier wrote:Then We Get to the Telling of Lies
Yep, lies. Fisher says I “made the most extraordinary and unqualified claim that ‘every expert who is a specialist in methodology has concluded, one and all, that the methods now used in Jesus studies are also totally fucked’.†She tries to dispute that by questioning “whom†I consider to be expert (and as we saw, she condemns almost all actual experts as incompetent pseudo-scholars, so we can see where this is going).
In fact, my statement is true. My main criterion is right there in the statement she quotes: “a specialist in [the] methodology.†What counts as that? Someone who has the minimum qualifications in the field (= a relevant graduate degree) and has published studies and research on the methodology itself. Given those criteria, there is not one (not even one) scholar who disagrees with me (except, I’m sure, as to my colorful language).
Fisher’s contrary claim that “all competent and critical New Testament scholars investigating the history of early Christianity, should be competent in methodology in order to pursue academic enquiry†is not only rich (as we just saw, Fisher thinks almost all critical New Testament scholars are incompetent), but also false. If you have not taken the time to study and analyze the methodology to the extent expected of any graduate level thesis, you are not a specialist in it. You may know how to use it, but you do not know whether it is valid or sound. Knowing
that requires actual directed study of that very question.
Really, I shouldn’t have to explain this to someone who thinks everyone is incompetent who isn’t hyper-specifically qualified in whatever it is they are discussing. But I’ve already said her standard is absurd. Mine is far more reasonable, and still it comes out with the conclusion: every expert who is a specialist in methodology has concluded, one and all, that the methods now used in Jesus studies are totally fucked (or at least mostly fucked, but either way, unsalvageable as-is). Fisher names some folks she claims have published studies of the methods used by Jesus scholars and found them sound, but she fails to cite a single article or book where they do this, so her claim is unverifiable. It’s also dubious. I suspect she is conflating “written about their own methods†with “published studies of the methods used by Jesus scholars and found them sound.â€
But here is where Fisher’s morals go out the window. Fisher at this point goes on to condemn a book she hasn’t even read (which is now available:
Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity*), featuring numerous prominent experts specializing in the methodology, all coming to this same conclusion.
She gives the impression that I discussed this in the same place as the remark she quotes above (notably, she fails to identify either location or provide any links so readers can ascertain their context), which she calls a “blog,†which is correct for the colorful phrase (which is taken from
here), where such things belong,
but what she quotes me on about JCDA is actually not from a blog, but a major online industry publication,
The Bible & Interpretation*, which published my article about my book (PDF here*).
Why is this important? Because Fisher says this:
Carrier then goes on to include several other people, including Tom Verenna who has no qualifications and Thomas Thompson who is not a New Testament scholar, suggesting they all reject historical method as leading to confusing results. This is a grotesque caricature of scholarship, and Carrier’s expectation that consensus should be reached by people of such different ideological perspectives is fantasy.
This is very dishonest. And it looks pretty libelous to me.
Because here is what I actually said (and this is the only context in which I cited Verenna and Thompson on anything close to this point):
James Charlesworth concurs, concluding that “what had been perceived to be a developing consensus in the 1980s has collapsed into a chaos of opinions.â€[10] Several others have come to the same conclusion, demonstrating, with extensive citation of examples, the whole confusion of contradictory opinions that has resulted from applying these methods: Thomas Thompson,[11] Thomas Verenna,[12] James Crossley,[13] Mark Strauss,[14] John Poirier,[15] Mark Allen Powell,[16] and John Dominic Crossan,[17] just to name a few
Note very carefully what this actually says.
I did not cite Verenna or Thompson as specialists or experts in the methodology, and did not cite them in support of my statement that the methods are “fucked.†In lieu of my repeating that sentence, please read it again. Now look at what Fisher is saying: she is communicating to her readers that I cited Verenna and Thompson among the “experts who are specialists in methodology,†and that this makes me incompetent, because they are not competent to write about that subject. Leaving aside the latter assumption (which could be false), her claim is a lie.
I did not cite Verenna and Thompson in that capacity.
What did I cite them on? As having
documented what Charlesworth observed, that scholarship has now “collapsed into a chaos of opinions†about Jesus. Not the invalidity of methods.
The proliferation of contradictory conclusions about Jesus. What qualification does one need to
document (and I do mean document) that scholarship has now “collapsed into a chaos of opinions†about Jesus?
Well, pretty much a brain, access to a library, and any means of typing words. Fisher’s entire attack against the competence of Verenna and Thompson is completely invalid.
They are completely competent (even more than) to do this. The thing I actually said they did. And cited them as having done. And that topples Fisher’s claim that I must be incompetent or untrustworthy because I cited them…because there was nothing incompetent or untrustworthy about how I cited them or what I cited them for.
This appalls me. Because it means Fisher is so desperately keen on building her false narrative about my incompetence, that she is willing to deceive her readers, and quote me out of context, to create the impression I did something I didn’t. And she uses that as an additional opportunity to insult two other scholars in the field. (The nonsense that Thompson can’t be an expert in early Christian history because he is “only†an expert in second temple Judaism, which Christianity happens to be a sect of, I already debunk
here. Verenna, meanwhile, is presently an undergraduate in the field who reports as a journalist*, a task for which he has developed considerable skill, arguably more than Fisher can claim. He also has published a chapter on this subject in a peer reviewed academic book*. It’s unknown to me whether Fisher has ever done that.)
It’s thus sadly
ironic that Fisher accuses me of “select[ing] helpful words out of context.†Right. Her only example of this fails to illustrate her point. She claims I cite Goodacre out of context, and to prove it, she quotes Goodacre saying essentially the same thing I do, repeatedly in chapter five, where I argue (like Goodacre) that many of the criteria can be salvaged if used soundly…it’s just that I find that “soundly†means, as I demonstrate (a demonstration Fisher never once even mentions much less addresses), that it must be Bayesian, and once we go there, the results aren’t what Jesus scholars would hope for.
I don’t think Fisher understands what “quoting out of context†means. I didn’t do it. She did. And in a profoundly dishonest way.