Steve Weiss

The more gullible one is the more plausible the impossible becomes.

Ted Hoffman

It can smell like anything. What we are interested in is your showing that it is what is, in fact ,smelling like BS, and not your nose that is smeared with BS.
Agreed.
How naive. Even the HJ theory has no real support. Read any HJ textbook - Van Voorst, Sanders etc: they all admit - in their introductions - that there is no clear, uncontestable proof that a HJ existed. The very fact that they are publishing books on HJ means they is an ongoing effort at uncovering who he was. Ever heard a title like The Historical Alexander The Great?
That you think "no real support" is unique to Doherty just shows you are naive about the state of the HJ scholarship. The buggers are hard at work looking for "real support." There would be no debate if there was "real support" for a HJ. Wrap that tightly round your brain.
Of course, I am assuming that by "real" you are referring to historical or archaeological evidence. Not the social acceptance that is so often confused with evidentiary support.
I wouldnt call it shitty. He has made mistakes in his work. Like most people who publish. But he is serious and I wouldn't lump him with Jokers like Archaya.
"Shitty scholarship" is a contradiction in terms.
Perhaps you should so that then come back to making wild claims.
Bullshit. With good commentaries at one's disposal, one can do pretty well.
Any examples of fitting analogies? Please share with us.
I think he smokes something. But that is just me.
The Author of The Myth of the Lost Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk) - among other things.
Worry is a mental state, not an argument.

Ted Hoffman

And Jay, Powell is a HJer.

Zeichman

His suggestion that Q1 is oral is meaningless (p177) and indicates he doesn't understand Kloppenborg's hypothesis. If Q1 were oral, then that would mean it wasn't written down until Q2, and thus there would be no reason to identify it separately from Q2, nor would there be any possible way to do so by Kloppenborg's methodology. Furthermore, his reductionistic treatment of the cynic hypothesis indicates he doesn't understand that either. The point of the cynic hypothesis is not one of genetic relationship, but one of comparison. That Q1 was not Jewish defies the evidence: the clear allusion to Isaiah 61 in Q 6:20ff, the fact that gentiles provide exemplary behavior in 6:33 and 12:30, the clear reference to Torah in 16:16, his baseless dismissal of the reference to Solomon, etc.

I'll rephrase: his premises do not convince on a controversial and necessary point. I now have no reason to take his findings seriously.

The two-gospel hypothesis. And I didn't say he was wrong. I said that if he were wrong on this controversial topic, his conclusions would crumble.

Because Goodacre is trying to convince others, not just explain how he feels. Anyone can have whatever opinions he or she wants, but I'm not going to believe it if he or she doesn't try her best to convince me. The historical figure of Jesus is a popular work. If I want to be convinced, I'll read Jesus and Judaism or some of his more academic works.

Which is great... until Doherty starts appealing to his own authority. An authority which he absolutely lacks, and demonstrates he hasn't earned by making very basic mistakes.

dog-on

Didn't mean to imply that it wasn't interesting.

Perhaps, but I guess that would depend on presuming to know the mind(s) of the writer(s). As I have absolutely no idea what the writer's (writers') actual beliefs or intent were, I can only base my judgement on the text itself, which to me at least, screams fiction (though the term myth may be less stinging).

Let me rephrase.

Do you think that the passage in Mark (as it stands) was plausible to the readers of the time? Was it necessary for the story to be based on actual events in order for it to have been plausible to those same readers?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted,

Thanks, I'll take him off the list.

Here are a dozen more Jesus myth theorists that I found on a nice list provided by Michael Hoffman on Amazon's listomania
http://www.amazon.com/Mythic-only-Ch...504748-3777228

John E. Remsberg, The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence
Arthur Drews - The Christ Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Zain Winter - Jesus is a Myth : A Handbook To Reclaim Your Celestial Inheritance
Alvin Kuhn - Rebirth for Christianity
Max Reiser - The True Founder of Christianity and the Hellenistic Philosophy
Richard Grigg, Imaginary Christs: The Challenge of Christological Pluralism
Harold Leidner, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth
Joseph McCabe, The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays
Laurence E. Dalton, Jesus: Pagan Christ or Jewish Messiah?
Herbert Cutner, Jesus: God, Man or Myth? An Examination of the Evidence
John Marco Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth
Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah

Incidentally, When I mentioned some names of Jesus Mythers, I wasn't vouching for their scholarship, just saying that a number of scholars have and do hold the mythical Jesus position. I will note that sometimes even what one may consider bad scholarship may produce good insights. For example, I consider the scholarship in Atwill's Caesar's Messiah to be on a par with Martians-Built-the-Pyramids theorists, yet once he made a sharp point regarding the TF that I had never seen made by scholars whom I admire and it caused me to rethink my understanding of it.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Does the question Did Constantine invent christianity"
strain your credulity beyond its breaking point?

mountainman

This is a good resource -- thanks to all concerned.

spin

Impossible? It's time to bring this black and white world into the color TV age.

Steve Weiss

In your world perhaps elephants do fly, but none of the OT miracles occurred, and no evidence for them is ever supplied, just funny comments about the color of tv programs. Give me one verification of any OT miracle of your choice, and I will become an advocate of nonsense and myth.