Freethought & Rationalism Archive

2-J · 01-26-2012, 05:58 AM

As a fan of both Earl Doherty and Bart Erhman, I earnestly hope that Erhman has responded to Doherty's work, which I consider to be the most compelling case for MJ put forward thus far.

dogsgod · 01-26-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

No, because from a quick Google the only thing I could find of him talking on this exact topic he resorted to this "brother" business in a very naive and blustery way, when it has already become highly controversial and much debated.

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/bart-eh...ristmyththeory

His claim that "no serious historian doubts the historical Jesus" is a ridiculous comment when you look at the work of people like Price and Doherty. You cannot doubt they are serious historians, and in fact they have investigated this issue far more thoroughly as far as I can see than the historicist side has.

If his book is this naive and dismissive, then it will probably be full of bluster and rhetoric rather than engagement. Is Doherty (e.g.) out to "make a lot of money" from his work as the interview suggests? Ridiculous comment from Ehrman.

He makes out the mythicists are treating historical evidence as if it "doesn't count". Wow. Has he read Price or Doherty?

His arguments in the interview sound basically clownish: stuff that ppl on these pages would be ashamed of making.

"Serious" is a subjective title, but Ehrman's slur gets a pass from me, because I take the minimum requirement of authority in scholarship to be either employment in a state-accredited college or authorship of many articles in respectable journals. Robert M. Price is probably the Jesus-minimalist still alive who has the best credentials, which I take to be an embarrassing point, because Price has a PhD (two PhDs?) but no employment at an accredited research institution. Doherty has no credentials other than an MA in ancient languages and popularity on the web. You may have a different idea of what counts as "serious," though, and that is OK with me.

I think Ehrman made a good point about the brother-of-Jesus passage of Galatians 1:19, in that it is something that Paul said in passing, as though it was not so much in Paul's interest and not a significant point of ancient debate. I don't think that is "bluster," but maybe you have a different idea about that, too.

At the time, I doubt that he read either Price or Doherty. That has probably changed, because, according to Price himself on his radio show, Ehrman asked Price for some of the relevant literature, and Price obliged. Price actually has considerable respect for Ehrman, and Price predicted that Ehrman's book would not be lightweight.

No "serious scholar" is the same as saying no "true scholar," it's the No True Scotsman fallacy, a self serving circular argument.

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"Serious" is a subjective title, but Ehrman's slur gets a pass from me, because I take the minimum requirement of authority in scholarship to be either employment in a state-accredited college or authorship of many articles in respectable journals. Robert M. Price is probably the Jesus-minimalist still alive who has the best credentials, which I take to be an embarrassing point, because Price has a PhD (two PhDs?) but no employment at an accredited research institution. Doherty has no credentials other than an MA in ancient languages and popularity on the web. You may have a different idea of what counts as "serious," though, and that is OK with me.

I think Ehrman made a good point about the brother-of-Jesus passage of Galatians 1:19, in that it is something that Paul said in passing, as though it was not so much in Paul's interest and not a significant point of ancient debate. I don't think that is "bluster," but maybe you have a different idea about that, too.

At the time, I doubt that he read either Price or Doherty. That has probably changed, because, according to Price himself on his radio show, Ehrman asked Price for some of the relevant literature, and Price obliged. Price actually has considerable respect for Ehrman, and Price predicted that Ehrman's book would not be lightweight.

No "serious scholar" is the same as saying no "true scholar," it's the No True Scotsman fallacy, a self serving circular argument.

Do you think that some scholars are more qualified or more authoritative than others?

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sure, but what about Josephus?

Are you referring to the well-known forgeries of Josephus Flavius? Even if this scant "evidence" were verified or verifiable, would that make the existence of a man/god a reality? What's your point? Jesus the miracle- worker is obvious fiction, and no amount of second-hand testimony as in Josephus would alter that fact in the slightest. The bible is less credible than a Dell or DC comic book. That people believe in it (the bible) indicates their lack of intellectual competence and their capacity for self-delusion.

I found it odd that you would chime in with a point about the fallibility of the Bible when the debate was about a passage in Josephus, so I thought you may have been a little mixed up. You have "well-known forgeries of Josephus Flavius" in the plural form, but as far as I know there is only one of them, though some mythicists like Earl Doherty require at least two in order for their theories to hold, and I think that would be the extent of it. It is an ad hoc claim, "well-known" only among mythicists.

aa5874 · 01-26-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I found it odd that you would chime in with a point about the fallibility of the Bible when the debate was about a passage in Josephus, so I thought you may have been a little mixed up. You have "well-known forgeries of Josephus Flavius" in the plural form, but as far as I know there is only one of them, though some mythicists like Earl Doherty require at least two in order for their theories to hold, and I think that would be the extent of it. It is an ad hoc claim, "well-known" only among mythicists.

