outhouse

Not much can be done now Earl.

I think I would ride the train that negative attention is still attention.

Maybe those who want to find out what all the fuss is about will buy your book.

EarlDoherty

Does that include you, o-h? Especially since I have recently dropped the price by $10. And yes, I agree that negative attention is still attention and opens up its own opportunities, as witness this thread.

And on the question of whether I am a "scholar" or not, one wonders at the difference of opinion between Don (allegedly channelling Richard Carrier) and Robert M. Price (who certainly has the proper credentials), who said when JNGNM first came out:

Should we be surprised that Don seized on Carrier and ignored Price?

Earl Doherty

outhouse

I use books on this topic as a means of study for particular interest, simular to encyclopedias Earl. Not your fault and you do have quite a bit I could learn from your knowledge so dont take it personal. i'd say the same thing to Ehrman.

Ive taken the task of trying to write my own. Mine however is more fictional containing nonfiction.

Its a humbling experience giving me more appreciation for any published author.

TedM

Bernard has pointed us to Don's explanations, which I think deserve attention, but I'll answer you anyway:

Perhaps to let the reader know that his own opinion is shared by someone with more credentials.

It wasn't about length. It was about the degree of speculation vs facts. That appears to be their shared criticism.

He did say this:
He quoted '90%'. That leaves 10%.

'not a scholarly work' does not mean 'no scholarship is involved'. He wrote what he wrote. Readers can read implications into it that aren't there though, and I agree that there is always room for greater clarity, though am not sure any ambiguity on Carrier's opinion is intentional.


It appears he holds Carrier's methods in higher esteem than yours, and thinks that could be of value to Amazon readers.


No, I'm fine with what you are attempting to do and much of your insight and presentation of it. I think it is important to delineate speculation from facts where such delineation is needed. I do not know if that is something you fail to do in the book. Don and Carrier's position that it is, is something I would like to at least be aware of if I were about to read your book.

Earl, you have made your mark, and will continue to do so. Your book no doubt has much for folks to chew on and think about for decades if not centuries to come. I hope for your sake that Carrier gives you plenty of credit for the ideas he has taken from you. If mythicism prevails in the coming days I have to believe you will be given a very large percentage of the credit regardless of the credit Carrier gets also.

Happy New Year, Ted

EarlDoherty

It would have been interesting for either of them to actually give concrete examples of what they considered "speculation vs. facts." As far as I know, Carrier did not elaborate. And the term "speculation" is bandied about in a very woolly manner. What in fact, in general mainstream NT scholarship, is NOT, strictly speaking, speculation? In a way, the issue is something of a straw man. Is it "fact" that Paul speaks of an historical man? Or is it speculation based on importing the Gospels into the epistles, or in reflecting what established academia wishes to see there? Is it speculation that one can devote 9 pages to taking apart Hebrews 8:4 and demonstrating that it must be taken as a statement that Jesus had never been on earth? (Of course, when you can label something mere speculation, this absolves you of any need to rebut it.) And as far as I know, offering as much evidence and indicators from the texts to back up one's arguments is looked upon in established academia as something laudable, not condemnable. Of course, in this field, it is dependent upon what side of the fence you are standing, or what your personal interests are.

Is it speculation on my part when Don, in his most stubborn expression yet, sees my "world of myth" as entirely unfounded, even though I have tried to explain multiple times that I use the term simply to refer to something which I have clearly demonstrated is presented in documents describing what writers envision as going on in the layers of heaven? That's not speculation, it is appealing to statements in the evidence, as in 2 Enoch, which I itemize in my Chapter 12. How can Don deny something that is right there on the ancient page?

Is it speculation when I take apart Q and demonstrate (often appealing to exegesis and analysis indulged in by established Q scholars) how there are textual indicators that the document evolved to introduce a Jesus only at a later stage? That may not be as 'plain on the page' as the ancients' world of myth, but it is legitimate exegesis from evidence within the texts. To call it "speculation" is misleading and, in the hands of Don, dishonest. Others may have different exegeses, but none of it is "speculation" used in the sense that Don would like to give it. It shows that Don (and others) are motivated by apologetic prejudice, not by honest evaluation of what is permissible scholarship in this field. This is not laboratory science.

As to how Carrier specifically defines 'speculation', that is unclear, but that didn't stop Don from using his remarks to dump on my alleged lack of scholarship. And I am sure that if I applied the same kind of woolly and subjective analysis to Carrier's own writings, I could probably come up with my own 'speculation' accusations.

Anyway, happy New Year to you, too.

Earl Doherty

gurugeorge

If I may speculate, I think the situation's a bit like this.

GDon initially took Earl as a bit of a poseur. GDon has a particular interest in ancient thought, and Platonism in particular, and probably thought he had it all sewn up; when he saw what appeared to him misconceptions about Middle Platonism, he took Earl up on it. That argument has never been wholly conclusive, but over time it has looked more like Earl was on the right track. (I said to GDon years ago that it would probably be discovered that the ancient cosmology was more "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" than he thinks. Those guys had some ideas that are very alien to rationalists, but semi-familiar to any New Ager, that form a solid core of woo down the ages, arising more from shared brain and mental structure and propensity to visions and hallucinatory thought, than anything purely conceptual.)

But anyway, GDon has painted himself into a corner as Earl's nemesis, and must continue that posture. And if that means forcing arguments down inconclusively cascading fractal blind alleys (something GDon does A LOT), so be it.

Meanwhile, Earl has become somewhat unhinged about GDon too, to the extent that he's sometimes less than scholarly in his responses, and even comes off a bit churlish and dogmatic.

They're locked into this archetypal internetz struggle together. Neither can let go.

