EarlDoherty

And you wonder why mythicism can gain no foothold in established academia, why it can’t even get off the ground where mainstream scholars are concerned. Not because it has been addressed, or because as a group they have the courage to examine it honestly and carefully. They’re all simply afraid of it. It becomes a mortal sin even to consider devoting any effort to studying it. (A characteristic mark of religion by any measure.) Even those who are open-minded or subscribe to it in some degree are hamstrung in having to bow to the majority fear and reluctance.

Even in a setting where it has been declared at the outset by those organizing the project that a direct part of its agenda is to address the existence question, the thing has gotten buried because of the peer pressure from those taking part who refuse to countenance such a thing (and no doubt from those in the background, like university paymasters). Even a free spirit like Robert Price has been stifled by that pressure. If there was anything to demonstrate that mythicism will never be given an honest shake in established academia, this is it.

It certainly makes a mockery of any claim by mainstream forces (and that includes anti-mythicists here who regularly appeal to this imagined ‘authority’) that mythicism has been grappled with and refuted by superior minds with superior knowledge. Putting your fingers in your ears and making noises so that you can’t hear what you don’t want to hear constitutes no such thing.

Billing itself as “The most rigorous methods, data, and open debate” in “the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence”? I take it this is a joke, right? Price's comments about half the participants leaving if the question is addressed, and the exclusion from the masthead of any active and recognized mythicists, says it all.

Well, it leaves the field (as always) open to outsiders like me, and to groups like this. Of course, we bear the full brunt of the opposition since the supposed authorities have absented themselves from the debate.

Earl Doherty

Roger Pearse

I think that there is a large community of people in academics whose personal biases (and we all have some) mean that they would love to play with the idea. The difficulty is that, if they did, they would discredit themselves and their discipline.

Ancient history is not the property of biblical studies, after all; and I get the impression that the credibility of biblical studies vis-a-vis other academic disciplines is a question often nagging away somewhere in the minds these same sorts of people. They're very concerned NOT to discredit their discipline, if the question arises.

This is one reason for the tendency to ingrain an anti-supernatural agenda in the discipline, I think - not a conscious bias, so much as an awareness that the other boys might call them names if given the chance. Hey, this is academia, remember - a place in which oneupmanship thrives.

Just my humble opinion; I don't know that much about biblical studies, and can't persuade myself to take that much of an interest in it. It doesn't seem to achieve much, in proportion to the number of people working in it, IMHO. When I become Dictator, they will all be reassigned to translate the Patrologia Graeca.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

But surely science and academic freedom is about proposing hypothesis that better fit the evidence and discussing it?

Rubbishing approaches before they have even cleared their throats is not a good idea.

Playing is a human right.

Roger Pearse

Read the rest of my post for an explanation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

If that is based on my comment above, then you may have misread it (probably my fault, as I may not have expressed myself clearly enough).

Price, in the radio interview, said that he hopes that the Jesus Project doesn't decide one way or the other on the historicity question, since if they did, it will have meant that those scholars supporting the opposite view must have dropped out. He wasn't suggesting that scholars would drop out if non-historicity was going to be addressed.

No Robots

There is an old joke that, after a political battle, the journalists come out onto the field and shoot the wounded. Perhaps scholars are close here to their scribal brethren in the popular press.

youngalexander

Clive mate, you seem to be a trifle naive? Academia is most definitely not the forum for free discussions of 'hypothesis that better fit the evidence'.
Try discussing: Differences between the sexes
Even worse Db/wtSexes & Black/White Economics
or Heterodox Economics
I would not dare to mention the dread subject of IQ, nor the implications of the latest Genetic fine-structure results.

Mythic Jesus studies in the realm of academia?:huh:

There is a Velvet Curtain of Political Correctness, which we penetrate at our peril.

Jeffrey Gibson

FYI

After seeing reading both this and what Richard Carried has noted on his blog about what has been and what's going to be discussed at the Jesus Project meetings -- a note which stands in apparent contradiction to what Earl writes above -- I decided to write yesterday to Robert Price to see if he thinks Earl's chages and claims have any grounding in fact.

Here's what I sent to him.

