Jeffrey Gibson

Take it as you wish.

I most certainly have read the first edition to Schweitzer's Quest (and I probably did so before you learned to read -- and became partial to drawing false and unwarranted inferences). But please note that I was referring to what one finds in Chapters 22& 23 in the 1913 edition of that work -- which, it appears, you were unaware of and certainly have not read.


When I referred to Theissen & Merz and to E & B, it was in reference not to Drews but to the claim in the OP that "The only argument every presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!". So whether or not T & M and E & B speak specifically or Drews is irrelevant. (but see p. 24 of E & B)


Perhaps you can tell me whether E & B appeal to this epistemology, let alone present it as relevant, on pp. 24, 33, 163, 165, 166, 169-70, 186, 187, 199, 201, 206-208, and 211 where they discuss the "Christ Myth theory" and especially on pp. 24, 33, 106, 166, 176, 187, 192, 202n2, 204, 209n18, 318 where they mention and discuss what Earl Doherty has written.

See above.

No. And since Drews published a second and third edition of his Christ Myth partly to deal with the responses he had to his work, neither did he.


For who Drew's "ilk" are, see the chapters in Schweitzer that I noted above. See also chapter 2 of Walter P. Weaver's The Historical Jesus in the 20th Century: 1900-1950. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jeffrey

avi

Steven Carr asked whether there have been peer-reviewed articles explaining the errors in Earl Doherty's thesis-->that the earliest Christians knew that Jesus was mythical.

Subsequently, several folks offered some interesting perspectives, slightly off-topic, but nevertheless fascinating, and indirectly appropriate to the content of this thread:

Al-hajar Al-aswad, or, in English: Kaabah, which means, "Cube".
How about this sentence, No Robots?
Islam is dangerous because it feeds the public a lie about the Kaabah. In my opinion, Islam is dangerous because it feeds the public the truth: Death to all infidels.
How can Jesus concurrently be both the son of God, and God himself?

Hmm. I have never understood why "God", an omniscient, omnipotent creature, needed a son???? Humans need sons to tend the flocks, and raise the crops, but why should an all powerful god require a sidekick? John 10:30 removes the confusion (until John 14:28 comes along.)
It is difficult to refute a claim that someone who lived thousands of years ago, possessed the ability to walk on water.
It is a lie to claim such a capability, for humans, or any other vertebrate, for that matter.

aa5874

The average specific gravity or density of the average adult human body has not changed much for thousands of years. It is not difficult at all to refute a claim that someone who lived thousands years had the ability to walk on water.

And actually, it is very difficult and virtually impossible to show that an adult human could have ever walked ON water in an upright position during a storm and still remain erect above water while saving another from drowning.

Rick Sumner

Sorry, late for the party.

Did I just read that IVP, the press that brings us, for example, such essential publications as The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters or The IVP NT Commentary Series are not the sort of academics Doherty needs to review his work by virtue of being a conservative evangelical group?

IVP can, without reservation, be mentioned alongside Brill or OUP. The fact that you don't know that, as well as the fact that you think the quality of their scholarship depends on whether they're conservative evangelicals or scientologists reflects, onces again, your own biases, not theirs, and your own lack of familiarity with the field.

They are exactly the reviewers Earl needs.

And, for the record, they are not the Campus Crusade for Christ.

Does anybody even pay attention to the Jesus Seminar anymore? Didn't they stop being relevant 20 years ago?

Once you drop all the histrionics, once you drop the Galileo complex, here's what actually happened.

A group (the Jesus Seminar) that increasingly struggles to maintain credibility refused to compromise what little credibility they collectively have left by selling an issue of their journal to a heavily marginalized hypothesis.

The only people who were surprised by the result were people who have no idea how the wheels of academia turn. The sort of people who think that the Jesus Seminar is still relevant.

I'm going to throw a crazy idea out there. Maybe Earl's supporters, instead of making excuses for his failure to submit his work. . .well, anywhere, should stop apologizing for him. How about you try convincing Earl to do something nutty like start submitting papers.

Just tossing it out there.

As an answer to the original question, Peter Kirby once indicated to me that Earl had submitted his book to the RBL, but received no reviewers. If that's true, the reason is almost certainly exactly what Jeffrey already mentioned. He's an unknown, independent scholar who published his book through a vanity press.

Barefoot Bree

Every time I read a post like this, all I can think of is Mornington Crescent. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you guys are just having us on.

Rick Sumner

I'm frequently surprised by the fact that mythicist proponents in general seem to have no awareness of how much debate Drews inspired.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

This all started with an off-hand statement by one poster that the only argument present against mythicism was that experts agreed that Jesus existed. This was misinterpreted by Jeffrey Gibson to be a claim that the only argument every offiered against mythicism at any time in history was that experts agreed that Jesus existed. So know we have lots of cites to previous discussion of Drews and "his ilk" showing a robust debate over the particular version of mythicism that they presented, based on astrotheology and comparative religion. But Doherty's theories are not based on astrotheology, so this is wandering a bit off topic.

Jeffrey Gibson

Misunderstood rather. Please show me the clues in the postby Ktotwf' that I responded to which made it absolutely clear that Ktotwf' was speaking only of people who post here.

Moreover, if anyone has misrepresented anything its Ktotw. It is simply not true that "The only argument every presented" here "to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!".

There have been plenty of responses -- from GDon and others that have done far more than this, and you know it, Toto.

And you too, Toto, have engaged in it. It seems hardly the case that Ktotwf's remark "The only argument every presented" here "to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"was, as you claim, an "off handed one". It was the center and the substance of his post.

So back off on this misrepresentation nonsense, please

Jeffrey

Toto

Egads man. You have turned misinterpreted into misrepresented.

Back off yourself.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, you are correct. And I apologize for my misreading.

But the fact remains that Ktowtf has misrepresented what has gone on here and that your claim that his remark was an off handed one is simply not true.

Jeffrey