The "independent scholar" Dr. Richard Carrier PhD
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:59 am
On the Historicity of Jesus
Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt That It Was Actually Peer Reviewed
Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, an unemployed historian...oops, I mean, an independent scholar, claims that his book On the Historicity of Jesus; Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt was peer reviewed. He advertises it on his blog as "A Comprehensive, Peer Reviewed Case against a Historical Jesus."
What is peer review? Dr. Carrier clearly knows the meaning of the term. He described the process as follows:
All these elements are present in Dr. Carrier's description, so there can be no doubt that he is aware of the proper procedure. How then was his own book peer reviewed?
Two of the four "major professors" declined to do the review. How about the ones who accepted? Dr. Carrier says that they approved, with revisions. Let's get this straight: Two "major professors" in New Testament studies or Early Christianity approved a book that defends a thesis that in academic circles is generally regarded as a crackpot theory. Hmmm, interesting. Why doesn't Dr. Carrier divulge which two "major professors" helped him review his deliberate tour de force?
Wait for it. Dr. Carrier cannot tell us who they are, because they would have to fear for their career if their names became public knowledge. Yes, really. We have deeply penetrated crackpot territory now. To quote Dr. Carrier:
Let's drop the pretence, and tell you what I think. Dr. Carrier never had his book reviewed by two "major professors". At best, he asked two of his sympathizers to have a peek at the manuscript. This persecution theory of his, to cover up the identity of his reviewers, is just too transparent. They are the reddest of red flags to any skeptic.
And that's why there is reason to doubt that On the Historicity of Jesus was actually peer reviewed. It certainly was not peer reviewed by any proper academic standard. And, most likely, it was not reviewed by two "major professors". Not even by two minor professors.
All quotes from: http://web.archive.org/web/201508201108 ... hives/4090
Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt That It Was Actually Peer Reviewed
Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, an unemployed historian...oops, I mean, an independent scholar, claims that his book On the Historicity of Jesus; Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt was peer reviewed. He advertises it on his blog as "A Comprehensive, Peer Reviewed Case against a Historical Jesus."
What is peer review? Dr. Carrier clearly knows the meaning of the term. He described the process as follows:
The most important elements of a peer review are: (1) An editor acts as intermediary between author and reviewers; (2) The editor decides who will be asked to do the review; (3) The author doesn't know who the reviewers are, unless the latter volunteer to have their names disclosed; (4) The editor communicates the reviewers' reports to the author and will decide if the author responds adequately to requests for revisions (there almost always are).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 (not just the public but even you won’t know who the actual peer reviewers end up being, while the reviewers won’t be told who the author is, either, although in practice that can sometimes be guessed).
There are almost always revisions required in their reports, and often they will list a lot of non-required suggestions as well. Generally you do your best to satisfy all requirements, even if it requires some sort of compromise. If some requirement is truly unreasonable, you can appeal to your editor, you might consult the other peer reviewer as to the merits of the first reviewers’ demands. If both reviewers say you must do it, you must do it. If one says you must and the other says you don’t, it’s the editor’s call.
All these elements are present in Dr. Carrier's description, so there can be no doubt that he is aware of the proper procedure. How then was his own book peer reviewed?
Wait, what? Dr. Carrier selected and approached the reviewers himself? That's a fucking travesty. The peer review process goes right out the window here. There was no editor to select the reviewers; there was no editor to gauge the adequacy of Dr. Carrier's response to the requests for revisions.I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. (...)
My own effort to line up formal peer reviewers (which I started before I got a publisher in order to speed up the pipeline to publication) was to find peers who held diverse opinions of the thesis but whose work in the field is exemplary and whose judgment I highly respected (and who held ranking professorships in the field). Before reading the manuscript, one was sympathetic to the thesis, one was undecided as to its merits, and two others were actively opposed to the thesis (but not irrationally).
Two of the four "major professors" declined to do the review. How about the ones who accepted? Dr. Carrier says that they approved, with revisions. Let's get this straight: Two "major professors" in New Testament studies or Early Christianity approved a book that defends a thesis that in academic circles is generally regarded as a crackpot theory. Hmmm, interesting. Why doesn't Dr. Carrier divulge which two "major professors" helped him review his deliberate tour de force?
Wait for it. Dr. Carrier cannot tell us who they are, because they would have to fear for their career if their names became public knowledge. Yes, really. We have deeply penetrated crackpot territory now. To quote Dr. Carrier:
Are we to believe that two "major professors" have to be afraid of what Bart Ehrman can do to their career? Really? You got to be kidding.The reason peer review is kept anonymous to the public (and as much as possible to the authors as well) is to ensure academic freedom, since peer reviewers must be free to give honest judgments without fearing attacks on their career or reputation (as for example Ehrman and others have threatened to do, and has actually happened before: see my discussion of this here and here). For that very reason I won’t be naming my reviewers unless they give me permission (and I’m not inclined to put them on the spot by asking).
Let's drop the pretence, and tell you what I think. Dr. Carrier never had his book reviewed by two "major professors". At best, he asked two of his sympathizers to have a peek at the manuscript. This persecution theory of his, to cover up the identity of his reviewers, is just too transparent. They are the reddest of red flags to any skeptic.
And that's why there is reason to doubt that On the Historicity of Jesus was actually peer reviewed. It certainly was not peer reviewed by any proper academic standard. And, most likely, it was not reviewed by two "major professors". Not even by two minor professors.
All quotes from: http://web.archive.org/web/201508201108 ... hives/4090