Again, you are on a propaganda campaign. Please do some research and you will see that your claims are ERRONEOUS.

I do NOT consider you to be credible.

Examine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Quote:

..........The general scholarly view of the present day is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety........

.............The majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as possibly authentic......

You just seem to be spreading rumors on BC&H. Just go do some research before you post.

tanya · 01-27-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

As a fan of both Earl Doherty and Bart Erhman, I earnestly hope that Erhman has responded to Doherty's work, which I consider to be the most compelling case for MJ put forward thus far.

And, you may be entirely correct.

I am not seeking to quarrel with your assessment, but, can you summarize, in one sentence, what it is about Earl's hypothesis that leads you to regard his writing as the "most compelling case for MJ put forward thus far".

I would disagree with you, not only because I am insufficiently intelligent to comprehend most of what Earl has written, but also because I regard Mark 1:1 as the most compelling case for MJ put forward thus far:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIV Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

dogsgod · 01-27-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

No "serious scholar" is the same as saying no "true scholar," it's the No True Scotsman fallacy, a self serving circular argument.

Do you think that some scholars are more qualified or more authoritative than others?

Let me guess, the scholars that are more qualified and more authoritative are known by their assured assertiveness that Jesus was historical, while those that doubt are obviously not qualified.

ApostateAbe · 01-28-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you think that some scholars are more qualified or more authoritative than others?

Let me guess, the scholars that are more qualified and more authoritative are known by their assured assertiveness that Jesus was historical, while those that doubt are obviously not qualified.

You didn't answer the question. No surprise. To answer your inquiry, I keep a list of criteria for those times when either mythicists or creationists challenge the idea that some intellectuals are more authoritative than others.

There are a number of qualifications that help to establish the credibility of an expert in any field. Here are some positive qualifications:

Has a doctoral degree in the relevant field from a high-ranking accredited academic institution
Holds a teaching or research position in the relevant field at an accredited academic institution
Has authored articles published in respected peer-reviewed journals
Has authored publications that are positively cited by many other experts in the same field
Has opinions that are representative of a significant portion of other experts in the same field

There is a different list of criteria for judging the lack of credibility of an expert. Here are some negative qualifications:

Has positions that are strongly ridiculed or condemned by many other experts in the field
Has positions that strongly align with the same non-academic special interest group that supports the expert's living
Has been convicted of plagiarism or other serious forms of academic dishonesty

Not enough positive qualifications and too many negative qualifications means an expert is not authoritative.

aa5874 · 01-28-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you think that some scholars are more qualified or more authoritative than others?

Let me guess, the scholars that are more qualified and more authoritative are known by their assured assertiveness that Jesus was historical, while those that doubt are obviously not qualified.

You didn't answer the question. No surprise. To answer your inquiry, I keep a list of criteria for those times when either mythicists or creationists challenge the idea that some intellectuals are more authoritative than others.

There are a number of qualifications that help to establish the credibility of an expert in any field. Here are some positive qualifications:

Has a doctoral degree in the relevant field from a high-ranking accredited academic institution
Holds a teaching or research position in the relevant field at an accredited academic institution
Has authored articles published in respected peer-reviewed journals
Has authored publications that are positively cited by many other experts in the same field
Has opinions that are representative of a significant portion of other experts in the same field

There is a different list of criteria for judging the lack of credibility of an expert. Here are some negative qualifications:

Has positions that are strongly ridiculed or condemned by many other experts in the field
Has positions that strongly align with the same non-academic special interest group that supports the expert's living
Has been convicted of plagiarism or other serious forms of academic dishonesty

Not enough positive qualifications and too many negative qualifications means an expert is not authoritative.

Now, please explain your qualifications for the "Gospel of Abe". Your post resolves NOTHING.

It is EVIDENCE, SOURCES and ARTIFACTS from Antiquity that is required in the 250 year old QUEST for the historical Jesus.

There may be THOUSANDS of qualified experts but there is NO evidence, no sources, no artifacts from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth and the stories about him are unreliable and found in Forgeries.

Toto · 01-29-2012, 11:23 AM

Internet piracy split off here

Adam's eyewitnesses and related digressions split here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2012, 05:58 AM	#71
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	As a fan of both Earl Doherty and Bart Erhman, I earnestly hope that Erhman has responded to Doherty's work, which I consider to be the most compelling case for MJ put forward thus far.

01-29-2012, 11:23 AM	#80
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Internet piracy split off here Adam's eyewitnesses and related digressions split here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.