David Deas

No it isn't. Not in this case. History and Biblical criticism is not science. I really wish people would stop confusing the two.

Toto

It's not a conspiracy, and Doherty doesn't label it as such. There were a number of critical scholars who backed away from the JP, and have shied away from the question of historicity for years. You are the only one who likes to talk about conspiracies.

Because they know that the positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus is weak to nonexistent. They have convinced themselves that Jesus was historical as the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but they don't see any reason to look more closely, and they have been scared away by all of the scorn heaped on "mythers."

I think Earl has explained his position well enough.

Kapyong

Gday,

Scared of controversy?
Yes. Happens all the time.

Ah, the 'conspiracy' card :-(

In fact it's quite reasonable to see that scholars would avoid tackling a controversial subject - no 'conspiracy', just concern for consequences. Especially considering how dominant theism is in the US lately. People can LOSE their jobs for challenging theistic beliefs.

'Run scared' of dealing with a subject that would be hugely controversial?

Yes, quite likely.
Conspiracy? Come on Don, get off the grass :-)


K

GakuseiDon

I do want to talk about conspiracies, but that's because I want to get this out in the open. Jesus Mythicists don't like to talk about conspiracies, but they seem to imply that all the time. So, let's talk about it.

So, let's follow this as far as we can go. OK, so critical scholars have 'backed away from TJP' and have 'shied away' from the question of historicity for years. It SOUNDS like you are implying SOMETHING, so let's get to the root of it.

'They have convinced themselves', meaning they are fooling themselves. Right?

Now, if they don't see any reason to look more closely, why would they worry about the scorn heaped on 'mythers'? I know that I am not allowed to use the Analogy That Dare Not Speak It's Name, but other groups can "create" that same analogy.

What you are saying is that there are critical scholars who know the evidence for a historical Jesus is weak to non-existent, but have convinced (fooled?) themselves into thinking that a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, and yet, having so convinced themselves, worry about the scorn of examining a position that is not the best explanation.

Do you want to name any names here? Or should this be left open to just anyone who has adopted the HJ as the best explanation?

Would you like to see Earl write an article for peer-reviewed publication?

GakuseiDon

Well then, who 'ran scared' from the Jesus Project? Name names, and I promise I will email them to get their side.

Scholars make their name by tackling controversial topics. The whole point of research and publication is to question the status quo, as someone pointed out on this board a while ago.

Theistic beliefs get challenged all the time. The Fourth R journal was set up by Funk of the Jesus Seminar. Funk was an atheist. Lots of journal articles challenging theistic beliefs get published all the time.

Would you like to see Earl write an article for peer-reviewed publication?

Kapyong

Gday,

Wow.

Earl D. has made it clear he does NOT claim a conspiracy.

Personally - one of the most common false claims I rail against is the bizarre idea that JMers claim a 'conspiracy' (*)

I frequently argue otherwise online :
https://encrypted.google.com/search?...&aqi=&aql=&oq=

This is a new low for you Don :-(


Iasion

(*) There ARE some far-out fringe JMers who DO actually argue for a conspiracy, not that anyone takes them seriously.

Kapyong

Gday,

Sure, they CAN; but sometimes it doesn't quite work, does it?
How did it go for John M. Alegro ?
:-)


Well, (assuming this is a general question without some hidden catch), yes, I would like to see Earl's theories discussed in peer-reviewed publications.


Kapyong

GakuseiDon

That seems to be "conspiracy among early Christians to rewrite history to remove ahistoricists", which is not what I am claiming.

What I am addressing is a topic that is frequently hinted at: that HJ proponents somehow fear that mythicists are correct, and so work towards avoiding mythicist arguments for that reason.

THAT is the 'conspiracy' that I want to bring out into the open. Does Doherty think this? Does critical scholarship deliberately set out to avoid mythicist arguments because they are afraid of them? I personally don't think so, so let's knock this on the head once and for all. And if Doherty hints at something like that, get him to name names.

I think it all worked out very well indeed. Why? Do you think Allegro was given an injustice?

No, no hidden catch. It's a no-brainer.

Kapyong

So sorry -
John M. Allegro.

K.

Toto

This is not a hot issue for me, so I am just working from memory. I recall Metacrock saying on these boards that he mentioned Jesus mythicism to one of his professors, and was told not to touch the subject. I recall John Dominic Crossan writing that since all of the evidence for Jesus could be forged or fraud, there was no way to prove that Jesus existed.

R. Joseph Hoffman had a big conference on Biblical Studies that led up to the Jesus Project, and hoped to have widespread participation by his peers to at least address the question of historicity. But Bart Ehrman said he just wasn't interested. Hoffman's student, April Deconick, toyed with the idea but then wrote some obscure prose about the persistence of historical memory and removed her name. She was joined in this decision by Mark Goodacre.

So what do you make of that - the search for a HJ is a black hole, that presumably would suck all available Jesus pronouncements into it? No more hippie Jesus in robes preaching about peace and love?

I don't think of it that way. I view their position as drawing conclusions that are not totally illogical, on the basis of insufficient evidence and insufficient investigation.

That's human nature. People depend on cooperation from their peers and maintaining a good reputation.

What's your problem with this? What is your explanation for the failure of any historicist to definitively show the existence of Jesus, or even address the issue in depth? Is the topic really boring? Why hasn't some up and coming graduate student made his name with the definitive refutation of a mythicist thesis? I think that a lot of NT scholars just accept the existence of a historical Jesus and tell each other that the issue is settled, because there's just no reason for them to move outside of their comfort zone and risk falling into that black hole of admitting that Jesus might not have existed.

Sure. But note that "peer reviewed" in science is the ideal, but still is an imperfect process. For a squishy soft subject like historical Jesus studies, I don't know how it would work. The peer reviewed journals that I have seen all seem to have articles that focus on a very small-well defined issue. What journal would be appropriate for a grand thesis like Earl's?