Ahab

Although presently udecided on this issue, I am, like others in this thread, struck by the similarity of the mythicist's arguments to those made by ID'ers. It's actually beginning to make me rather skeptical that they have enough evidence to credibly support their claim.

In any case, I think it is the mythicists who are going to have to get their hands dirty if they wish others in academia to take their claims seriously. And that means doing the kind of research that leads to publication in peer reviewed journals.

Vorkosigan

Completely different case. Sternberg has consistently lied and misrepresented on this case, and the WaPo article is a good example. As The Scientist notes

• Sternberg has ties to the intelligent design community, but he identifies himself as "a structuralist who has given several papers and presentations critiquing creationism." He is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn. Baraminology, a term introduced in 1990, views biological creation as happening instantly, rather than through evolutionary descent. Sternberg is slated to attend a meeting in October entitled "Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Future of Biology." The meeting's Web site describes Sternberg's talk as an explanation of why "biology is better understood as a product of intelligent design."

He's an ID nut who ramroded a paper through a journal he happened to be at the top of in a totally unscrupulous way-- how else can such people succeed? In the Westar Fourth R case there would be no misrepresentation by either side, no violation of scholarly norms.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

JESUS H. CHRIST. Do we not pay attention at all? Did I not just post on this? In the historical Jesus field the Creationists are in charge. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If you think that there is a valid case for the HJ, by all means point me to a valid methodology for extracting historical truth from the gospel fictions.

Toto

In what way do the mythicist arguments on the substance of the matter resemble ID?

ID is based on a wishful belief that life must be too complex for any scientific theory. Real scientists have not hesitated to debunk or deconstruct ID arguments.

Jesus Mythicism is based on an examination of early documents. Most mainstream theologians and historians have declined to address the mythicist arguments.

Peer review means something in science; it means a lot less in theology.

I don't see any parallel.

Ahab

Is it the scholarly norm to pay money in order to get your paper published in a journal?

Toto

This misrepresents the facts here.

It is not unheard of for a third party to provide a grant to explore a given subject.

Earl Doherty has not offered anyone any money to get a paper published.

Vorkosigan

I see nothing in that description that would lead me to believe that Ehrman has found the Holy Grail of HJ studies. Perhaps you can give a Readers Digest of Ehrman's criteria/model?

RPS. I already cited a peer-reviewed article from the conservative scholar William Farmer that stated my claim. I fear you must have skipped it. So here it is again:

William Farmer lists this as one of his presuppositions of HJ scholarship in Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81. You can read a version of it online here. As Farmer wrote in 1998:

* "In addition to this general pre-understanding there are several rather specific presuppositions or material assumptions that are important to this study.

The first is the historical existence of Jesus. The fact that some intelligent persons sincerely doubt whether Jesus ever existed as an historical personage, and that theologians have felt constrained to allow for this doubt, reminds us that in the intellectual history of the West this is still an item of unfinished business."

So if I published a similiar article, you would write: "since when does Turton speak for all academia?"

I see a problem there....

It's really quite simple, RPS. Farmer notes:

• The fact that some intelligent persons sincerely doubt whether Jesus ever existed as an historical personage, and that theologians have felt constrained to allow for this doubt, reminds us that in the intellectual history of the West this is still an item of unfinished business

I suggest you also peruse books that discuss NT historical methodology, such as Porter's recent work, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, and so on. I'd put up more peer-reviewed cites, but I fear you would simply dismiss them with an airy wave of "since when does _____ speak for all of academia."

RPS, if you have to take the existence of Jesus as axiomatic for this historical study, it is the same for any.

At last, progress. We now agree that what we have here are two competing interpretations.

That is not a major scientific criticism of ID. ID is politically motivated anti-science trash without scientific support. Big difference between that and Jesus Myth (we're not one of the prongs of a theocratic anti-democracy movement, for example).

Vorkosigan

Toto

Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium can be searched on Amazon. Just search for "criteria" and you will find his discussion - which mainly rules out some things as historical.

Ahab

In the way that you did at the end of your previous post. The sentence that I quoted:

or the comment you just made:
or Vorkosigans ad hominem in his reply to me:
It's like the ID'ers whining about how it's the mainstream scientist's fault that their ideas aren't being accepted. Or the ID'ers claim that science is blinded by an a priori commitment to naturalism.

I think you are right on the money in pointing out that the nature of the issue here is different from the evolution/creation one. But those in academia that are currently considered to be experts in the field have set up standards for issues to be debated and decided. The mythicists are going to need to play by the same rules the other academics play by.

Vorkosigan

There are no strong arguments for historicity (if there were, people would simply trundle them out). As Farmer notes, Jesus' historical existence is an axiom of historical Jesus scholarship. It is built into the major criteria -- coherence, embarrassment, etc. Facts are constructions of method. When you don't have method, you don't have a fact.

Vorkosigan