Jeffrey Gibson

And not without warrant.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to reproduce that post so we can see whether your memory of what I actually did and what I claimed therein are accurate.

Jeffrey

Ktotwf

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to, before Gibson went crazy and started trying to feebly drag my name through the mud, as though my offhand comment was meant to passed off as a thorough Doctorate level dissertion.

I have seen no coherent arguments for the historical Jesus on this forum, and my brief investigation into what are supposed to be the defining arguments for the historical Jesus have basically turned up nothing.

Beyond that, this Gibson fellow seems unpleasant, almost as though he is all snark and condescension and no meat. Notice how he deftly dodges over and over again the calls for an ACTUAL argument to be presented by HIM. That seems, if nothing else, typical of the Historicist argument.

It is just good internet form - since we are here to share ideas and learn - to not post "Read this and this and get back to me" as that tends to do nothing but stifle discussion. Instead, be willing to talk openly about exactly what is said in these texts. I kind of feel, however, that in Gibson's case he both wanted to stifle discussion and attempt to make everyone look foolish by randomly shouting over and over again, "HAVE YOU READ EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MYTHICIST CASE EVER PUBLISHED??!" (Especially when it seems that he himself has not read them.)

If I am wrong, I would at least like to know why, not be bombarded with a bunch of high handed, confrontational, pedantic nonsense.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be grateful if you could point out where I actually said any such thing, let alone "over and over again" as you claim I did.

Jeffrey

Ktotwf

You never literally said those words. It was a characterization of your "style" of "argument." Namely that in an attempt to score some ego points you rattled off some Anti-Mythicist literature that you show no evidence of having read, and then basically called everyone else uneducated for also not having read them.

Rather than doing the thing that would have actually been conducive to conversation - i.e. throwing out some discussion points or even illuminating the content of the texts. I don't buy that you are so "busy" that you can't throw out a paragraph or two of argumentation, but you have the time to engage in a page long barrage of snarky, smart ass posts with Toto and other forumites

Jeffrey Gibson

Nor anything even approximating them.

But since I never said or did the things you accused me of, it was a false characterization, wasn't it.

But I see that putting words in someone's mouth to score points against them, engaging in blustering ad hominem, and avoiding actually answering the particular questions your were asked to answer is demonstrably your style of argument.

How you come to the conclusion that I haven't read what I asked if you had read is beyond me. But in any case, could you please show me exactly where I actually called "everyone" who has not read these works "uneducated"?

Jeffrey

Ktotwf

Considering your entire argument against me for an entire page was that I had not read the random Historicist texts you cited, yes, you said things relatively close to that.


No, it was at most an exaggeration, used to comic effect.

What questions were I asked to answer? Have I read the books you cited? No. Have you?


Your silence speaks volumes. As does your selective quotation.

You are either naive beyond words for not understanding the suspicion, or being purposely coy because you've been called on your own empty postering.


I said "basically" called everyone who has not read these texts uneducated. "Basically" is a modifier in casual speech which suggests that the words were not actually spoken, but are close enough to the actual content.

You called me "uninformed" for not having read the texts, you blatantly mischaracterized my argument by assuming that I meant the "entire universe of discourse" as Toto phrased it, you insulted Toto by saying that he was not educated enough to decide what a good argument is.

It has become clear that you actually have nothing to say of value. You only wish to engage in a lame verbal sparring and a consistently weak game of "gotcha" , despite the fact that your very silence on the ACTUAL TOPICS I have asked you to give some info on tells me all I need to know about what you ACTUALLY know regarding the Mythicist/Historicist debate.

If your next post is more of the same "gotcha" nonsense with no substance, just so you can feign insult and draw attention away from your own vapidness, I will not respond.

neilgodfrey

I take it you've never read Drews.

I know you have never read a jot about Drews in Theissen & Merz and Eddy & Boyd (okay, maybe a single line in the introduction of E&B), nor in the first edition of Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Since Theissen & Merz dot-point a number of arguments without attribution, perhaps you can point out a particular one that represents an argument by Drews and that T&M refute?

And Eddy & Boyd argue at length for an epistemology that permits them to believe in the literalness of all the biblical miracles -- maybe if we read them charitably with this in mind we can believe they somehow refute Drews et al.

Perhaps you know of a later than 1910 edition of Schweitzer where he does refute Drews and his ilk?

Ever wonder why "and his ilk" can claim that the arguments have not been countered, simply ignored?

But I'm actually wondering who you number among the ilk of Drews. Methinks you are lumping apples with an orange without knowing the difference.


Neil

andrewcriddle

I'm surprised you are unaware of the 1913 edition of Schweitzer with its substantial chapters discussing Jesus mythicists such as Drews.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

The Quest for the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), (on google books here) is a later edition that discusses Drews and other mythicists.

p. 402: "Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus."