Peter Kirby

If it is a parallel, it was only made in one respect.

Irrelevant. The point of the paragraph was to show that the bare postulation of the historical Columbus does not provide an explanation for what we want to have explained--the 'discovery', conquest, and colonialization of the New World. This is the only point of similarity--that the bare postulation of the historical Jesus does not provide an explanation for what we want to have explained--the background factors, thought patterns, and early expansion of the Christian movement.

And just as Columbus has a controverted role and Columbus may not have been the primary catalyst of colonialization in the Americas, so too Jesus has a controverted role (to the point where whether he existed is a question!) and Jesus (if he did live) may not have been the primary catalyst of the origins of Christianity.

That's because you didn't understand it.

I'll just put it as a simple statement. The mere existence of a person does not serve as an explanation; what we need to know is that person's identity and actions, the background against which that person worked, and the interactions and ramifications of that person's life, before we can work that person into an explanatory model.

Great! We've moved beyond the idea that mythicists haven't even tried to present explanations.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

The comparison to Carotta is precisely the problem. Carotta doesn't get reviewed because, as you note, it's horrible. To extend it the benefit of peer-review would lend it more credibility than it deserves, and take more time than it's worth--it's nonsense. Unfortunately (though this is changing), that is far more the rule than the exception among mythicists, particularly among more broadly known mythicists, and has been for quite some time. It is thus not entirely unforgivable, though of course not correct, to classify all mythicists as either sensationalists in search of a best-seller, or cultured despisers of Christianity with an envelope to push.

To be fair, Doherty certainly deserves more critical treatment to that. To be equally fair, his glowing reviews of Freke and Gandy and Acharya S. don't do much to distinguish himself from them. When you lay down with dogs, as they say.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Why do you think Freke and Gandy wrote, given that neither of them have any relevant academic background, and that their books are poorly researched sensationalstic crap? Why does Acharya S. write books with such catchy taglines as "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and have such keen banners on her site as "God is Borg, Resistance is Futile" and "God protect me from your followers." That walks and talks an awful lot like a duck.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a large part of the reason mythicists are chastigated for writing for money, or for simply hating Christianity is that many mythicists, particularly more well-known mythicists, past and present hate Christianity and write for money.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

It's a point that's been made, but I guess has to made again: anyone who wanted to write for money, wouldn't be writing low-grade mythicist stuff. They could make a lot more money writing Lee Strobel pro-Christian crap. So the issue ain't money, RS.

A point I have often wanted to make to him. If you want to build an alternative NT scholarship, the crap has to be tossed in the trash.

Rick Sumner

Correction: Anyone who wanted to write solely for money might write pro-Christian crap, hence the addition of "cultured despiser of Christianity."

Though history proves your point wrong, no matter how many times you'd like to make it again. Dan Brown, Baigent and Leigh, Barbara Thiering, the list goes on. Reality is that the crusading secular seem to buy books at equal--if not greater--numbers than evangelical Christians--The Nag Hammadi Library is the original Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls disprove Christianity, Pius never spoke out against the Nazis--all contemporary legends that made an awful lot of money, all anti-Christian, none of them true.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

John A. Broussard

I must really be out of the mainstream. I've never heard of the Nag Hammadi Library, never heard even a whisper that the Dead Sea Scrolls disprove Christianity, though I did hear that the Pope allowed Jewish children to be "rescued" by Catholic families, baptized and never allowed to go back to their biological parents.

Perhaps the last is a myth, but it sure never hit the best seller list.

Rick Sumner

It's not a mainstream field. Most people have never heard of Lee Strobel either. Thiering, Baigent and Leigh, and Dan Brown have all had best-sellers in the vein I outlined.

I can't comment on the veracity of this, as I'm not familiar enough. I can tell you that the notion that Pius never spoke out against the Nazis, or collaborated with them, or whatever other nonsense sprang from whatsispickle (can't think of the name just now, I'll edit if it comes to me)'s book of imaginary documents that nobody can seem to find has achieved such reknown that it's routinely reported as fact. Take a look at this gem, for example, from the New York Times:

That would be the same New York Times that once heralded Pius as a "lonely voice for the Jewish people." The same one that more than once reported on Golda Meir's deep respect for Pius.

I never said it did. I was addressing the notion that Pius did not speak out against the Nazis, a notion routinely repeated, and one that has had several books hit best seller lists.

This did. There are dozens more, you can follow links through Amazon to them if you'd like.


Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Doherty's response is that people who pick at his reviews are engaging in diversionary tactics instead of examining his thesis.

IMO, those reviews were a mistake on his part. He should rip them off his website or edit them thoroughly. A comedy book like the one by Freke and Gandy and Archaya's do not deserve favorable reviews. The reviews taint him badly.

Ted Hoffman

And IMO, there is some unfinnished business with post-structuralists. There is the need to delink the methodological framework used by e.g. Price in Incredible Shrinking Son of Man - in comparing "ideal types", from the one used by Levi Straus in coming up with a grand theory of myths. When a post-structuralist sees those comparisons, deep furrows appear on his brow and memories of Levi Strauss mythemes assail his mind and he starts muttering "No, no, no, no..."

Arnal notes in his review of Prices ISS of M:
Arnal is of course oblivious to the latent tidal-wave of objections a post-structuralist can summon from this passage. The post-structuralist may be misguided but IMO, there is need to show that mythicists are cognizant of the problems Levi Straus' work on myths went through, and how mythicists account for them even as they examine "cultural soups", "analogues" and so on.

Peter Kirby

I can't speak for what others are engaging in, but here is my experience. I was a mythicist around the years 2000-2001. I was persuaded primarily by a reading of The Jesus Puzzle. But I drifted away from the mythicist claim. A large factor in this was my reflection on the fact (which noone had to point out to me) that he gave good reviews to (very) bad books.

This has been mentioned by you, Rick Sumner, Toto, Vorkosigan, me, and others. Should we start a petition to have these things changed?

See Robert Price's review of "Acharya S" for how this sort of thing ought to be done, in a logical, scholarly, and as-objective-as-possible way. I have long planned (and occasionaly worked on) a review of Freke and Gandy, along similar lines.

best,
Peter Kirby