Toto

It sounded off hand to me, he said it was off hand, If you think that a coherent argument for a historical Jesus has been presented on this forum, you might identify it.

Jeffrey Gibson

This is an "off hand" statement?

Quote:

Steven Carr And the mythicist hypothesis has been refuted time and time again by countless scholars, which explains why there are no peer-reviewed articles refuting mythicism? It has been refuted, so there are no articles refuting it.... The only argument every presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!" It is like a snowball of self righteous contempt from the Apologists. (As you can guess, this is the incorrect way of arguing things.) "No serious scholar" is willing or able to say anything of value about the actual, historical life of Jesus, but apparently EVERY scholar is willing to say with 100% certainty that he was a real man who lived. Smells fishy to me.

If so, one wonders what you take to be a "to the point" statement.

Yes, he did, after the fact and as a rhetorical ploy to cast himself as the aggrieved poster.

The issue wasn't and isn't whether a coherent argument for the HJ has been presented here, but the validity of the claim that "The only argument every presented" here "to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!".

Are you actually saying that this claim is true? That no one who has here argued against the validity of the MJ hypothesis (which is not the same thing as, and does not and need not entail, arguing for the the HJ) has used any argument other than "no serious scholar believes it? Seems so.

And if so, then you are, as I claimed above, patently wrong.

In any case, may we please return to the question of why there are no reviews in peer reviewed journals of Earl's work and whether or not Earl is himself largely responsible for this fact?

Jeffrey

Toto

I would not stake any amount of money on it, but I cannot think of any other argument that has been presented here against Doherty's version of mythicism, except for GDon's rather strange attempt to show that the argument from silence doesn't work because second century apologists were also silent about the historical Jesus.

Well, it seems that there are no reviews of Earl's work (other than Richard Carrier's generally favorable review on the infidels.org site.)

So now you are trying to change to subject to blame Earl for this fact.

Why? Shouldn't real scholars be interested in the truth of ideas, whether or not the originator jumps through the right hoops to get the right attention?

Jeffrey Gibson

And the question is why this is the case.

Ummm .... chance the subject??? This, as the title of this thread indicates, IS the subject. And, quite contrary to what you are suggesting, it's not as if I am only now raising the question that I asked above.

Interesting to see you opine, through the contrast you make between him and "real scholars", that Earl is not a "real scholar".

More importantly, the issue isn't what scholars should be interested in. It's whether anyone who says he/she wants "real scholars" to be aware of, and engage with, his/her ideas has done what "real scholars" do when they desire the same thing -- i.e., taken the ordinary and accepted and self evident steps that are almost universally recognized as necessary, and easy to undertake to make this happen.

So far as I can see, Earl hasn't done so.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Jeffrey

Toto

Where did you get this bit of eisegesis?

I said that real scholars should be interested in the truth. How does this make Earl Doherty not a real scholar????

avi

Writing only for myself, and without pretense that my opinion is sustained by any other member of this august group, I would welcome a review by both Toto and Jefferey, i.e. two reviews.

That would be much more logical, reasonable, and informative than arguing over how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

Earl has written a book. Richard Carrier has reviewed it. Maybe someone else could do so, in order to move this thread along....

I received his book yesterday, so, if no one else steps up to the plate, it will be my review next, but, I am so uninformed about the fundamentals of this discipline, that I am not really capable of offering a substantial review, whereas, by comparison, both Toto and Jefferey would be admirably suited to this task....

avi

Jeffrey Gibson

I didn't say he wasn't. It was you who contrasted him with real scholars.

In any case, have you any evidence that Earl has ever acted as real scholars do with respect to getting their work known by and in front of real scholars by taking the actual steps that lead to scholars (and reviewers) seeing it?

Jeffrey

Toto

I DID NOT. Earl Doherty is interested in the truth. Real scholars should be interested in the truth. How is this a contrast?

Is this how you mess with your student's minds?

GakuseiDon

There have been discussions on quite a few threads on points raised in Bernard Muller's review.

Also, there have been lots of threads on Middle Platonism, on "kata sarka", on sub-lunar realms, on Doherty's use of scholars. I know, because I read them. You should know, because you participated in many of them. :banghead:

It's not that the argument from silence doesn't work -- after all, the reason for 'silence' in the First Century may be different for the reason in the Second Century -- but it is an argument against the view that Paul and other early writers were atypical in their silence.

As Doherty himself writes: "Something extremely odd is going on here. If one leaves aside Justin, there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers." The question is whether his argument is 'reversible'. Doherty has placed a stake in the sand with regards to the meaning behind the Second Century silence. If he is wrong about the meaning (as I believe he is) then this has potential impact on the silence in the First Century. Whether that impact is to show the argument from silence in the First Century 'doesn't work' would still need to be determined. But Doherty's views about Second Century writers is largely ignored. It shouldn't be.

I'd like to do a review of Carrier's one, since I see there are obvious problems with it. If anyone who is sympathetic to Doherty's thesis would like to go over both Carrier's and Muller's reviews with me, please PM me. I'd like to do this sometime in January. You'll need to have Doherty's "Jesus Mysteries" or his new one (I'm hoping to get my copy by end of December).

While there have been a few amateur reviews against Doherty, I'm surprised by the lack of amateur reviews in support of Doherty. Lots of people have been convinced by Doherty; I'm not aware of any of those who have investigated Doherty. If anyone has any links, could you PM me, please?

GakuseiDon

Hi avi, how would you like to go over Carrier's review together with me? I think there are demonstrable problems with his review, and his use of the Inanna myth and Plutarch.

I am an amateur also, but there are quite a few things that can be done to examine whether Doherty is using his sources accurately. I'm happy to work with you on a joint review once I get his book. Or at least do joint-checking on our respective reviews.