MrMacSon

I agree; there is enough apocryphal material that aligns with, but not entirely consistent with, the canonical gospels to support the premise there are other sources and other versions of all the sources.

spin

The common material referred to as Q indicates a textual relationship. Striking the word out doesn't change that.

Obviously there was a lot of tradition flying about that didn't make it into a canonical gospel, but we can only deal with what we have, texts. Sometimes we get evidence of orality, such as the two versions of the feeding of the multitude already gathered in Mk, but we don't have much, so it's texts.

EarlDoherty

And this in itself would guarantee that the mythicist case would be worthless? What Logic 101 course did you take?

And who is being blind to the self-evident ideological dynamic involved on the part of a discipline which is traditionally a Christian one, the vast majority of whose members have been believers of one sort or another, whose life's work would be rendered pointless by a strong case for mythicism, whose tenure at their place of employment placed in jeopardy if they made any acknowledgement of some worth in the mythicist argument, let alone subscribed to it?

You can't have it all your way, Abe. So why don't we abandon those ad hominem tactics on your side and simply bring honest and unbiased judgments to the relative arguments? To judge by the widespread furor and criticism in response to Ehrman's book, it looks like the much anticipated case for historicism and against mythicism is proving to be lacking, if not laughable. Ehrman's blatant misrepresentation and mistreatment of my own book is almost beyond belief. (Hope you've been tuning in to the Vridar blog's series on that subject. Or do you not want your closed mind to be confused by critical observation?)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I watched the latest episode of "Bones" tonight. Those of you who have read the Preface to Jesus: Neither God Nor Man will remember that I remarked on a 2007 episode of "Bones" in which a couple of characters voiced the possibility that Jesus did not exist. Well, in tonight's episode, the title character Temperance Brennan, noted for her ultra-rational skepticism, pooh-poohed the "mythology" of the Christian religion (in a nice way, of course), in opposition to FBI agent Seeley Booth's traditional Catholic faith (her partner now--not sure if they've married). A subplot in the episode had her--9 months pregnant--giving birth. Despite an ongoing argument between them over where was the best and safest place to give birth--either in a hospital or in the home--when the moment came they were on the highway, returning from investigating their latest crime case. Desperate, they stopped at an "inn" which was packed with visitors to a wine-tasting convention, and--you guessed it--there was no room to spare where the birth could take place, so they were shunted to a kind of stable behind the inn (a couple of horses, though no oxen, and no shepherds in sight) where Brennan gave natural birth with Booth's help while the horses looked on.

An enthused Booth was struck by the parallel and was convinced it symbolized and legitimized the event of Jesus' own birth. A more level-headed Brennan quipped: "It doesn't make your mythology true!"

We're getting there, when mainstream prime-time TV shows can call the Christian myth what it is and even call Jesus' existence into question. Why don't you and Ehrman take a ride on the wave of the future, Abe, rather than blindly imbed yourselves in the crumbling concrete of the past?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

No. It is only a plausible explanation for why mythicists accept and promote mythicism. It is NOT an argument to prove that mythicists are wrong. I wish that wasn't such a common misunderstanding, but I see it in all ideologically-loaded debates.
Huh. Maybe I am being blind to that "self-evident" ideological dynamic. I take it that having "tenure," especially in academia, means that one's security of employment is independent of the controversy of positions that one promotes, the way it was designed.

To give you an example, the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton of The University of Western Ontario published a book in the nineties claiming that black people are of genetically lower intelligence because the genes of their ancestors adapted by producing more children instead of capable children, in contrast to the ancestries of whites and Asians. He was vilified in the media, he was picketed, he was physically assaulted, and the premier of Ontario called for his resignation. He still has his job. That is what it means to have "tenure." Or at least that was my impression until you corrected me just now.
"So why don't we abandon those ad hominem tactics on your side..."

:constern01:

"...on your side..."

:funny:

EarlDoherty

Well, Abe, I don't know if Gerd Ludemann had "tenure" (perhaps I misused the term), but I have heard that he was bounced in some way from his position because of his ultra-radical views. And Robert Price (who didn't have "tenure") also lost his job a couple of times along the way to where he is now. I'm sure there are others whose positions or privileges or peer respect have suffered. My point still stands.

And are you denying that you have been engaging in ad hominem against mythicists whose case is supposedly rejectable on the grounds that they tend to be atheists and have an anti-Christian agenda? (A handy companion to the appeal to authority.) Or that mythicists, regardless of the value of their arguments, are "ideologically motivated", those arguments deserving of a priori dismissal simply *because* they are allegedly so motivated? Traditional NT scholarship as a whole *undeniably* has had an ideological orientation, since it arose out of a religious attitude toward the object of its study (surely you are not going to deny that, regardless of whether certain critical scholars lately have divorced themselves to some extent from that ideology), yet no mythicist rejects the case for an HJ on that ground, but on the weakness of the case itself and the contrasting strength of mythicism.

Bart Ehrman is in the process of demonstrating the latter.

Earl Doherty

Toto

It is not a plausible explanation, and you have failed to provide the evidence to support it.

You refuse to believe that anyone could be a mythicist because of the strength of the evidence, so you have come up with your own amateur psychological explanation for mythicism.

Your "explanation" is actually an ad hominem argument, and a way to avoid the issues.

EarlDoherty

This quote from Bob Price is starting to circulate. Don't know if anyone has yet posted it here:

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

And what an image..........

Diogenes the Cynic

I agree that Ehrman's attacks on the motives of mythicists were gratuitous and unwarranted and were the weakest part of his book.