ApostateAbe

Here is how I take that.

Toto

I was not aware of this as a general case. There are specific complaints of this sort against James McGrath, which I think are justified based on specific comments on his blog. Do you have other examples?

I think this will entirely depend on what he says. I think that anyone can honestly believe that there was a historical Jesus. Most Christian apologists, for some reason, feel compelled to distort the strength of the case for historicism and misstate the case for mythicism.

GakuseiDon

Really? Can you name any scholar who leans towards a HJ while rejecting the mythicist position who isn't portrayed as "intellectually dishonest"?

Sure. I'll go through them below.

I don't see him saying anything that hasn't already been said. That is, I don't think Ehrman possesses a secret store of historical Jesus evidence. So if he uses the same arguments that others have used, he will almost certainly be lumped in with them. How can he not be? If they are intellectually dishonest, then he must be also, even if subconsciously. Don't you agree?

Who cares about Christian apologists? If their arguments are bad, then ignore them. If their arguments are good, what does it matter if they are apologists or not?

Anyway: here are comments about those who question the mythicist case, even those who are atheists, if not mythicists:

Freethinkaluva:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...p=20752#p20752

It also appears that Carrier is stuck in his rigid adherence to knee-jerk reactions to anything by Acharya S - even if he agrees in the end. It just seems like he has no intention of ever being objective or friendly towards her or her work - even though we're all really on the same team. He really comes off as jealous and unprofessional.

Here we are trying to gather attention to the MYTHICIST POSITION, and atheistic and freethinking scholars like Carrier are making sure that this material doesn't get into the academic circle and continues to be dismissed and ridiculed. This sort of thing is pretty much the same as what the Christian apologists have done for nearly 2,000 years. Whose side is he on? ... Carrier appears to side with Christian apologists in trying to continue to suppress, censor and keep buried this information for another 2,000 years. We find this suppression to be appalling.

Neil Godfrey:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/05/...-earl-doherty/

Steph is learning well how to fit in with the likes of Gibson and Fredriksen and McGrath and their dishonest treatment of Doherty’s work, not to mention their unscholarly insulting and abusive manner...

In that same link, someone says:

Neil, I think you might get a more impartial hearing for your case if you would hold back on the ad hominems against McGrath, Casey, Crossley, Fredriksen, Gibson, Hoffman, Steph, etc... (interesting that this list, besides McGrath, are secular or Jewish scholars, as the huge majority of Jewish or secular biblical scholars agree on the question of historicity)...

To which Neil responded:

My severe references to certain names is directly related to those same scholars who have demonstrated unprofessional and even culpably dishonest responses to the discussion of historical methodology.

And then Neil writes to Steph:

Why must scholars like yourself and McGrath and Crossley and Fredriksen be rude and offensive when mythicism is discussed? Is it a cover deflect attention from your logical flaws and circularity of your arguments?

Also, Neil writes:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/02/...ment/#comments

We see in McGrath’s treatment of mythicism the same tactics used by biblical scholarship for over a century now — dismiss, ignore, poo-pooh the radical arguments, but never engage them seriously. Always put the fear of denigration into anyone who might be temtped to flirt with them.

Also, Neil writes here:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/07/...bayes-theorem/

... Hoffmann exposes his own lack of genuine interest (or courage) in challenging the mainstream approach to historical Jesus studies by targeting certain mythicists, comparing them with fundamentalists or conservative scholars, while letting the mainstream, the real guilty party, off the hook.

Earl Doherty writes:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/Weimer-Gibson.htm

At times, that opposition [to Doherty's theories] has been loud and antagonistic, even rabid. This has included not simply those with confessional interests on the question of Jesus' existence, but others who identify themselves as religiously neutral, even atheistic. Paradoxically, I have found that those who declare themselves in the latter category tend to be among those who react against myself and mythicism with the greatest amount of vitriol and animosity. Why this is so is not clear to me...

... it is primarily a case of an ongoing need to demonstrate the sort of dishonest and paranoidal opposition to Jesus mythicism which pervades a good portion of the established academic and not-so-academic community (especially on the Internet), and what those interested in an open, innovative and free-inquiry approach to the question are regularly faced with.

So, Toto, has there been anyone who calmly and honestly holds to a historical Jesus position and who thinks mythicists are wrong, who is not intellectually dishonest? If not, why think that Ehrman will not be the same? Even if he is just lying to himself?

Steven Carr

Good to see GDon make claims and then refuse to back them up.

Please provide your alleged quotes where mythicists claim Ehrman is '"culpably dishonest in discussions of historical methodology' or did you just make up these alleged quotes about Ehrman?

Steven Carr

So if Steph is insulting, abusive and unscholarly, then shame on mythicists for asking why she is like that??

Can GDon name one historical Jesus scholar who claims that Doherty is polite, civil and scholarly?

spin

I would love to see him achieve what none of those deadbeats have done, ie the justification of the assertion that "the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist." What we've seen thus far are limp-wristed rehearsals of arguments against non-existence, arguments for turning literature into history without any historical pegs, and romps through the christian preserved classical sources giving no hint of doing the actual job necessary, ie providing substantive evidence for a real Jesus. The publicity for Ehrman's new effort doesn't suggest anything different.

Will Ehrman do the thus-far impossible? Perhaps we should start a pool for who can hold their breath long enough for Ehrman to achieve his goal. We've gone over much of the resources available to him. Who honestly believes he can pull a rabbit out of his hat?

spin

Everyone here including GakuseiDon knows that I do not support Earl Doherty's views, but I find myself reading the post that GakuseiDon ended thus:
Can you, GakuseiDon, tell me why every one of those religious studies people who have bothered to comment on the work of Doherty have tended to use ad hominem, misrepresentation, and assumed conclusions rather than what would be in other fields neutral criticism? Isn't this a blot on these people's integrity?

Is Neil Godfrey incorrect in his judgment when he asks, "Why must scholars like yourself and McGrath and Crossley and Fredriksen be rude and offensive when mythicism is discussed?" If so, how would you describe their behavior when faced with having to comment on mythicism?

If Ehrman is as dismissive and condescending as those who have gone before him, doesn't he deserve to get called out?

Toto

I think the expectation is that he will come up with some intellectually respectable arguments, instead of the execrable ones we have seen.

I was just identifying them - their arguments are bad, and that is part of being an apologist. And there are very few explicit arguments for historicity besides those made by apologists. Most scholars avoid the question for a reason.

A unique case, who has no support here, and is attacking Richard Carrier, a mythicist.

Neil is there making a particular argument against particular individuals for reasons that are discussed there.

This involves two named individuals who were noted for abusiveness.

I know of no such charges against:
Mark Goodacre
Bruce Metzger
Gerd Luedemann
Dennis McDonald
David Trobisch
James Tabor
Marcus Borg
Geza Vermes
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders
Luke Timothy Johnson
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

etc - from Peter Kirby's page on historical Jesus theories and the roster of he Jesus Project
...

In fact, if you read Doherty, most of the sources that he uses are historicists.

Is it your role to stir up trouble?

shalak

Keep the discussion going the more its discussed and the more names used the more potential sources I have :P

GakuseiDon

As someone myself who has often been accused of adhoms, misrepresentation and assumed conclusions: no.

Have people accused you of these things, spin? How is your integrity?

The rudeness and offensiveness is not directed against mythicism per se. Who has been rude and offensive against Wells, for example? The rudeness is a product of Internet debating against individuals. See Dave31's diatribes against, well, everyone. Including against Richard Carrier and Thomas Verenna.

Sure. Please call Ehrman out whenever he is dismissive and condescending.