kais

Not that long ago, you yourself were decrying the analogy. You apparently believed that "Creationism is totally unlike either historicism or mythicism?" in March of last year; is there a reason for your rather dramatic shift in opinion?

GakuseiDon

Here's how the Creationist Analogy works, as far as I can see:

HJer: Bah! That argument is wrong!
MJer: "Failure of imagination!"/"Mere apologetics!"/"Locked in a paradigm!"
HJer: That's just how Creationists would react!
MJer: We are not like creationists, because...

Probably better not to use either the "failure of imagination" defense or the Creationist Analogy. Even if there is some truth in them, neither smack downs are going to advance the argument. As Amaleq says, far better to point out the weaknesses in the argument itself.

Zeichman

Indeed. Asserting that you are right doesn't make it so. Most MJers seem only to be interested in interacting with more popular literature rather than less accessible literature. This was my criticism of Jacob Aliet's review of Sanders. His charge against the book ultimately came down to the fact that it wasn't technical; why not engage with his more technical book, then? I'm also curious as to who called his review "garbage."

Amaleq13

:thumbs:

Chris Weimer

Think about it.

Dreadnought

Talk about it.

Chris Weimer

Hazard a guess. I've only five minutes before Latin starts.

kais

Certainly! One possibility is that you've simply decided that you were wrong to previously assert that "unlike creationism, both theories [historicism and mythicism] have evidence for them, and only the fringe of each group can seriously be labelled crackpots." Another is that you personally dislike some of the individuals on this board and so have chosen to abandon all pretense of reasonable discourse. A third would be that you haven't really changed your mind and are just looking for a reaction from Toto and some of the other participants. Of course, I'm sure everyone here would much rather read your explanation than my thoughts and speculation. To that end, would you to care to detail the reasons behind your rather dramatic shift in opinion?

Chris Weimer

Perhaps it isn't wise to lump all mythicism into the same category? I certainly do not defend Crossan's Cynical Jesus? Perhaps I understand creationism a little better too, and see where they are coming from? So many questions, I thought you all were the exegetical scholars! Sorry for being brief, I don't have much time these days. Off to write a paper on sheol.

kais

I certainly wouldn't choose to, although I'm sure you'll forgive me for failing to see where you have ever made any sort of distinction along those lines.

I've never claimed to be anything of the sort. I used to read BC&H because, while I was Greekless, knew nothing of Hebrew and had virtually nothing to contribute, I found some of the discussions, particularly those involving Apikorus, fascinating. Now, it seems that arguments over questions such as whether MJ proponents are analagous to Creationism predominate and I find myself reading out of habit rather than any real interest in the topics. I suppose that now is as good a time as any to break myself of that habit.