Toto

This has been raised and answered before. Doherty has been quite clear that no standard, tenured scholars support mythicism, but he has constructed his argument using standard scholarly analysis for various parts of his argument (e.g., the interpretation of "rulers of this age" in 1 Cor.)

If you quote someone out of context to imply that they support you when they don't, that's called quote mining. It's bad. Doherty does not do this, and has never been accused of that.

mountainman

Neither are historicists immune from the perversion and ignorance of this term.

Let's be fair.

For example doesn't Erhman appeal to the authority of outmoded and illogical criteria (e.g. that dissimilarity and embarrassment)>

thief of fire

Now you are using your own logical falacy.
here is what I wrote.....

This is what scholars do. If they cite someone who disagree with them then they note that, they mention that.
Doherty has been accused of doing just that. And Doherty has conceded he does just that.

You then changed this to "quote mining", and claimed Doherty had not been accused of "quote mining".

Toto

Please read more carefully.

Doherty has always been upfront about the fact that the scholars that he cites do not agree with his mythicist hypothesis.

He quotes them on points where they do agree (on particular points of textual interpretation.) He does not quote them out of context.

He has not conceded that he has done what you claim, or that he has done anything that scholars do not do.

thief of fire

Toto none of this addresses my point. It is strawman.

Yes he has. Why are you defending him so vehemently.

Here again is what I claim, and can you please not try to reword anything I say to make it say something different?

I am claiming that it is not standard practice for scholars don't cite references that disagree with their argument unless they note that disagreement.

Then I am claiming that Doherty does in fact quote references that that disagree with his argument but fails to make note of that disagreement.

Now can you make a comment about what I have said here, rather than restating it to say something different and then denying your strawman.

Toto

I think you are wrong on the facts and the principles involved. I have already explained this. I don't know how to make it clearer.

If you think that Doherty has quoted a reference that disagreed with his argument without noting that, please find that cite, or withdraw your charge.

thief of fire

You're kidding right? Why not start by using my actual words rather than changing them.
You have a short memory, you can start here. I'm not going to spoonfeed you until you start to make an effort and that means to stop distorting what I am saying and use my actual words rather than distorting them.

As you seem determined not to get it, I will at some point start a thread on Doherty's habit of doing this, when the time suits me.

Toto

I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do remember GDon making some similar charge to avoid discussing an issue.

Looking back, I see that you charged Doherty with not following your rule "If they cite someone who disagree with them then they note that, they mention that." I explained that this is not exactly the rule that scholars follow, and that Doherty has not violated the usual rule of scholarship. I said that IF Doherty had taken a quote from a scholar and twisted it to mean something other than what the scholar believed, THEN he would be guilty of quote mining. You misread this somehow.

I think you need to read more carefully.

This particular issue has been discussed here, but not in that long thread started by a self-banned member that did not focus on Doherty. I am merely repeating Doherty's arguments against that charge when it was made.

I think when you get around to it, you will not find a single example of this alleged habit.

thief of fire

You explained nothing..you merely asserted it, with no attempt to do anything but assert it...but ..whatever.

David Deas

There is no authority concerning the historical existence of Jesus. Anyone claiming to be an expert on the historical existence of Jesus is just downright silly.