Jeffrey Gibson

Well, thanks. But you need to understand that I'm all for true gadflies -- i.e., those whose attempts to "rouse the slow and dimwitted horse" (cf. Plato's Apology 30e) are actually grounded in a real and not a pretend expertise.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, did you miss Smith's discussion of the Inanna myth? And where in any version of this myth, and especially the earliest of them, is she said to die, let alone to rise?

Jeffrey

No Robots

I think it would do you well to consider that many of us actually have only a real enthusiasm that requires social participation in order to attain to any kind of expertise. I think it also important to distinguish between those whose enthusiasm is only a harm to themselves; and those whose distortions are a threat, real or potential, to others. The difference between the two is, for practical purposes, quantitative: the more adherents a doctrine has, the more it requires careful critical scrutiny. Around these parts, it is Doherty's doctrine that has the most cohesive base of supporters.

gstafleu

Yes, he summarizes the Inanna story, but that just serves to reemphasize my question: why are rising/dying gods male only, if Inanna was the first?
Smith himself says "She is killed and her corpse hung on a hook. Through a stratagem planned before her descent, she is revived..." You can find that here. I'm not sure how old the tablet underlying the translation is, but my guess would be that the various parts come from the earliest available tablets (the whole story was patched together from multiple tablets, mainly by Samuel Noah Kramer iirc). The bit about the hook is in lines 164-172:
the reviving bit in 273-281:
So yes, she died and arose, I'd say.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht

Careful, naming the anti-christ is asking for trouble

No Robots

And here I thought you to be one of the more reasonable F.O.D. (Friends of Doherty).

bacht

I'm grateful to Doherty for opening my eyes to a different perspective on the NT. I hadn't encountered any serious mythicists before him. I don't know if he has all the answers, and I don't think he would welcome uncritical fawning.

I'm aware that Earl has a history here, and has made some enemies. Out of respect to the majority of posters I don't mention him unless specifically relevant.

EarlDoherty

In answer to Jeffrey’s concerns, I can only judge a writer on the basis of what he writes. Nor is any theoretical “intent” prior to that writing pertinent. In regard to Burkert and Wagner, I have given a wealth of evidence to indicate that they are biased in favor of the Christian point of view, sometimes blatantly and embarrassingly so. Whether that is because they are Christians and believers, or not, is immaterial. And Jeffrey has not addressed a single one of the arguments I offer to dispute my evaluation of them. (That is no doubt because, as expected, he did not bother to read the articles.)

As for Smith, I allowed that he was more professional about it and adopted a more neutral approach, though not entirely. Neither has Jeffrey bothered to examine what I say about Smith to rebut my perceptions of this limited bias on his part. His—very typical—response of quoting other material instead of arguing on his own is a pointless exercise, since it will not address the arguments I’ve made about him. It’s particularly pointless since the material he reproduced is Smith’s article in The Encyclopedia of Religion (something Jeffrey failed to identify), and both I and my quotation of Robert Price address certain points in that Encyclopedia article. Jeffrey’s wholesale quote accomplishes nothing to rebut what I and Price have said about it. Neither he, nor the List Members “can assess for themselves the validity of what Earl says about him” if he or they don’t actually read what I argue and engage with those arguments.

Again, typical of Jeffrey’s tactics to avoid having to assume any responsibility for substantive counter-argument of his own.

I note that he had nothing to say in defense of Wagner and Burkert’s actual texts as I deal with them, so I will assume he has nothing to counter my judgment of them either, including that Wagner’s book is a sham.

As for “No Robots” - I disagree that ‘Dr. Gibson’s post was “excellent work.” If that’s all it takes to satisfy the “enemies” of Jesus Mythicism on this board, it’s a measure of their abysmal understanding of what scholarship, free inquiry, and personal integrity is all about. The wings on this gadfly are still intact.

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Well usually the term apologist is reserved for one who is offering a defense of one's religious convictions. So to my eyes the fact that they are not believers, and therefore, have no horse in the running or particular stake in the game, is extremely pertinent.

Or do you use apologist of anyone who comes to, and argues for, conclusions that are the opposite of what you believe?

I'd be grateful if you could point me not only to where in your last message you actually asked me to respond to your "arguments", but also to where it was that I said I was going to do so, especially since the topic at hand in my last message had nothing to do with whether the arguments you have made on your web pages against the claims and conclusions (note not the alleged biases) of Smith, Burkert, and Wagner were any good. So far as I can see, I never said anything in this regard one way or another.

Rather the topic was (1) how you knew as absolutely as you seemed to claim you did what their intent was in writing what they wrote and whether the label "apologist" was apt and accurate; and (2) whether you’d be kind enough to demonstrate (and not just assert) that I indeed make it my regular practice, as you claim I do, to comment upon, and raise questions about, things I have not read and that, in light of the particular occasions upon which they have been made, any calls I have uttered for supporting evidence have been unwarranted or gratuitous.

I love the loaded language -- and the presumption -- that I would consider reading what you wrote a bother, and that that's the only reason I did not do what I never said I would do, if in fact I did not do so.

I'd be grateful to know how you know this.

Once again, and for the record, I never stated that I was going to argue anything or attempt to rebut anything you said, let alone to sdo so by quoting anything from anyone. Nor is there anything in my previous message that indicates that my purpose for quoting Smith to refute you. It was -- as I explicitly said -- only to provide the material necessary for others to judge whether or not your claims that Smith shows the bias you say he does in the ER article you mentioned (and which I did identify) were valid.

How you get that it was my intent to argue anything, let alone to do so without saying anything on my own, from:

except through a wholesale misreading of what I said my intention in quoting Smith was, is beyond me.


Yes. That's why I said "As to Earl's claim that Smith "shows his bias" ... in [his] ER article on "dying and rising gods" -- to not identify it.

As I note above, and what you have twice now ignored/misrepresented, is that I never said it did rebut what you and Price have said about it.

Again, here is what I said regarding why I was reproducing Smith's article:

Nor, I trust you'll agree, can they do so without reading Smith. Hence my provision of the article.

If anyone has avoided anything here, it's you -- in your not doing what I asked you to do given the very specific charges you made against me.

To take a leaf from your book, and using your explanation for someone's silence in the face of claims you make, I guess its wholly legitimate to say that the only conclusion we can come to regarding whyt it is that you did not do what I asked you to do is because you cannot demonstrate that I indeed make it my regular practice, as you claim I do, to comment upon, and raise questions about, things I have not read and that, in light of the particular occasions upon which they my calls for evidence have been made, have been made, you are unable and have no evidence to show[/I] that any calls I have uttered for supporting evidence were unwarranted and/or gratuitous.

Jeffrey

Toto

For the Attention Deficit Disorder sufferers, there is a short snarky critique of Smith here.