Toto

THEN STOP MAKING BASELESS ACCUSATIONS ABOUT PEOPLE

This is so totally confused I don't know where to start. It mischaracterizes all of modern scholarship. It fails to realize that creationists use a parody of modern scholarship.

CFI is not anti-religious. The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

He knows more than you do

This question did not come from a participant.

You haven't identified any of these people, because they are a figment of your imagination.

EarlDoherty

I never made such a claim. But I would endorse it. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that an influential idea is so because of its reasonableness, even if there are examples of influential ideas which are not reasonable, like Creationism. And there is a difference between the two. Creationism is endorsed by a different segment of society than mythicism, namely people who don't think and who believe superstitious nonsense vs. people who do think and are open-minded and capable of evaluating evidence.

Unfortunately, Abe, you seem to have put yourself into the former camp because you condemn an influential idea based on lack of knowledge and an apparent unwillingness to try to correct that lack of knowledge or evaluate evidence in an open-minded fashion. You strike me as being here on a mission every bit as predetermined as that of any fanatical creationist.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

Thank you, that is a relief.
There is no practical distinction, in my estimate, but, if you like, we can call Hoffmann a secular humanist activist, and the relevant conclusion does not change.

That would make Hoffmann an idiot for believing it is a sign of trouble for the Jesus Project, and I don't think Hoffmann is an idiot.

They are all openly listed here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows

I can pick out at least some of the scholars that I know for sure are hacks: Richard Carrier, Hermann Detering, Robert M. Price, and Frank Zindler. I don't know the rest of them, but apparently both Hoffmann and DeConick thought that such participants were enough to corrupt the entire project.

hjalti

So, why is Hermann Detering a hack?

ApostateAbe

You could be right. I used to think very highly of the reasoning abilities of anti-religious people, and I discovered that there are severe limits to that pattern when I involved myself in the debates about history. I still hold at least relative respect for them. They are generally more knowledgeable and better reasoned than the creationists. As far as activists go, they are in the upper echelons of intelligence and reasoning ability. All I need to do is talk to a street preacher to confirm such a view. But, of course, anti-religious people can be and are victims to the same patterns of wishful thinking and delusion, much like all other activists. And, I certainly can not identify myself outside of that group, being typically more extreme of an anti-religious activist.

ApostateAbe

He believes that every existing Pauline letter is a complete forgery, a position that stands against both the evidence and the positions of every other historian/scholar.

Toto

Your conclusion is totally baseless. Hoffmann is not anti-religious. He is a scholar of religion.

This is totally confused, but I'm glad your opinion of Hoffmann has risen.

"Apparently" you don't know anything.

Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history. He is not a hack. Robert M. Price has two PhD's in theology. He is not a hack. Neither Hoffman nor DeConick thought that the presence of any of these people would corrupt the project - their problems were more philosophical.

hjalti

So you're familiar with his arguments against the authenticity of the letters?

Right, almost all NT scholars think that some of the letters are authentic. Does disagreeing with the majority make him a hack?

Toto

What evidence? How have other historians or scholars evaluated that evidence?

ApostateAbe

I haven't read the works of Deterring. I have investigated and debated the authenticity of the letters of Paul in this forum. Half of the Pauline epistles are thought by critical scholars to be genuine, the other half forgery. I have concluded that the evidence is strongly on the side of the half-and-half position, but I don't want to get into that debate again. I would judge Deterring as probably a hack, even if there is still a possibility that he is right. It is simply much more probable given what I know that his position is all about selling copies of his book, not about the best explanations for the evidence. By participating in the same debates, I know that there are people who believe that claim of complete forgery of all Pauline epistles, without actually knowing the evidence, because they are motivated by an anti-Christianity bent, not because they want the best and most reasonable explanations. They are the ones who would be willing to buy books by Deterring. That is generally what makes a scholar probably a "hack."