Ahab

I never claimed Mr. Doherty did any such thing. As mentioned in the OP, another person offered money to the journal.

And how is funding money for research the same as paying a journal money to publish an article?

Vorkosigan

Not only did I not address an ad hom to you, I wasn't even making an argument for or against JM.

In what way do we not? My Historical Commentary on Mark is online. Feel free to make concrete remarks on exactly where I play by different rules than the other academics play by.

Also, Ahab, please give me a list of several academic fields where the vast majority of participants take periodic oaths that the core claims of the field are true.

BTW, if you are going to accuse Earl of purchasing his way into an academic journal, I suggest you're not really in a position to complain about ad homs, are you?

Vorkosigan

Toto

You know, I just explained to you that mainstream science has addressed creationist arguments, while the so called mainstream HJ faction refuses to address arguments. Do you disagree?

ID advocates misstate the facts. They have gotten a fair hearing, and they lost. But they are trying to frame the issue as one of free speech and allowing all points of view to be exposed. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

No, they have refused to allow the mythicist case to be discussed on generally accepted standards. They have ruled the subject matter out of bounds.

Ahab

I didn't say you addressed an ad hominem to me. You used one against your academic opponents: you called them creationists.
Get you commentary published by an academic press. Or present the substance of it in a scholarly journal. Don't sit around calling other academics names and implying it is all their fault that the mythicist position isn't taken more seriously.

Sounds just like the ID'ers complaining that all scientists are committed to methodological naturalism. And you've just made another ad hominem.

Please quote any accusation I made against Mr. Doherty in this or any other thread on IIDB. I've actually defended his case on another SITE.

Ahab

Toto, I'm not claiming the mythicists are like ID'ers in being hypocrites or that this is a free speech issue.
It's that I'm seeing so many ad hominems toward the mainstream and the attempt to shift the blame to the mainstream for not accepting the mythicists' position.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that they are acting like the typical crank on the edge of any academic field who keeps yelling at the mainstream for not being as smart and knowledgable as he is. That's how ID'ers act too.

I'm not an expert in this field, so I can't really weigh in very strongly on which position is more likely to be correct.
However, I am actually rather sympathetic toward's the mythicists' position. They would do much better spending their time presenting their case and stop whining about being ignored by the other experts and throwing ad hominems around so freely. They are hurting their cause by doing this.

Ahab

By the way I have visited your site before. It does look impressive to me. Hopefully I'll be able to make some time soon to read it in more depth. But right now I'm more interested in devoting my studying time to the Iliad than the gospels.

You've certainly put in quite a lot of work on it.:thumbs:

Brother Daniel

Meanwhile, I am struck by the differences between the historicists' arguments and those made by the defenders of evolution.

It is very easy to find detailed critiques of many creationist arguments by serious biologists and geologists. (I haven't specifically looked into the newfangled style of creationism labeled "ID", but I would expect it to be very easy to find detailed critiques thereof. I'd probably start by browsing the stickies in our E/C forum here.)

It is very hard to find detailed critiques of mythicism by serious bible scholars. It appears that they prefer to point at each other and say: "See, the vast majority of us are historicist."

Either mythicism is a crock, or it's something the serious academics ought to be considering. If it's a crock, then someone, somewhere, ought to be able to explain why.

So I search for clues from the historicists. But with so little attention paid to the question by professionals, I have to look to the amateurs.

There are (sometimes) useful discussions here. As a "nobody" who usually just lurks, I'm happy to read the contributions of folks on all sides. And it appears to me that the defenders of the historical Jesus are far from having a knock-down case. At best, they make enough good points to make me hesitate to assert that the mythicists have a knock-down case either. (In spite of having near-zero historical expertise and only modest intelligence, I prefer to trust my own judgment about who's making the best arguments when I'm reading these discussions. What other choice have I?)

Where else can I look? I can look to the arguments of Christain apologists. There's Bede, who is sometimes very reasonable. (At least, I have had useful and civilised discussions with him on IIDB.) He sets out to refute "the Myth that Jesus never existed" on his website. The centrepiece of his argument is that Josephus must, without a doubt, have referred to Jesus "called Christ"; to argue this, he relies on the precise wording of something that (he later admits) Josephus did not say at all! Please.... Oh well, at least he's far, far better than Holding.

Why can't someone, somewhere, take the time to explain -- in terms of the historical evidence, and not in terms of what the scholarly "consensus" happens to be, and without the sleight-of-hand tricks that we always seem to get from the Christian apologists -- why mythicism is not even worthy of consideration?

Has it been done? Can someone show me a link?

The "kind" of research? Or the quantity? Doherty's work looks to me like the kind of research you're talking about. It may be that he needs to be yet more thorough -- I'm not asserting this, I'm just allowing the possibility -- but I'd be very interested to see an explanation of how, qualitatively, he falls short of that standard.

Given that mythicism is getting noticed by the masses (whether it ought to be or not), you'd think it would be worth the trouble for someone to debunk it properly -- as evolutionists have done with creationism, time and time again. And by "properly" I mean more than just blah blah Josephus blah blah Tacitus (as if the mythicists have never heard of these guys).

If the mythicist case depends on sloppy work, then that should make the debunking job all the easier! Professional academics are just as capable as amateurs are, of writing books that are readable by ordinary folks like me. In fact, they often do exactly that. The lack of mythicist material in peer-reviewed journals may explain the lack of counter-mythicist material in peer-reviewed journals, but it doesn't explain the lack of good counter-mythicist books.

The argument (often advanced by apologists) that mythicism is "beneath their notice" (referring to the major academics) won't get us anywhere. That is precisely the claim that needs to be supported!

Vorkosigan

In the process of doing that.

I did this when.

Since you've avoided answering it, again I'll ask you to please name several other fields where participants regularly take oaths that the core historical claims of the field are true. Please name any field that has an equivalent to the Nicene Creed.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Thanks, but your specific claim that mythicists play by different rules awaits support. Perhaps you can hop over to the Journal of Historical Criticism and point out to them where they have violated the rules of the game.

Vorkosigan

Ahab

Best of luck.


When you called them creationists. When you imply that because they happen to be Christians that their scholarly work is of no value. When you said the following:

I see that as an another ad hominem attack. Yes, a lot of scholars (not all) are Christians. I think you're wasting your time dwelling on that. Even if every one of them were rabid fundamentalists it wouldn't mean that the mythicist position is correct. That's the same kind of 'win by default' fallacy ID'ers constantly make.