Steven Avery

Excellent points, Wishbone. Could you imagine if some creationary group offerred 5K or 50K or 500K to Discover or Scientific American or some Journal to have a full-orbed dialog on origins. Wow... the evos would be screaming for yeasrs. Best just put this one back on the shelf.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

PS.
In certain circles there was a discussion of how much $ Bill Gates would have to give Harvard to change their name to Gates University. Is there a going price ? .. is everything for sale ?

Julian

Isn't it common practice for authors to pay to have their articles appear in a peer reviewed journal?

Julian

S.C.Carlson

No.

GakuseiDon

Yes, well put. I simply don't understand this. Why not publish in a peer-reviewed publication? Mythers don't even need to unload the full 300 pound gorilla. How about an article on how Minucius Felix rejected the notion of a crucified man, for example? Or that early Christians believed that there was a sub-lunar realm overlapping but separate to our own?

Surely there are SOME elements of the Jesus Myth that can be put up for peer-review? Hopefully Richard Carrier may do this.

But until this is done, I think Mythers claiming that scholars don't take them seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt. In a world where there any a ton of conspiracy theories, to expect the academic community to focus on a claim that no-one has taken the trouble to bring to that community's notice in a scholarly way is surprising.

To any Myther: what element of the Christ Myth do you think would be a good candidate for peer-reviewed publication?

Amaleq13

The way Earl "framed" the response doesn't appear to change the content of the quote. It says nothing whatsoever about the monetary offer being inappropriate or in any way relevant to the subsequent decision.

In addition, I don't see how the offer can be considered either a "bribe" or unethical. Someone is willing to pay a journal for the space necessary to host a scholarly debate on a particular topic and the qualification that both sides of the issue are to be represented is part of the offer. There is absolutely no guarantee requested or offered that the mythicist view would be given any benefits beyond the purchased space. The accusation of bribery appears to have no basis whatsoever.

I would be quite surprised if one of the major creationist institutions had the courage to pay for a similar challenge in a science journal but I certainly wouldn't consider it a bribe. It is simply making an offer to pay for the necessary space in a professional journal.

RPS

There are both substantive ethical concerns and the appearance of impropriety to deal with. Paying for space in a journal is akin to paying for an interview, which most news organizations prohibit on ethical grounds even if there is no limitation placed on the issues covered and questions asked. Moreover, an academic journal isn't likely to want its readers to think that they can be bought, which is an issue even if rebuttal space is offered. I would expect particular concern where the offeror is perceived as being on the fringe -- the potential for the journal being seen as accepting payment to establish credibility in that case ("buying a seat at the table") is especially high.

WishboneDawn

I can't agree. I don't think the issue is what the content is that's being paid for but that money be taken for something that will be seen as editorial content. Whether it's a balanced debate or not, it's still sets the precedent that the magazine is for rent, that issues aren't a matter of editoorial consideration but of money.

I'm sorry if I implied that Mr. Doherty and his friend saw this as a bribe. I don't think they did. I think it was likely an sincere attempt by them to get a magazine interested in the issue but from the magazines perspective I don't see how they could be expected to compromise their reputation by accepting.

Maybe someone will pop up who works on a magazine with a comment?

freigeister

I worked at a news magazine, and I can tell you that there is no such thing as journalistic ethics. If Westar really wanted to demonstrate an ethical sensibility, it would write a story about the offer made by Mr. Doherty's friend.

Toto

For some reason, I decided to send money to Westar, and I get the 4th R "Journal." Lest anyone be confused, it is not a scholarly journal per se. It is more like an underfunded newsletter to their membership with a few articles of interest to pad out the advertisements for their seminars and books. Robert Price has been a frequent contributor.

The articles are generally good, by reputable scholars, and footnoted. But I don't see that an offer of $5,000 to cover a particular issue that is of interest to some of its members is like a bribe, or is in any way like a creationist offering money to Scientific American to cover a debate on origins. (SA has already covered the creationist controversy in depth, with a guide to debunking creationist myths.) This especially since the offer came from a member.

I'm not surprised that Westar rejected the offer. The Jesus Seminar supposedly promotes "Biblical literacy" and exists to fight fundamentalism. It has an agenda, and that agenda is not helped by showing that the gospel Jesus, with his hippie anti-materialism and pacifism, was a myth. The liberals at Westar tend to be the sort who believe that there is no God and that Jesus is his only begotten son. They need to believe that Jesus' philosophy is a viable guide to life and politics. So I'm not surprised that they don't want to talk about the possiblity that Jesus didn't exist, or that turning the other cheek is not going to solve the conflicts in the middle east or LA's gang murder problem. That would just undermine their entire philosophical stance.

freigeister

Definitive. Right on.