Quote:

Robert, I just saw a message from Earl Doherty (see here) which is grounded in the assumption that the members of the the Jesus Project have ruled his "work" and his views as something not worth considering. Most interesting is his explanation for this "fact". And you wonder why mythicism can gain no foothold in established academia, why it can’t even get off the ground where mainstream scholars are concerned. Not because it has been addressed, or because as a group they have the courage to examine it honestly and carefully. They’re all simply afraid of it. It becomes a mortal sin even to consider devoting any effort to studying it. (A characteristic mark of religion by any measure.) Even those who are open-minded or subscribe to it in some degree are hamstrung in having to bow to the majority fear and reluctance. Even in a setting where it has been declared at the outset by those organizing the project that a direct part of its agenda is to address the existence question, the thing has gotten buried because of the peer pressure from those taking part who refuse to countenance such a thing (and no doubt from those in the background, like university paymasters). Even a free spirit like Robert Price has been stifled by that pressure. If there was anything to demonstrate that mythicism will never be given an honest shake in established academia, this is it. Now even it it were true that the Jesus Project has ruled out considering Earl's "work" and views (and I see from a Blog post from Richard Carrier that it has not), it strikes me that his explanation of why they would do so is the epitome of what I call the crank's lament. But I could be wrong. So I wonder if you'd let me know about the truth of his specific charges: 1. That the main (if not the only) reason that his work and his views wouldn't be considered worthy of discussion at Jesus Project meetings is that most members of the Jesus Project "... are all simply afraid of it" and 2. That members such as yourself who are familiar with his work/views and are open to their having some plausibility/validity have been, or would allow themselves to be, stifled by, peer and paymaster "pressure" not to take it into consideration. I hope all is well with you -- and Happy New Year! As ever, Jeffrey

I will post (with Robert's permission, of course) any reply to my message that he sends me.

In the meantime, what is to be made of the contradictions between Earl's claim that his views have been ruled out of discussion at the Jesus Project as not worth listening to, let alone that the sole reason they have been ruled out is that they are viewed by most of the JP participants as too dangerous to discuss, with what Richard notes?

I'd also like to hear from Earl himself about whether he was ever invited by anyone at the Jesus Project to come and be a participant.

It seems to be the case, does it not, that in the above he implies that he was not.

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey: the above makes it appear that you want to be a trouble maker. We are all operating here with little information on exactly how the Jesus Project will proceed and if it will live up to its intent, and if it will continue to be funded in the coming economic hard times. Perhaps Earl is wrong that his work will not receive fair consideration, but I suspect that we will only know that for sure in 5 years.

Jeffrey Gibson

It does?? I should think that in the light of how Richard Carrier's note contradicts what Earl said about the intent of the members of the JP, including Price, it makes me look like someone who is trying to get to the bottom of things, and to determine what actually is the case.

For that, and that alone, was my intention in posting what I posted -- that, and forestalling any accusations, such as have previously been made of me here, of being "underhanded" and of going behind people's backs.

Precisely. And that's why I wrote what I wrote to Robert-- to find out from the horse' mouth, so to speak.

And BTW, why have we not seen any such remark as you've just publicly made to me also publicly posted to Earl. For if anyone seems to want to be a trouble maker it seems to be him. Does not making assertions about the scope and intent of the JP and some nasty accusations of un-scholarly behaviour against its members without first attempting to determine -- or so it appears -- whether his charges and accusations were grounded in what actually is going on there, qualify as being a trouble maker?.

And how about the fellow who linked us to Richard Carrier's blog that shows that Earl's claims about how the members of the JP are afraid to discuss his viewswhat the JP seem to be out of touch with what's going on there and thereby bring Earl's claims into question? Doesn't he appear to be wanting to make troble, too.


Is that the issue Earl brought up in the message of his to which I was reponding and writing Price about?

Have we read the same message? I thought Earl was complaining that his work will receive no consideration and was telling us why this was the case.

Are you saying that members of the JP could not tell us now whose views they will and will not be considering?

And are you saying that Robert Price couldn't tell us now not only whether he has indded been placed under the sorts of peer pressure that Earl claims he has been subjceted to not bring up Earl's views at the JP sessions, but whether he has actually cowed to it if it was indeed placed upon him.

More importantly, are you actually saying that in the light of Earl's claims about Robert, it is illegitimate to ask Robert if they are true, to seek to get his side of things? Is your position that we should simply take Earl's (apparently uninformed) word/guess for it?

How else but by writing to Robert could/ would we determine whether he has indeed, as Earl claims he has, "been stifled by ... [peer] pressure" from those who are allegedly so "afraid" of Earl's views that they, "no doubt" under their own pressure "from those in the[ir] background, like university paymasters" do not " have the courage to examine it honestly and carefully' because it has been deemed by them "a mortal sin even to consider devoting any effort to studying it"?

Jeffrey