RPS

Thanks for the info. I mentioned "scholarly pretensions" in my first post to this thread and should have retained the thought consistently.

Even if there is truth to what you say, I don't see how that accusation is conceptually much different from a creationist claiming that "Of course [scientific journal X] won't publish our young earth research, that would just undermine their entire philosophical stance." I'd be very reluctant to make such a claim based upon presumption and without evidence.

WishboneDawn

I don't think it was simply an accusation...I think his point is partly at least, that the journal has a specific philosophy. It's not to debate whether Jesus was, but rather what he was. An article on Jesus as myth would be beyond their scope and not appropriate. Just as someone might submit an article to Woodworking about embroidery. Similar in terms of being hobbies and crafts but not within the scope of the magazines specific focus.

Is that part of what you meant Toto or am I being too generous?

Vorkosigan

RPS, here's a clue. The Jesus Myth argument is not based on "no evidence." It is a competing interpretation of the evidence, itself supported by numerous pieces of evidence and argument. More importantly, it is also supported by the fact that (1) there is no methodology for telling truth from fiction in the NT texts (where no outside vector exists) and (2) the existence of Jesus is an axiom of scholarship rather than a deduction of it. William Farmer lists this as one of his presuppositions of HJ scholarship in Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81. You can read a version of it online here. As Farmer wrote in 1998:

• "In addition to this general pre-understanding there are several rather specific presuppositions or material assumptions that are important to this study.
  
  The first is the historical existence of Jesus. The fact that some intelligent persons sincerely doubt whether Jesus ever existed as an historical personage, and that theologians have felt constrained to allow for this doubt, reminds us that in the intellectual history of the West this is still an item of unfinished business."

It's the historicist side, RPS, that functions without either argument or evidence. It's the historicist side that, in the words of the lazy-ass scholar above, in "my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind." It's the historicist side that are the Creationists here, making broad historical claims without evidence, argument, or method to support them.

Vorkosigan

RPS

I see your point and I'd be willing to accept that rationale in this case with a bit of evidence for it. Note, in a different context, the brouhaha surrounding a peer-reviewed piece advocating a fringe theory and why the pay-for-space offer might be received skeptically here:

"Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

"As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for 'intelligent design,' a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

"Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

"'They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,' said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. 'I was basically run out of there.'" (my emphasis)

Vorkosigan

There probably are. Some of them have been published in peer-reviewed journals -- lots of the midrashic interpretations of the gospels, for example.

Publication of books is a scholarly act, Don. Also, a couple of years ago at one of the conferences William Arnal gave a sympathetic presentation on the Jesus Myth, though he is not a myther.

Probably none, because Mythicism is in part a comprehensive re-interpretation of the data. Although this is a good point.

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

I believe it is possible to publish a book which is not scholarly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

TedM

That seems a bit extreme, Vork. While there aren't strong proofs we can point to like a video or contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus by unbiased persons, there still are many very consistent accounts of him, strong arguments for historicity, and from what I've seen ALL of the diversification found in the records we have from those early years is consistent with what one might expect had a historical Jesus lived during that time. I don't think creationism can make the same kinds of claims that historicists do.

ted

freigeister

All modern bible interpretation is derived from the foundation laid by Spinoza (TTP, Pt 2, Chap vii) in the 17th century. Essentially, Spinoza argues for the hermeneutic principle: "the knowledge of Scripture must be sought from itself alone." Thus the problem of an "outside vector" is mooted. Now, you may certainly quarrel with this methodology, but you cannot deny its existence.

Toto

No, I evidently did not make myself clear.

Like I said, it's not so much a journal as a newsletter to the membership.

And if the point of the organization is Biblical literacy, or a complete examination of Christianity, then Westar should be examining the Jesus Myth hypothesis, and should not need a special donation to do it.

But the real object of the Westar group is to promote religious liberalism, and challenging the historical existence of Jesus does not promote religious liberalism - it pushes people beyond that. The idea that Jesus did not exist is just too upsetting to be effective as a marketing device for Westar's philosophy.

I have had atheists tell me to avoid questioning the existence of Jesus - it just puts people off and gets them upset, so they can't hear anything else you tell them.

I imagine that the directors of Westar could see that a challenge to Jesus' existence would either push people back towards traditional religion as they put their fingers in their ears and sing lalalala, or else push them towards a more radical religious stance. But in either case, there's just no percentage in it for Westar.

All this is based on the idea that they know that they can't show a good case for the existence of a historical Jesus. And that's the big difference with creationism - a few scientists have decided not to debate creationists, but in general the scientific community had learned that it has to defend itself by addressing creationist arguments. The Historical Jesus faction refuses to get its hands dirty by actually looking at the arguments.

RPS

Actually, much of it is. That's a key reason Doherty is such an improvement over the usual.

I agree.

There is no consensus regarding the methodologies used and how the evidence should be interpreted in light of them, but it is false to claim that "there is no methodology for telling truth from fiction in the NT texts." There is a description of such methodologies in this book, for example.

I disagree (see below), but if you really think so, make the academic case and get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Controversial ideas are debated in that arena all the time.

Firstly, when was Farmer made to speak for all of academia? Secondly, the "material assumptions" of which he speaks are not for all historical Jesus scholarship but for a particular study, "The Historical Perimeters for Understanding the Aims of Jesus." Thirdly, these assumptions were undertaken only because they "are regarded by most critics as not only plausible but intrinsically probable."

Nonsense. The body of evidence is same for everyone. The issue is how one interprets the evidence.

There is a big difference between popular works and those coming from an academic press. Indeed, a major criticism of ID is that its arguments are largely made in the popular rather than the academic arena.