Chris Weimer

I don't mind all too much, GDon. That's just one less person who refuses to confront the reality that I have to deal with.

I really wish they would. All their whining about the HJ's will finally come to a cease if they would only try to publish something. Anything! Then it becomes a valid target. Until then, they're confined to the same space that people post ideas about Biblical Inerrancy, or Constantinian Fabrication of the Gospels.

squiz

I repeat what I asked here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4299230
Has Robert Price been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals? When I look at this list, he seems to have been (although I can't judge the relative status of the various journals):
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/theolist.htm

He has certainly come out with some statements supportive of MJ ideas in his books and online publications, or do you require that someone publishes a specifically MJ thesis in a journal?

youngalexander

This is an intellectual discussion, not a football match.
Real football, Aussie Rules Footy begins tomorrow night. :devil1: demons verses :angel: saints - I kid you not. (Back me on this one GDon).
One guess as to who I support.

No Malachi, I subscribe to no such thing. Nonsense of that kind does your case no good whatsoever.

Agreed.

Yes, and I have sed so recently.

Like Gooch, I have always had the greatest admiration for his dad.

We are taken seriously by what we say.

True, and;
Peer review is essential. This is the one similarity with ID that I shall agree to.

Oh yes, and there was one other
Later for you.

GakuseiDon

D'oh! Sorry about that!

Yep! Greatest game ever created! No footy (forget that preseason rubbish) and no rain for so long. At least one drought will be broken this weekend!

Malachi151

Here is the thing though. I'm not a Bible scholar, and I can't speak for why more Bible scholars don't accept or look into MJ more than they do. I can't really speak to why it is that there aren't more people publishing MJ scholarship in peer reviewed journals.

I do know this though: Even the so-called liberal scholars are still way off the mark.

Why are these scholars so bad? I don't know, but the fact is that they are.

Let's take the Jesus Seminar as you mention. By all means this is considered one of the more reputable bodies of critical scholarship, correct?

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/jesussem.html

Look at their method, it's total crap. Their method is basically that the more different works a certain act or saying is mentioned in, the more likely they consider it to be true. They basically take the Gospels as a starting point, strip it of the supernatural elements, and then see what is left and the relative frequency of mentions of a certain act or saying. I know I am simplifying here.

Now, is this a good idea when dealing with at least 3 book that are all copies of one another, and a fourth that is also most likely influenced by the synoptics as well, most likely Matthew? If they are all copies, directly or indirectly, from Mark, then the fact that something occurs in all of them has no real value in telling us if it "really happened" or not.

No lets take a specific example. I have used it several times before, but I think that is a very good example and shows clearly the problems with even the so-called liberal "HJ" scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Jesus casting out the money changers at the temple.

According to the Jesus Seminar, the incident of Jesus casting the people out of the temple is considered an incident that happened historically, but that may not be totally accurately recorded in the Gospels.

Now, keep in mind, this is a consensus arrived at by the top New Testament scholars in the field, the best of the best according to you I would assume, and these people conclude that "Jesus really did throw people out of the temple", because, of course, all the Gospels mention this scene.

Vork has gone over this issue here as well, looking at the scriptural basis and looking at how unrealistic this is in historical terms. Now to look at the original basis of this in Mark:

This entire scene is based on Hosea 9, and refers to the destruction of Israel.

This whole business of the driving people out of the temple started as a literary allusion by the author of Mark. The later writers then thought that the fig tree scene didn't make sense or wasn't in the character of what they thought Jesus would do, or made Jesus look foolish, so the writers of Luke and John simply left it out completely, leaving the temple scene in tact, and in the case of John, indeed elaborating on it.

To claim that Jesus driving people out of the temple is "real history" because it appears in all the Gospels, is total bunk. It's not real history, this incident, in and of itself, should be seen as a fabrication on the part of the author of Mark as he was making literary allusions.

Not only that, but this is just one example, and obviously demonstrates the faultiness of their entire method.

The obviously goes with the baptism by John the Baptist, etc., and all the other events that they put in the "real history" column.

And the thing is, THESE ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST. This is the equivalent of the best consensus that biologists arrive at on describing evolution as far as the field goes and the prestige of the findings, etc.

If this is the best of critical scholarship, or even among the best, or even simply good, not even the best, you can see why I do not put stock in what these people say, and have little respect for their findings or positions.

Doug Shaver

I am investigating him, but it will be a long time before I have acquired the academic background necessary to properly analyze the relevant sources and get anything published. I have a BA in sociology, and most of my professional work since I got it was in journalism. I am currently an undergraduate again, majoring in philosophy and planning to continue into graduate work.

In the meantime, I'm trying to learn what I can, as a layman, about hellenistic thinking around the time the question.

krosero

Gregg, I hope you'll reconsider this, if not immediately then at some point in the near future -- if only for the sake of the debate. Chris and Don are going to make arguments and ask questions, not just of you but of other mythicists including Earl, and I think both MJer's and HJer's would like to be able to see those arguments and questions answered rather than just being left alone. What I'm saying is, the whole debate gets messed up if major participants are not addressing each other. I understand you feel insulted, but let me make the following suggestion to you and everyone in the thread.

The distance here between the two sides is very great, with each side saying that the other is full of it, that the other side is the one that is really following the loony stuff. No one sensing their way of thinking being judged like this is going to take it kindly, much less ever agree. We stand a much better chance, in winning respect for our arguments, by arguing about particular questions of content; maybe with good luck we can actually influence an opponent on some small questions. There may be a place for making global judgments about what kind of theory any theory is, but at least we should realize that that is going to be the most frustrating kind of discussion.

If it comes to that kind of frustration, state your peace, and step out of the thread if you need to, but don't step out of debate altogether with major participants. We all need the major participants to keep talking.

Kevin

Gregg

But you see, Malachi151, because you don't read ancient Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and haven't read a zillion books and ancient texts, you're not qualified to notice stuff like this, no matter how obvious it is, much less comment on it. How dare you proclaim that the Emperor has no clothes, you ignorant peasant child!

Gregg

Kevin, you've shown me nothing but respect, so I will think about it. But I'm sorry, I have never made any comment about G'Don and Chris remotely comparable to what they, and some others (like jgbison) have made about me, Malachi151, and the other MJers in this forum. To accuse me of being like a "crank" or a "conspiracy theorist" and now comparing me to a creationist or IDer ... people who believe fairy tales and lie, twist facts, distort evidence, and misuse and abuse science in a desperate attempt to get their religious beliefs taught in schools ... is very nearly beyond the pale.

That analogy of the OP is so mind-bogglingly wrong in so many ways one could almost write a book on it, and neither G'Don nor Chris can see the flaws. Logical, well-written rebuttals to the OP by posters such as youngalexander are dismissed as so much "hand-waving." It is difficult to see any ground for productive discussion with people who take such an attitude.

Roller

Incidentally, I heard that Robert Price holds this individual's book on a certain gospel in high regard.