Using a topic as hideously contentious as the historicity of Jesus strikes me as a brilliant move—the scholars will know Carrier knows his stuff, the skepticsphere will trumpet the book far and wide, the churches will absolutely shit … someone might even read the book in between denouncing it.
I’m not sure that will happen. Look through Carrier’s blog for reviews of Proving History: by and large they look like statistical carping of the sort which will make people think ‘ah, it’s just scientism: arrogant application of tools of limited domain outside their correct area, and the math isn’t even right, apparently’.
It’s early days yet, of course, but in Google Scholar I see nothing citing ‘”Proving History” Carrier’.
I’m not sure that will happen. Look through Carrier’s blog for reviews of Proving History: by and large they look like statistical carping of the sort which will make people think ‘ah, it’s just scientism: arrogant application of tools of limited domain outside their correct area, and the math isn’t even right, apparently’.
It’s early days yet, of course, but in Google Scholar I see nothing citing ‘”Proving History” Carrier’.
Yeah, I was pretty much wrong. And the number of equations will be like garlic to a vampire for the typical humanities scholar.
Still a fantastic book, though.