Jeffrey Gibson

As I've just noted here, I've just received permission from Robert Price to post a message he sent to me yesterday morning in reply to my following message to him:

Here is his reply:

Now assuming that what Robert says is true (and why shouldn't we?) , and therefore that Earl was indeed invited to the conference, am I correct in saying that logically the conclusion that follows, and which must be drawn, from Earl's remark that "Certainly, no recognized mythicist was invited to participate" in/at the JP, is that he is not a "recognized mythicist"?

It certainly does to me. But I'm willing to be shown that I am wrong to think so.

I'm also curious to know what others here think Robert's remarks say about the validity and the informed quality not only of Earl's perception that the JP has abandoned any discussion of mythicism, but also of his "guess" that the reason that JP members have done so is that "too many feet developed a cold".
Jeffrey

SeekingKnowledge

Doesn't sound like he wasn't invited to me, sounds like he's just disgruntled about his (possibly innacurate) mythicism?

Chili

Mythic-ism can never be right just as Panthe-ism can never be right because gnostic-ism can not be right on account of the inherent contradiction in know-ism.

EarlDoherty

I have just tuned in to this snake-pit discussion, which as usual is being engineered by Jeffrey to cast me in the worst possible light. I have no intention of getting bogged down in it, but I have to make two points.

First, in the OP which is a quote of something I posted in another thread, I made absolutely no mention of myself or my work. I talked about mythicism in general and the Project's apparent openness (or not) to it and to an examination of its case. Jeffrey, of course, has turned this into some kind of personally affronted attitude on my part that I was personally being rejected. Having set up that straw man, he was then able to accuse me of lying or misrepresenting the Project as rejecting me personally. I did no such thing. And it is not a "sore loser" position but an expression of disappointment that once again, mythicism, whether put forward by me or others, seems to be missing out on a fair hearing, long overdue, by established academia.

Second, Bob Price personally invited me to attend the conference (at my expense, of course). I was in no way invited to participate in it, or deliver a paper. Because of other pressing work and duties, I decided that I would not accept that limited invitation.

At this point, regardless of what interpretation I gave to GDon's reporting of Bob Price's remarks, neither I nor anyone else here is in a position to judge whether the Project intends, officially or unofficially, to give anything like a dispassionate or open-minded examination of the mythicist case, whether mine in particular or otherwise. So far, it shows every sign of becoming simply another "quest for an historical Jesus" even if the claim is lived up to that it will be done without the underlying operation, or fear, of confessional interests.

My remarks in the OP were based on legitimate impressions, namely that neither myself nor any mythicist was invited to participate by delivering a paper in open and declared support of mythicism, by Bob's remarks which, even if I missed the proper nuance, clearly had in mind that a good portion of the Project members had a prejudice against it, and finally by the known (to all here and touted in several venues including Wikipedia) that the head of the project, R. Joseph Hoffman, had trashed me and my work personally, and had also expressed disdain of the mythicist idea of a "cosmic Christ." (Needless to say, I am comforted by Bob's favorable opinions of that work in his email to Jeffrey, opinions which of course stand at odds with those of Hoffman.)

It also needs to be noted that my central point was that the first meeting of the Project showed no sign of living up to Tom Flynn's (editor of Free Inquiry) initial dramatic and very clear implication that one of the Project's central focuses would be a direct examination of the question of whether Jesus existed or not. Nothing said here in response to me disproves the fact that this has not so far been lived up to, and much that I observed strongly suggests that it will not be. If I'm ultimately proved wrong, then good. But as it stands now, that proof is not there.

So I stand by what I said in the OP in general principle, even if it may require further nuancing--which of course is what we all do, make statements or judgments based on what is known or argued, and then allow room for making such nuancing or changes to them based on subsequent responses and information.

Of course, what Jeffrey has done, is take that statement and ignore that process and try to make me out as some dishonorable evil being from the netherworld (that's ironic hyperbole, for those without a sense of humor), as he consistently does. In other words, as Toto has aptly put it, to stir up trouble.

P.S. I am not entirely sure, but I have to say that if I am unexpectedly invited to participate in the next meeting, which I understand is set for May or June, I will probably be unable to attend as that is the period at the end of the school year when I face work and commitments to exams and performances in my (part-time) employment. And it will also be the time when I anticipate I will be feverishly working to prepare the second (much expanded) edition of my Jesus Puzzle book for printing. However, what I am committing myself to is to make a contribution to the Project in the form of sending a free copy of that book at my expense to every participating member, because I am convinced that a good part of the problem and prejudice against mythicism is that the average scholar in academia simply doesn't understand it or is unaware of the scope of argumentation in its favor. (I'll even commit myself to sending a free copy to Jeffrey, even though he has given every indication that he has no interest in acquiring such an understanding.)

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

I hope I may be permitted to contrast this:

With this from Toto:

and

If you say so, Toto. But I do wonder -- and I wonder as well if anyone else does too -- what your criterion for determining what "nasty", let alone "nasty on a personal level" is.

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

Are you aware, Jeffrey, that in the legal world the one solid defense against an accusation of libel is to demonstrate that it is true?

I note that, while you question whether my remarks should be called "nasty," you don't deny the implication you read into them.

I also note that you have not chosen to dispute anything I've said in regard to the OP and your handling of it. But then that, too, is par for the course.

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Unmm... what?? A defense against libel is to demonstrate that the libel is true???

Again .. what?:huh:

You may wish to inquire of the moderators whether or not this is so.

In any case, could you please point to where exactly it is in this thread that I have accused you of lying about the JP, as you claimed I did, or that what you claim to be my "of course" behaviour is actually something I do indeed do with the regulartity and consistency that you say I do it?

Seems to me -- especially since I've asked you on many previous occasions to document such charges against me , as well as the ones you make about the motives and the intentions you claim I work from, only to be greeted silence -- that the only thing that is par for the course in our exchanges is you avoiding citing actual instances of the things you accuse me of when asked to do so.

Jeffrey