Sven

Yes, agreed. But that's not the point we were talking about.

That's a different question. One that I already said I can not comment on.

Ted Hoffman

This means you dont know who Dawkins is. Which scholarly scientific book has Dawkins written?
Needless to say, that was a false analogy. If NT scholars publish pulp junk, why should they be taken seriously? This is like arguing that even though someone gets his calculations wrong in one popular Physics book, he is still a good Physicist because he only presents wrong calculations to the public and correct ones to scholars.
This is sort of manure is pure, unadulrated, grade A, prime crap Zeichman and it saddens me to see you are presenting it like actual reasoning.
My arguments are not that Sanders simplifies things or presents his ideas in an interesting light (which is what people do when writing popular books).
My arguments are that he employs false reasoning. Are you arguing that it is okay for scholars to publish false ideas and use sloppy reasoning in popular books?

Malachi151

I really don't understand the motivation of Weimer, Gibbson, and Zeichman. They all seem to simply just defend the status quo relentlessly for no particular reason and in cases where its clearly deficient. All we ever see from them is moving goal posts, lack of substance, and misdirection.

Their criticisms are almost always purely technical in nature and totally miss the point. They argue at length about things like the exact number of scholars that hold a certain view, whether it is 45% of the scholars for 55% of the scholars, when in fact its irrelevant anyway.

Weimer hammered me for having "Markian" in the article about the Gospel of Mark instead of Markan, as well as getting all hot a bothered because I said destruction of Judea instead of destruction of Jerusalem (though I was using destruction of Judea like saying destruction of Germany when talking about WWII instead of saying destruction go Berlin), and said on the basis of these things my article was wholly without merit, but then refused to address any of the actual points I made in the article.

Oh, and also since I didn't work directly from the Greek and Hebrew that made it without merit also.

These are the types of things they do. I really have no idea why, it seems like just total pettiness and a waste of everyone's time.

They look for any excuse to discount what someone has to say other than addressing the actual substance.

dog-on

They are just trying to make this board a more enjoyable experience for all of us.

I may have some seriously wacky and unsupported, (by any real evidence), views regarding Christian origins, but the one thing I am certain of is the fact that I'm in very good company on this board, no matter which position is taken by the other posters.

Ted Hoffman

Now when we encounter specious reasoning in his "serious works" we will be expected to overlook all his PhDs, degrees, Greek, Hebrew and all his badges and chalk it up to fallibility?
This is how it works?

Zeichman

As if everything in Dawkins' popular works are a matter of consensus within his field. This still cuts both ways, regardless of your hyperbole.

Given the fact that Sanders sets aside so many major issues in that book (the synoptic problem is the most obvious), I remain skeptical about your claim in the first sentence. Regarding your second point here, my opinions on how someone should publish their work is irrelevant. The fact is complex ideas, by definition, are greatly simplified in popular works. Think about the Jesus Seminar's Five Gospels: they don't justify their use of a non-miraculous paradigm. Evangelicals and religious conservatives call this begging the question. Anyone familiar with the field realizes that there has been a lot written on this and that there is no need to re-invent the wheel (argue conclusively for Markan priority, a Humean approach to miracles, etc.), but only to show the paradigm within which mainstream scholars are working. This often comes off as sloppy reasoning to people with alternate worldviews.

... are you serious? There are very few points in that book which are matters of consensus (especially after the non-eschatological Jesus explosion that occurred only a few years later). "Fallibility?" It's called "being human." Anyone who is deluded enough to think that humans currently have the final answers on any major issues (religious, biological, metaphysical, etc.) needs to step into the real world. Just because that point of culmination hasn't been met in terms of ONE scholar's historical inquiry to the founder of Christianity doesn't mean that the whole field is messed up.

Ted Hoffman

As I indicated earlier, this is irrelevant: its not about simplifying ideas - its about presenting false and inane ideas.
Consider the crucifixion scene with the Roman soldiers (Mark 15:24), which is borrowed from Psalm 22:18 (“They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.”) - Sanders would have us believe that the soldiers were engaged in symbolic acts. Isnt this just plain stupid?
You think it is possible that the Roman soldiers who pierced Jesus’ feet and hands and cast lots for his clothing were also acting out Psalm passages?

When Doherty gets something wrong, his fallibility is ignored and his credentials, honesty and competence are relentlessly attacked. It just seems like a double standard to me.

Malachi151

Give it up Ted, can't you see that these guys are all on the same wavelength. Their arguments are filled with the same specious reasoning as the so-called "scholars" that they are defending.

Jeffrey Gibson

I very curious to know where Sanders says what you here say he says.

So far as I can see, his only discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) of Ps. 22 in relation to the crucifixion appears on pp 274-75 of that work, and what he says there is:

As you can see, there is no mention whatsoever of soldiers here, let alone of soldiers acting symbolically or in any other way.

Am I missing something?

If not, then your accusation that Sanders presents false and inane ideas and "would have us believe" something stupid -- at least with respect to the crucifixion scene in GMark -- seems not only to be absolutely unfounded; it is grounded in a wholesale misrepresentation of what Sanders actually says.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Whether or not that's the actually case, it seems clear that Ted/Jacob's "arguments" are made only by misrepresenting what the person he's criticizing has actually said.

I think you a backing the wrong horse here.

Jeffrey