GakuseiDon

Thanks, that answers my question.

OK, thanks.

I'm sure I've floated worse. To summarise, then:

1. There is no conspiracy by critical scholars against the mythicist position.
2. Critical scholarship is vaguely aware of mythicism, and has no motivation to examine it.
3. Doherty appears to believe he has enough evidence to support his cumulative case if he did publish in peer-reviewed publications.

DCHindley

GD,

Doherty occasionally surprises me, and I believe he is indeed sincerely trying to form a critical mythical-Jesus position. However, I also believe he reads too much into the evidence and thus jumps to conclusions that are not strong enough to support his position, which are thus essentially tangential to the issue.

He should take seriously Jeffrey Gibson's suggestion that he publish in a peer reviewed journal, regardless of whether Jeffrey was suggesting this as a taunt because he thinks Dougherty can't pull it off. Maybe he was actually pushing Doherty to get serious and systematically present his case.

Doherty, IMHO, and this is not meant to be a "diss", seems to have a bit of an inferiority complex vis a vis the professional academic community. However, tackling this presentation as a real thesis paper (not a MA thesis or anything, but seriously thought out and lacking obvious agendas), laying out a case for the reader to see, with a carefully worded mythicist conclusion that ties it all together, might be what Jesus Mythicism needs. If it is done carefully and systematically, it can be published in a journal or presented as a paper. He can place the bulk of the data and data analysis on web pages, with a paper that draws on that body to present its case.

Unfortunately for the mythicists out there, there is no really good presentation out there. Carrier is a tad full of himself, and his obvious talents get lost in the over-confident way he presents his cases (almost the opposite of Doherty's personality). Hoffman is more of a promoter than a deep-thinker, and I think makes excuses for Jesus' Mythicists inability to be taken seriously.

Step up, Doherty. (I'm serious)

DCH

aa5874

Your observation is quite revealing. Your observation CONTRADICTS the OP. There is really NO OVERWHELMING CASE for HJ.

It is NO longer a secret that HJers are SIMPLY wasting time and SPECULATING about HJ. Any speculation is a good as another.

Now, the truth is that there is an OVERWHELMING case for MJ. Virtually ALL the NT, non-Canonical and Church writings support MJ.

Over and over, it is ADMITTED that there is probably very little solid evidence for the HJ and by the very people who seem to support HJ yet we Get an OP that does not represent the extant evidence at all.


There is just no credible historical evidence at all for a man that was eventually worshiped as a God in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

avi

THanks for sharing this opinion, DCH. For whatever its worth, I agree with you. I find Earl's writing difficult to master, but, I think he is trying hard, and doing credible research, and I wish him well.

By the way, I think the same for you, DCH.

Your posts on this forum are both erudite and scholarly, and certainly would pass muster at any peer reviewed publication, in my opinion.

Keep up the good work....

regards,
avi

judge

Why not read what Don wrote instead of blindly reacting.
Done is suggesting that a conspiracy of some type or other is implied.

Not even that the seem to imply.

You seem very defensive about Earls theories (and your own) in light of the fact you admit they are not that well supported.



Ok so some JMers do talk of conspiracies.

judge

So why on earth is Earl avoiding that?

Either
1. Earl knows his ideas are rubbish and will be treated as rubbish.

or

2. Earl suspects a conspiracy (conscious or unconscious) against his work or general ideas.

What is your third option Kapyong?

Toto

Don's suggestion has no basis in fact. Don is trying to smear Earl with guilt by association with nutcase conspiracy theorists, but he has failed.

judge

I dont agree. Don has argued very well throughout these last threads and it is earl who has again come off second best.
You interpret Dons remarks this way, but maybe that is just your reaction because you have soft spot for Earl.


You arent in a position to say whether he has failed or not. All you can say is that you dont agree.

Earl is the one who is failing. He is failing because as i mention above he isnt putting his work up for peer review.

This means as far as I can see, he knows it isnt any good or he thinks there is some conspiracy which wont give hima fair hearing.

In my opinion earl Gets off too lightly on this forum. If a religious fundamentalist did the same thing his reception here would IMHO be a lot tougher.

GakuseiDon

Toto, what I've been trying to do is to get people to state clearly whether they think there is any kind of a conspiracy amongst critical scholars with regards to mythicist theories. IMO Doherty implies this often enough, and it seems to be a reason why he thinks there is no point in pushing along the peer-review road. So I wondered how many people would support him here.

But as you so rightly put it earlier, THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. I agree with you in that:

1. There is no conspiracy by critical scholars against the mythicist position.
2. Critical scholarship is vaguely aware of mythicism, and has no motivation to examine it.
3. Doherty appears to believe he has enough evidence to support his cumulative case if he did publish in peer-reviewed publications.

Now, it seems that everyone -- Doherty supporter and critic alike -- is urging Doherty to enter the Realm of Peer-review in the flesh rather than in the spirit. But here is what Doherty wrote on the last page about peer-review:

Keeping in mind that (1) you've agreed that there is no conspiracy against mythicism, (2) that critical scholarship knows little about mythicist theories, (3) that Doherty believes he has the evidence to support his cumulative case: what do you suppose Doherty meant when he wrote that he has 'long since regarded seeking peer review as a lost cause', because people on the Internet have 'dumped all over' his case? Does this make sense to you?

Kapyong

Gday,

Just especially sensitive about false claims of 'conspiracy'.


Yah, to be clear and comprehensive I noted the existence of one or 2 such way out fringe posters (else you'd be saying "what about Carotta or AcharyaS?".)

But -
not EarlD or me, or JMers in general.
Please pay attention next time judge!


K.