But personally I think they're both splendid fellows and I enjoy reading their arguments, so screw their mental health .... carry on I say!

Toto

There does seem to be a pattern of people who start off assuming that all mythicists must be conspiracy nuts or cranks, and back themselves into positions where they can't let go in spite of the evidence. (Hi there, Abe.)

I think this is in large part the result of some skillful rhetorical tricks by Christian apologists.

EarlDoherty

And you think that hasn't been part of Don's strategy over the years? (Spoken without churlish tone.)

Anyway, thanks for your concern over my mental health! Actually, I've been unhinged since 1997, when someone on the original Crosstalk (a snake pit that made FRDB look like a Sunday School picnic) called me a jackass--in Spanish--for daring to suggest Jesus never existed when all I had was a basic website only a year old. GDon couldn't hold a candle to those guys.

Earl Doherty

TedM

I agree with you that negative comments about speculation should be explained at least somewhere, if not on the Amazon review. Perhaps Don clarifies his position on this in his longer review. I think he thinks he did that. Perhaps Carrier will explain this criticism in his upcoming book. If no such explanations can be found, I can't fault you for concluding that something is seriously amiss.

EarlDoherty

Well, once again, GDon persists in egregious misrepresentation, and misleading postings on Amazon. In his latest comment attached to his review (he had said he would let Neil Godfrey have the last word, but of course that went by the boards when he saw yet another devious way to further dump on me), he called attention to a posting I made on Vridar (see this thread #8). He quoted the whole thing, in which I defended my book against Carrier’s ‘speculation’ opinion, and lamented that comments like Carrier’s enabled apologists like Don to portray mythicists as engaged in disruptive infighting.

What did Don make of that posting in his latest comment on Amazon? My conviction that Carrier was mistaken in dismissing 90% of the book as speculation, and that such exaggerated and unjustified comment gave ammunition to anti-mythers of several stripes, was labelled by Don as “a non-scholarly approach” on my part. Self-defence and disagreeing with a critic, I guess, is non-scholarly, and wanting to avoid turning one’s own discipline into a snake pit is somehow disreputable.

Contrasted with this unacceptable and unscholarly approach, Don offers this:

Before I add his Carrier quote here, please note that Don has rather twisted things. He has remarked that Carrier’s sentiments, which he is just about to offer, are not in fact intended to be taken as applying to me and my arguments. So the “bad mythicist arguments” which Carrier will speak against are apparently not supposed to be encompassing his “90% speculation” comment on my JNGNM (and I can accept that). Yet Carrier is saying that he is not one who will remain silent on what he considers writing that is detrimental to the mythicist case. I think it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the casual reader will probably make the mistake of associating what Carrier is saying with his ‘speculation’ comment, along with Don’s own dismissal of my book as “not scholarship” and his present remark that my approach in the Vridar posting is “non-scholarly”—even though he has snuck in a disclaimer of sorts (see above: “He is not referring to Doherty’s arguments below”). Rather, he has obviously designed his comment to make the very association he disclaims. In fact, in contradiction to his disclaimer, he makes sure to include my complaint about Carrier’s comment seeming to undermine me as a mythicist writer, which strengthens even further an association between Carrier’s “bad mythicist” sentiments and myself.

Here is Don’s quote of Carrier:

If in fact Carrier is not intending to include me and my work in his spotlighting of bad mythicists who need condemnation, not accusing me of error which needs rooting out, then why has Don offered this quote from Carrier as a contrast with his reproduction of my entire Vridar posting (see #8 in this thread), which includes my reaction to Carrier’s “speculation” criticism? It is only natural that the reader of Don’s Amazon comment will associate Carrier’s JNGNM criticism with his ‘anti-bad mythicist’ sentiments quoted by Don, especially since in the latter he uses the word “speculations” and the phrase “not criticizing each other.” My defence against Carrier’s criticism has been lumped into Don’s condemnation of the entire posting as “non-scholarly” against which he sets Carrier’s “scholarly” approach, as though I have no right to disagree with Carrier’s view. (Why, because he’s a “scholar” and I’m allegedly not?) What is there about such a defence, whether in principle or in the specific rebuttal I gave to Carrier’s criticism, which is “non-scholarly”? What, in fact, does it have to do with scholarship at all? Don, in his garbled comment motivated yet again by vendetta-like motives, has created a minefield of misrepresentation and misleading comparisons.

The only valid comparison involved here between Carrier and myself—and our “differences in approach” as Don puts it has nothing to do with scholarship, but with opinion which has more to do with ‘marketing’ than anything else—is that I would like to handle with more tact and honest (and not overblown) representation certain flaws perceived to be inherent in some mythicist writers. Carrier, on the other hand, seems to prefer a take-no-prisoners approach, thinking that setting up a battlefield on which mythicists themselves can do their own bloodletting and let the ‘correct’ approach emerge victorious regardless of casualties, will in the end advance the mythicist case more efficiently. That approach apparently spilled over into his criticism of JNGNM for too much “speculation,” which I have disputed as a radical misrepresentation. Don, of course, as is my bottom-line point in this thread so aptly named, seized on the opportunity to do more of what Don is best at doing.

P.S. I did my best to avoid a churlish and dogmatic tone (), and there will be those who wonder why I am bothering so much. But when you’re thrown into the ring with someone who is determined to box, and especially to use low blows, it’s a bit of an unrealistic pacificist expectation to think that one will not defend oneself and throw a few punches in return. Besides, I think it is important to highlight, not difference of opinion within mythicist ranks, but the biased, desperate and often unscrupulous antics indulged in by the real enemy, the mindless and eternally hostile historicism as practiced by its most zealous defenders. (And I am more or less retired, so I have time to indulge myself.)

Earl Doherty