Zeichman

I should have been more clear. A few books, Wells, Price, (I am unaware of any reviews of Doherty, Gandy, Acharya S, etc.) have been reviewed by scholars in established journals. I did not classify these as peer-reviewed, because I used it in reference to the process that articles go through for academics journals. E.g., Craig Evans' review was peer-reviewed in that it was scrutinized by the editorial board; his review itself was not a peer-review in that it was only one guy's opinion, his views do not necessarily represent the standard for scholarship of the journal, etc. on the matter, per my definition.

Amaleq13

That is what I had in mind as well but, as I said, I was trying to stretch for a concession.

gstafleu

These MJ-HJ discussions take place in a strange vacuum. Say you want to find an answer to the question: why is the human body constructed as it is? You wouldn't try to find that answer without studying evolution and phylogeny, would you?

However, it seems that people think that the origin and evolution of Christianity can be studied divorced from almost all other religions and mythologies. As if Christianity (or at best Abrahamic religions) possesses a uniqueness that isolates it from comparison with all other, or at least non-Abrahamic, religions.

The proper forum for discussion of HJ-MJ is not BC&H, but comparative mythology. In that world there are developmental models available and there it is much easier to see the HJ-MJ question in its proper perspective.

Perhaps that is why this is seldom done. It would take the fun out of the debates and offer answers to questions that many would rather see unanswered.

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

The spamandham vs Amaleq13 sequence has been split out here and locked.