Toto

Yes, it does.

Intent is, as we know, difficult to determine, especially in light of subconscious or unstated factors that may not even be apparent to the participants. If you think that you can determine intent by just asking, you make a lousy investigator.

Earl has not made nasty accusations against a member of this board - which is a crucial distinction. And I would not call his comments "nasty" on a personal level. He has previously written about his opinions on the reasons that the scholarly community has such trouble taking mythicism seriously.

If he is correct, would you assume that you are going to get a straight answer by asking the partipants if they are incapable of evaluating mythicism fairly?
.
Yes, I am saying that we will have to see the results of the entire project to judge whether it meets its stated goals. The stated goals are admirable, but we don't know how they will play out. And Robert Price is only one participant.

And, as has been noted before, Earl was apparently mistaken about something Robert Price said, based on GDon's post. We are all entitled to be mistaken without having that mistake define us, would you not agree?

Ben C Smith

I agree with this sentiment. But, of course, Earl ought to speak up and admit his misunderstanding of what GDon said, and also, of course, to retract anything he wrote against the JP proceedings that was based on that misunderstanding.

But the following cannot be laid to this particular misunderstanding:

It appears from this statement alone that Earl had already concluded from the JP press release that mythicism was not going to be given a fair shake.

His misunderstanding of GDon came later:

This elegant speech, AFAICT, really only fleshes out the main thrust of his post about the press release (an idea abandoned because of cold feet). IOW, his misunderstanding of GDon really only confirmed to Earl what he already thought he knew; or so it appears to me.

I think the original statement by GDon...:

He says that he hopes that the Jesus Project never comes to the point of deciding on the historicity question, since it will mean half the scholars will drop out.

...was rather unclear, BTW. And GDon set things right by admitting that he may not have expressed himself very clearly. I am hoping that Earl likewise sets things right.

Earl has not contended merely that his work will not receive a fair shake; his words contend that his work (along with that of other mythicists) has already been kicked out of consideration. It should not have to take 5 years to determine whether he is correct about that, since that is a claim about events in our own very recent past; Jeffrey has attempted to see whether Earl is correct or not by emailing Robert Price and reading a blogpost by Richard Carrier; if there is something wrong or troublemaking about that, I am at a loss as to what it might be.

This forum makes a living questioning claims, does it not?

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Could we have a show of hands from those who are at a similar loss?

Apparently not, at least with respect to one poster's claims. That is, it seems, verboten .

Jeffrey

Toto

The trouble-making is in the confrontational tone as much as anything, in assuming that Doherty was not honestly mistaken rather than paranoid, if he was mistaken, and in trying to turn this into some sort of major issue.

We're all posting without any real facts. We don't know if the JP will "consider" mythicism only to reject it for flimsy reasons - I hope not, but it is still a possibility, and I suspect is at the root of Doherty's statement.

I suggest not dragging this out. If Doherty was mistaken, give things some time for everyone to sort them out. Lots of people are still on New Years break.

Toto

As your moderator, I repeat, let's not drag this issue out without any facts. Jeffrey has no idea how to investigate claims of bias.

Not true. Please retract.

wordy

I loved or at least liked reading Earl as early as 1997 or so.

I am just a curious naive reader of such texts but felt impressed by his views.

I would find them likely to have some merit but I know too little to really judge such.

What I sense is that there is much prestige and saving face and hierarchical considerations and so on.

I think Early will loose an opportunity if he complain too much and maybe he has misunderstood the JP, or is it not true as Carrier write in the blog. They will look into Earl too. Maybe he is not high enough in the hierarchies to be a natural part of the group. They go for prestige cause it is partly a Paul Kurtz project is it not.

Them always seems to be nearest their own agendas so Earl doesn't fit in there not being best friend with Paul Kurtz?

So Earl in case you read this. I am just one of the many who find your views interesting.

I have no right to give you advice at all.

But as a person to person advice.

Don't complain such only looks like bad looser actions and instead try to make a presentation that could be acceptable to them and ask Carrier to help you decide on how long it could be, what it must address and what would be less relevant and give them a chance to save face and them to see themselves as winners by accepting your text as something they comment on in the end even if they need 5 years to dare to look at it.

No need to feel left out. It is much better to do what is possible during the circumstances and get you views out as effectively as possible by writing a text that conform to their agenda. This way you gain reputation as a good communicator and good negotiator and not be seen as a bitter looser cause they didn't invite you as the main presentator of the Mythic Jesus writer.

Just me being wordy. You have our admiration regardless of what you decide but even if I love your views you do come through as a bad looser.

With all due personal respect. As a person to person caring about your future reputation. To not let opponents save face is a tactical mistake you can't afford.
The goal of making people aware of how mythic Jesus is is more important than to be personally recognized as the best to represent that view. Let them save face for not inviting you as the main guy there. Write something they can look into that is the better move now.

Jeffrey Gibson

Let's again note that the issue is not whether JP participants are capable of evaluating mythicism fairly, let alone whether people like Price or any others would admit it if they weren't, but would instead prevaricate. It is, as Ben has already reminded and shown you as well, is whether the participants are going to evaluate mythicism at all.

But be that as it may be, are you saying not only that Richard Carrier would lie to me or you if we asked him about about his capabilities in this regard, but, more importantly, that he is incapable of giving mythicism a fair hearing?


And as to the question at issue -- namely, whether the JP is intent to consider Earl's views, are you saying that Richard Carrier has not told the truth?

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey - The reason we don't allow posters to call people liars on this board is that we recognize that no one can read another's mind. Why are you so insistent on branding something a lie?

I assume that everyone here is telling the truth as best they can (at the time of writing), but some may be projecting their hopes or fears onto the situation. There has not been much reliable information about the Jesus Project up to now, and I would not be surprised if half of what we think is true turns out to be wrong.

Now are you going to retract the claim above that questioning some poster's claims in this forum is verboten? Especially since you have been questioning them at length, dragging this thread off topic, and wasting my time?

Jeffrey Gibson

what a curious statement in the light of this claim that I am hotly intent "on branding something a lie"!

In any case, and more importantly, I note with interest that this and all else from you below is not in any way an anwer to the questions that I raised with you in reponse to your remark that your question of whether or not I

Quote:

"would [or was the implication "could"?]I "assume that you are going to get a straight answer by asking the partipants if they are incapable of evaluating mythicism fairly?"

namely, whether you were thereby saying "not only that Richard Carrier would lie to me [note not the same as me branding something a lie] or you if we asked him about about his capabilities in this regard, but, more importantly, that he is incapable of giving mythicism a fair hearing" but that Richard Carrier has not told the truth in his blog report about what the JP will be considering.?

Will answers to these questions be forthcoming?

So Richard Carrier's report about what is going on at the JP is not omly ill informed but is to be considered unreliable?

Wasn't a claim. It was -- as the smiley face indicated -- a jest.

Are you saying that the (at least one) topic of this thread isn't what the JP will and will not investigate, let alone that in his posts to this thread Earl did not make (without your admonishing him not to or letting him know that he was dragging the thread off topic) by making a topic of discussion in this this thread both the "fact", at least according to him, that the JP will not be looking at his work and the reason why they would not do so even if it were to be suggested that it should be?

Please note that I am not trying to be confrontational. All I'm doing is seeing clarity.


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you saying that the (at least one) topic of this thread isn't what the JP will and will not investigate, let alone that in his posts to this thread Earl did not make (without your admonishing him not to or letting him know that he was dragging the thread off topic) by making a topic of discussion in this this thread both the "fact", at least according to him, that the JP will not be looking at his work and the reason why they would not do so even if it were to be suggested that it should be?


Jeffrey