Peter Kirby

So my note was correct. Use of the phrase would be inviting the reader to think less of the person on that basis, and consequently of her argument, an ad hominem, even though it reflects a true thing (that the person develops a "fringe theory").

Though, those who aren't actually working on the peripheral-type theory would be aficionados, not theorists.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

That was precisely my point.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

I am willing to try.

Toto

And my point was that the use of "fringe theory" is not only an ad hominem, but possibly an insult, and only true if "fringe theory" is carefully defined to be used in a way that it is generally not used on this board. But without those qualifications, it is not true.

This reminds me of Lakoff's theory of framing. If every time you mention mythicism, you work in terms like "fringe theory", you create the impression that mythicism is not quite intellectually respectable.

This is why I objected to Rick's defending terms like cult, fundamentalist, fringe theory. They have no place in any serious discussion. Their only purpose is to frame the issue so that mythicists are connected with the lunatic fringe, even if Rick did not actually say that explicitly.

I don't know if this is what Rick intended, but it is the clear effect.

I will be happy to avoid any interaction with Rick, since it seems to be impossible to communicate with him, even when we agree.

Peter Kirby

This is precisely what Rick was saying.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

What Rick did say was that it was unqualifiedly true to call mythicism a fringe theory, that there are unnamed "people who adhere to Doherty's argument with all the tenacity and reason of a Fundamentalist," that the term cult can validly be applied to mythicists. It appeared that he was trying to frame the issue and then dodge responsibility for his words.

Why bring the term up in the first place?

Peter Kirby

Because Rick had the perception that Nomad's participation in his debate with Doherty was being "framed" (the term you cite from Lakoff) by the fact that Nomad is a Christian apologist and the idea that Nomad's arguments in his debate with Doherty were apologetic. You've since clarified yourself thus: "I was trying to explain why Doherty gave up debating Nomad, a self-described apologist, and why this did not mean that he lost the debate." And to me it's always been clear what point Rick was making.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Meta,
I will try to make this short since Metacrock can't handle 'huge' posts. Whatever happened to the aphorism that says 'dynamite comes in small packages'? I have more than twenty errors but will give just a few.

Seven Errors in Metacrock's criticism:

1. Error: Doherty is oblivious of Hegessipus.
1. Fact: Doherty mentions Hegessipus in p.219, p.220-1 and p.273

2. Error: Luke Timothy Johnson is a liberal scholar
2. Fact: Luke Timothy Johnson champions fideism (junking rational knowlegde in favour of empty faith) and argues that that God (a supernatural being) had a son with a mortal woman (thus a demigod) who willingly came to die for our sins. This son, contends Timothy, is Jesus. And thats his HJ.

3. Error: 1 Clement speaks of Mary giving birth to Jesus
3. Fact: 1 Clement does not speak of Mary giving birth to Jesus

4. Error: Hebrews 5:7, which says that Jesus "offered up Prayers and Petitions with loud crys and tears" is evidence that Jesus was on earth.
4. Fact: G.A. Buchanan, in Anchor Bible, Hebrews, p.98, thinks that "the offering up petitions" is drawn from Psalms 116:1, which uses the same words. Doherty also mentions Hugh Montefiore, in Hebrews, p.97, who states that the phrase "loud cries and tears" is an elnargement on Psalm 22:24. Paul Ellingworth, in Epistle to the Hebrews, p.285 states that it refers to a "generalized use of the language and pattern of old testament intercession".

5. Error: The writer of Hebrews was a member of the Pauline circle.
5. Fact: The author of Hebrews is unknown.

6. Error: None of the Biblical writers felt called upon to point out that Jesus' crucifixion was on earth and was an earthly flesh event, because no one channeled[sic] that and it would be totally illogical and unnatural to feel called upon to point it out.
6. Fact: The Authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John felt compelled to tell the story of Jesus and emphasized that he lived on earth and was crucified on earth.

7. Error: All early writers acknowledge that Jesus lived a life on earth as a man.
7. Fact: Early writers that "dont acknowledge" that Jesus lived on earth as a man: The writers of Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Odes of Solomom, Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Epistle to Diognetus (who states that God never sent anyone on earth), Theophilus' To Autolucus (who even poses the challenge: "show me even one who has been raised from the dead"), Athenagoras' A Plea For the Christians

Let us all take a break and see how Metacrock extricates himself from this.

Toto

Not exactly. Rick objected to my use of the term "apologetic" to describe the criterion of embarrassment, because he thought it did not apply. Did he think that the term was insulting, and reach for something equally insulting to mythicists? The problem is that "apologist" is not generally insulting to apologists, while "fringe" is generally insulting to historians. And then he added fuel to the flame with his sneers at the JM list and some mythicists (unnamed) who share some traits with fundamentalists. So it is not clear to me what point he wanted to make.

But Rick insists on being aggrieved and will not speak to me any more. So I have hopes of never going through this again.

Peter Kirby

But the criterion of embarrassment is used by writers who claim to be doing history, and they would be slighted if that were called "apologetic." The word definitely does carry a connotation of irrationality, with an "apologist" almost a villianous figure, and you've illustrated this in this very thread. That is why it could be an ad hominem: people look at the argument someone makes, someone says "it's apologetic," and then that argument's cogency is estimated lower, or the argument is not even worth interacting with. If the point was simply "the argument was made by someone who would defend Christian beliefs," or "the argument works toward a conclusion that is a belief that is held by Christians," then one wonders why it needs to be mentioned.

best,
Peter Kirby