spin

Creation scientists don't seem to be duty bound to take seriously views about that field (or about an aspect of it) which are virtually non-existent among specialists.

LegionOnomaMoi

Under what interpretation does your response constitute a sound argument (or part of one)? First, I only stated that it is not necessarily true that scholars in a field are somehow "duty bound" to take seriously views which are held almost entirely by non-specialists alone. I did not say this was always the case. Second, "creation scientists" (if the term has any meaning at all) belong to a fringe movement. Whatever critiques one may have about the state of historical Jesus research, that he did exist is a mainstream position among diverse fields. This doesn't make it accurate, but (contrary to the views of some) the notion that the only reason virtually all specialists believe that there was a historical Jesus is not because they are all indoctrinated/brainwashed in seminaries. There are plenty of historians whose training is in classics, history, or something else that doesn't involve seminary or a similar background. It could still be that somehow all those PhDs out there who have in one way or another dealt with the question of Jesus' historical existence are all wrong with the exception of the handful who have determined Jesus had no historical existence. That, however, was not my point. My point was merely that when a large community of diverse specialists agree on a particular point, and virtually no specialists disagree, it is fairly typical for specialists not to take seriously the views of a large community of non-specialist dissenters. That isn't necessarily irresponsible.

spin

You can put anyone on a pedestal if you so wish. One person's witchdoctor may be another's cultural reference.

aa5874

Whatever Scholars think about the MJ argument is of little relevance because Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist? has Exposed the Massive problems with the HJ argument.

The HJ argument cannot recover. Ehrman tried his best but was an UTTER failure.

Ehrman's weaknesses and fallacies are not ONLY being highlighted by his opponents but by his PEERS who support an historical Jesus.

LegionOnomaMoi

Think about what you are saying here. Ehrman's book was mainly an attempt to explain to the non-specialist flaws in the mythicists' reasoning. Now, let's grant for the sake of argument that it "was an UTTER failure." You also state even "his PEERS who support an historical Jesus" are pointing out its weaknesses. That would mean his work has failed to reflect scholars who "support an historical Jesus" argue/think/believe about the historical Jesus.

So, if his work is an utter failure, but part of that failure involves poorly representing the views of scholars who "support an historical Jesus", then how does his book effect the "HJ argument" at all? In other words, if his "PEERS" don't think the book accurately reflects their arguments, it can't really negatively efffect their arguments.

LegionOnomaMoi

I'm glad I have your permission, but how on earth does this have anything to do with what I said? I didn't put anybody on a pedestal.

Apart from the fact that the two aren't mutually exclusive, what does this have to do with anything? If someone wants to view all of those specialists who believe that Jesus was historical as quacks, fine. What I said addressed the reverse: the duty or responsibility of the specialists to take seriously not simply a minority view, but one which exists almost exclusively among non-specialists. You responded with some quip about creation scientists, only they take very seriously the views of those who disagree, as almost all of their "research" is dedicated to showing how those views err.

aa5874

What a load of BS. EHRMAN'S book has NOT helped the argument for an historical Jesus. It has stiffled and suffocated the HJ argument.

In effect, Ehrman will have to be "THROWN over board" and disowned by those who want to continue to support an historical Jesus.

spin

I'm truly relieved one doesn't have to live by your linguistic prescriptions.

I see. Which specialists was that again? Was it a generic claim?

Who are all these history specialists who are dealing with the historicity of Jesus? (I'm sure you can rifle through the lists and find someone with a qualification, but seriously....)

Oh damn. How inconvenient....

Toto

But you will find that real scientists do take creationism seriously enough to provide real scientific reasons why creationism is false.

Ehrman has spent his time talking to religious scholars who claim that the problem of the historicity of Jesus was solved, and is not worth discussing. These scholars are not able to even address the issues of mythicism, and have preferred to ignore the whole issue. Look at the whole issue about setting up the Jesus Project, which Ehrman declined to join.

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, it absolutely was. I was making a claim about all fields. For any given field, from climate science to Jesus studies to european witchcraft studies to psychology, there are large communities of non-specialists who hold views on a given issue (e.g., whether or not there was an actual religion the witch trials were trying to stamp out) few if any of those whose specialty is related to the issue think is accurate or believe there is any evidence for. When this is the case, the specialists rarely take such views seriously, and often don't deal with them at all. This doesn't make them irresponsible per se.


What do you call "a qualification"? For example, would Donald Akenson count as qualified in your view? How about Thomas A. J. McGinn? What about Loveday Alexander? In other words, are you asserting that only someone with a PhD in history (like Akenson) is qualified? Or would a classicist also be qualified? And why would someone whose PhD is NT studies or early christians studies not be?