ApostateAbe

Is there really any strong evidence that Galileo or Copernicus was motivated by an anti-religious agenda? If so, you may very well be right. Sometimes, the anti-religious ideologues are perfectly correct. Sometimes (though not as often), the religious ideologues are correct. Such issues are decided by the strength of the case, independent of motivations.

No Robots

Mythicists are anti-atheist in that they don't want atheists to draw strength from the life, deeds and words of Christ the man.

ApostateAbe

That's a non-sequitor. Mythicists don't want anyone to draw inspiration from Christ the man, and that would be a description of those who are anti-Christianity, not anti-atheist.

Diogenes the Cynic

I would prefer not to attribute a priori motives to anybody, and judge the arguments on their own merit.

I do think that Ehrman should remember that he himself gets accused of having radically skeptical, anti-Christian, atheist-tainted views all the time by religionists. Such Ad hominems and well-poisoning tactics have no probative value even if they're sometimes accurate.

ApostateAbe

I actually think that apparent motivations have an important place in these discussions. Modern social/political/ideological biases have a greater influence on New Testament studies than any other field, rivaling the science of sociology. It should be only a debate about the objective reality far removed from our own time, but in actual fact the debate is more rooted in our own time than the ancient time. It is centrally useful information for anyone who wants to know about the mythicist camp, just as, say, the political leanings of the Jesus Seminar are useful for making sense of the historical Jesus that they accept. If we don't know that mythicists are atheists, agnostics, humanists and new-agers, then we don't know what mythicism is, whether we like it or not. I think a lay reader would be cheated if that point didn't have an important place in the book.

DCHindley

That's not a given, Abe.

There are lots of "Christians" on the more liberal side of the religion for whom a historical Jesus is in no way necessary for Christianity to have a beneficial effect on the world today (I call these the "Social Gospel Christians," for to them the social and ethical aspects are the most important). Albert Kalthoff is an example. Once a believer in an historical Jesus, he came to the conclusion, under the influence of Bruno Bauer, that nothing can be proved about any historical Jesus who may have existed, and all we have to work with are the myths attributed to his name.

Kalthoff then went on to preach the wonders of the Christian myth, influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher (the "Father of Modern Liberal Theology"), Charles Kingsley (the founder of the Christian Socialist movement), W. Bousset (a pioneer of the "History of Religions School," which established the scientific and comparative study of Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity), and Friedrich Nietzsche (especially his idea of "life-affirmation", which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines that drain life's expansive energies, however socially prevalent those views might be).

There were and are still liberals who have similar beliefs to these, who simply don't need a human Jesus to believe in the Christian "message".

DCH

Toto

I do not think I have lost the first argument. Your alleged "proofs" that mythicists are motivated by an anti-religious agenda rather than the evidence are just proof that you are out of your depth here, and have no understanding of what constitutes proof.

Your charges about anti-religious bias are ad hominem arguments that debase the quality of the discussion here. That's what I care about.

Toto

So now you have expanded the description of mythicists to include atheists, agnostics, humanists, and new-agers. Did you forget the Jews? What about Buddhists like Salm or Christians like Harpur? What do these people have in common? How can this help anyone understand what is involved in mythicism?

It isn't just that the arguments should be judged on their own merits, but it is clear that you don't have a clue about the disparate motives of mythicists, any more than you understand the historical evidence.

Juststeve

Toto:

I would tend to support you in this most recent dispute with Abe. I do wish however that you were as quick to point out the fallacy of discounting evidence and arguments just because they come from Christians, as many mythers do.

Steve

blastula

Position 2 isn't subjective. It's not controversial that arguments need stand on their own merits or not. You yourself even agreed "absolutely" with that.