Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-03-2008, 02:16 PM

Remember that the Westar Institute rejected the offer of a donation to fund publishing the pro and con on Doherty's theory and the existence of a historical Jesus in their "Fourth R" magazine - because it was just not interesting enough.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Remember that the Westar Institute rejected the offer of a donation to fund publishing the pro and con on Doherty's theory and the existence of a historical Jesus in their "Fourth R" magazine - because it was just not interesting enough.

You know for a fact, do you, that this was actually their reason for rejecting the proposal? And you can document it?

Jeffrey

Toto · 06-03-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Remember that the Westar Institute rejected the offer of a donation to fund publishing the pro and con on Doherty's theory and the existence of a historical Jesus in their "Fourth R" magazine - because it was just not interesting enough.

You know for a fact, do you, that this was actually their reason for rejecting the proposal? And you can document it?

Jeffrey

Jesus Seminar Magazine "Fourth R" Refuses $5000 Offer to Debate Jesus Myth Theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

But I thought I would inform the Board of a recent proposal made to the editor of the Fourth R, the magazine of the Westar Institute, the umbrella organization for the Jesus Seminar. This person, who is familiar with and has admired my work (no telling the crazy things some people will support, right?) noted to the editor that the Fourth R has a tradition of presenting some pretty liberal viewpoints for examination. He offered to donate $5000 to the magazine if they would print a substantial article by myself on the Jesus Myth question, accompanied in the same issue by an equal counter-article by any scholar of their choosing, to be followed in a subsequent issue by shorter rebuttals by both myself and the other scholar. (This offer, by the way, was made without my prompting or even my knowledge, until he informed me after it was made.)

This was the response he received:

I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism. But the existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.

Joan of Bark · 06-04-2008, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

One complaint.

The word scholar, when following the word biblical, should include quotes, or enclosing apostrophes (for those, like me, who can't be bothered with pushing the shift key).

So, it should read, biblical 'scholars'. :Cheeky:

Anything else makes kooks and apologeticists believe that free thinking people are giving them more credit than they deserve.

As much as I want to be able to criticize the book, there isn't enough in either link for me to form an opinion. I'm inclined to think it's just more of the same crap excreted by religious 'scholars' for millenia now, but I'd have to thumb through a few pages, at least, to feel that opinion is supported.

Wasn't the Jesus Seminar very controversial because it claimed that only 22% of the quotes attributed to Jesus were actually uttered by Him? If that's the case, you're being way too harsh (on these scholars, at least).

mrunicycler · 06-04-2008, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

One complaint.

The word scholar, when following the word biblical, should include quotes, or enclosing apostrophes (for those, like me, who can't be bothered with pushing the shift key).

So, it should read, biblical 'scholars'. :Cheeky:

Anything else makes kooks and apologeticists believe that free thinking people are giving them more credit than they deserve.

As much as I want to be able to criticize the book, there isn't enough in either link for me to form an opinion. I'm inclined to think it's just more of the same crap excreted by religious 'scholars' for millenia now, but I'd have to thumb through a few pages, at least, to feel that opinion is supported.

Wasn't the Jesus Seminar was very controversial because it claimed that only 22% of the quotes attributed to Jesus were actually uttered by Him? If that's the case, you're being way too harsh (on these scholars, at least).

Even if they are claiming that someone who didn't exist said a mere 22% of the things the devout say he said, they are still kooks who don't deserve to be called scholars without an ironic twist of the lips and a couple of quotation marks.

Joan of Bark · 06-04-2008, 04:43 AM

Do you consider Bart Ehrman a kook, too?

mrunicycler · 06-04-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Do you consider Bart Ehrman a kook, too?

Going from his wikipedia page,

Quote:

Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God. He now considers himself an agnostic.[1][2] Nevertheless, Ehrman has kept ongoing dialogue with evangelicals.

His research has taken him to agnosticism, which I take to mean he at least questions the idea that the jesus described in the bible was an historical figure.

So, from this, he does not put unfounded belief in an imaginery being.

So no, he would not be a kook.

If, however, he claims that the jesus of the bible existed, and all he has to go on is the bible, then yes, I would define him as a kook.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as biblical scholars, but that those who believe that jesus existed and the bible is the inerrant word of god, or even the partly mistaken word of god, need to be qualified as 'scholars'.

Doug Shaver · 06-04-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

Even if they are claiming that someone who didn't exist said a mere 22% of the things the devout say he said, they are still kooks who don't deserve to be called scholars without an ironic twist of the lips and a couple of quotation marks.

I don't believe Jesus really existed, but I would never judge a person's status as a scholar by whether they agree with me.

Scholarship is not about what you believe. It's about why you believe it.

mrunicycler · 06-04-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

Even if they are claiming that someone who didn't exist said a mere 22% of the things the devout say he said, they are still kooks who don't deserve to be called scholars without an ironic twist of the lips and a couple of quotation marks.

I don't believe Jesus really existed, but I would never judge a person's status as a scholar by whether they agree with me.

Scholarship is not about what you believe. It's about why you believe it.

That's certainly your perogative.

However, I'm not judging them simply because they don't agree with me.

I'm judging them based on the fact that, outside of apologetics (which is all biblical 'scholars' really are--apologists), there is no evidence whatsoever to support their notion of an historical jesus, which renders their 'scholarship' completely useless.

The definition of scholar is given by dictionary.com as:

Quote:

1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject

These 'scholars' may have a great deal of knowledge about their bible.

But, their bible is complete fiction, and they try to pawn it off as something more than that.

If I knew a great deal about Tolkien and his works, I might be labeled a scholar.

But, if I then said that there was a hobbit with a ring that turned him invisible, and that we should all worship Ghandolf the Grey or else he'll lock us all into a great tower with no front door, I would not be labeled a scholar.

I would be labeled a kook.

Just as these 'scholars' should be. To give apologists the label scholar is to give them a dangerous amount of credibility.

thedistillers · 06-04-2008, 08:10 PM

"1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject"

There is nothing in that definition about what scholars should, or should not believe. A Tolkien scholar who believes in hobbits is still a scholar, without the need to use quotes or apostrophes.

I don't see what is productive to start calling some biblical scholars kooks in this thread. Maybe that discussion should be split in another thread.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2008, 02:16 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Remember that the Westar Institute rejected the offer of a donation to fund publishing the pro and con on Doherty's theory and the existence of a historical Jesus in their "Fourth R" magazine - because it was just not interesting enough.

06-04-2008, 04:43 AM	#16
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Do you consider Bart Ehrman a kook, too?

06-04-2008, 08:10 PM	#20
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	"1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject" There is nothing in that definition about what scholars should, or should not believe. A Tolkien scholar who believes in hobbits is still a scholar, without the need to use quotes or apostrophes. I don't see what is productive to start calling some biblical scholars kooks in this thread. Maybe that discussion should be split in another thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.