Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi there, Vork,

Here's an interesting passage from the above review by Arnal,

=====quote=====

In addition, the negative emphasis on the historical Jesus is really self-deconstructing. If, indeed, the gospel materials about Jesus are not based on historical events, then the interesting questions all revolve around the processes, sociological or ideological, whereby early "Jesus people" formulated their ideas, actions, and stories. A shift is required from an excessive and frankly uninteresting concentration on the historical Jesus -- even an appropriately skeptical one -- to the genuinely historical question of the development of the Christian movement.

=====unquote=====

This is what I've been telling the Mythicists for a long time already.

The ultimate challenge for them is to produce a believable story of how the early Christianity came to be, if one assumes there was no HJ. So far, they failed miserably, including Doherty...

This is why I don't take the Mythicists seriously. It is all hot air, AFAIAK.

But neither do I think that Mythicism is necessarily a bad thing. Let them ruffle a few feathers in the academe, and I'll just sit back and watch. It's harmless fun...

Ultimately I agree with them that the NT scholarship is a fraud.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vivisector

Peter,

Just a little unsolicited bit of input, provided only because I'm in academia ... I agree completely with Vork's suggestion regarding the PhD in history. Within limits, a PhD is a PhD is a PhD. It's common for one to get their terminal degree based on research in one topic and then to shift one's focus, perhaps significantly. One possibility might be to pick up all the tools you'll need later (e.g., ancient languages), emphasize religion in your electives to the degree that you can, do a dissertation on a topic in the general area of your ultimate interest. Maybe even present a paper or two at a religious/history conference, get into some of the proceedings. Get a paying job, teach the freshman intro courses, review for some of the journals (be an associate editor if you can), but above all, publish enough to get tenure - and this might (probably will?) mean that you have to attack the margins of the problem to ensure that you end up with sufficient publishable material. By this time, you have the club card (PhD), publication record and tenure - you're bulletproof.

A suggestion with regard to the conference - Jan 06 might be much too early. The normal planning horizon is probably at least a year on these things, especially for the authors. This will give you time to solicit abstracts and allow the selection committee to screen out the riffraff as well as to woo your keynoters. It's also going to take some time to work out the details of publishing the proceedings. This can be a real nutroll, but there's something to be said about having a published proceedings. Venue - I'm not sure how much I'd emphasize holding it at a university. It might help with attendance (and attendance is what drives the kind of deals you'll get on hotel rooms, meeting rooms, etc.) if you have it within a shuttle drive of a major hub, preferably one that Southwest services.

Hoping this is worth slightly more than you paid for it,

V.

spin

I had you in the back of my mind as I was writing the last part of the post you responded to. What is your way ahead?

Where do you think you could work after you get your Ph.D.? Will you have advertised your non-religionist position? Would your prospective employers want to tell the parents of the students that their teacher was an infidel? (I can assure you he's a very good teacher...) What does the average parent think of said infidel?

My answers to these questions would all be bad for you.

The things that come to mind are fence jumping options, either classics with a leaning towards nt or history with the same leaning. Maybe even some warped variety of philosophy.

But then, you're in a much better position than I am to know the climate in your prospective employers' establishments. You would of course exclude the vast majority of teaching institutions, but there just may be a few seriously scholarly joints that are more interested in good methodology. But then again, why should they employ you over all the others? Perhaps all you need is the right sales pitch.

What is needed -- beyond your situation -- is enough stimulation for non-religionists to see religion as a serious cultural artifact that is worthy of study in itself -- for various reasons, even if one of them is liberation -- as people study any cultural artifact that they deem worthy of profound understanding, ie they can have a desire to understand without the desire to be religious about it.


spin

Peter Kirby

Thanks Vivisector. Just to be clear, though, I do have a genuine interest both in history and in religion. So, banging out a few papers, book reviews, and articles on various things related to the New Testament will be a pleasure for me. It's probably a good idea to wait for tenure before writing a Big Golden Book anyway--because, after all, I am still half-educated and unsure of where my conclusions lie. I plan to get a M.A. in Religion and then a Ph.D. either in History or in Classics. That's partly because I need some time to study Greek and Latin, while working on the M.A., before entering a program in Ancient History or Classics.

I've changed my mind, then. The conference should likely be held in June of 2006. I still like the idea of Vegas--the only advantage of a university, in my mind, being prestige value.

I will be at the national SBL conference, if the fates allow, and there I will have the opportunity to woo some people in person to attend. I can also go to the XTalkers/etc. meeting of scholarly persons who post to online groups.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Vork:
Count me in Vork. The discussion with Carrier made me realize that one has to get into the cultural milieu of Paul and Paul's mind and reconstruct exactly how Paul's Christ evolved to Mark's Christ and ultimately, to the HJ we find in the other gospels. A strong focus on Paul, and hopefully, one that dovetails with the ideas in your commentary on Mark, would lay a powerful foundation for the mythicist house that will of course be buffeted with bombs from the NT scholars.
Incidentally, Doherty has responded to the last and critical part of Muller's critique - whehe he covers Galatians 4:4's "born of woman" plus a bit of Josephus and "brother of the Lord". He quotes Vork and Carrier extensively and I get to appear in the appendix. Enjoy. And I hope Bede, Layman and like-minded critics can offer their criticisms.

I have collected a number of books and commentaries which I want to burn through after clearing my coursework early next year.

The PhD's count. Granted. But IMO, powerful, thorough arguments count the more. I am open to seeking a PhD in theology and History and mastering Greek. But I havent seriously thought about the former two.

If we dont get the PhD's we will be remembered in history as the forerunners of a movement that tore through the belly NT scholarship and left it to bleed to death. One thing we can bank on is that many people, the fear and inertia aside, are skeptical of the Church - and that's why Archaya's junk is selling: people want to break from all the dogma and indoctrination...

Peter Kirby

Powerful and thorough arguments count for nothing if they are not read. One of the first things that people ask--that information scientists tell people to ask--before they read a book is simply, what is the author's credentials? If you have none, your authorship will be more limited and also less receptive. One of the first things that people also ask is, who published the book? Someone who isn't at least a grad student will have a hard time getting with an academic publishing house.

By the way, I am going to pursue a graduate degree. If you can convince me of a position, perhaps you will have an ally and someone who can develop the idea for academic consumption.

If you can't convince me, well, why not? And how would you convince others?

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

You have always been an ally Peter, so that doesn't change. I agree with you which is why I noted that the PhD's count. But those who cant get them, for whatever reason, can't just sit on their hands and spectate - they can still contribute whatever they can...

Btw, I hope you will attach links to Doherty's response on your website where you've put up Muller's critique.

Jacob

Peter Kirby

Actually, Jacob, it has changed over time. I was a Jesus historicist (as an atheist) for several years until about 1999, then I was a Jesus mythicist for a few years about 2000-2002, and right now I am almost completely up in the air when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus. The only thing is, I am all in favor of getting the word out and helping people understand the position.

So, if you could add some arguments to what Doherty and others have written, that might help tip the scales for me.

best,
Peter Kirby

PS--Why not get your name changed back to Jacob Aliet? It seems silly to be looking at (and accidentally writing) "Ted Hoffman" while thinking your name is Jacob Aliet.

Ted Hoffman

All the while, you were an ally. IMO, an ally is anyone who is unbiased and who is interested in laying out the roots of all the arguments and sharing.

That we shall do. With aplomb. Count on it.

I am considering it (but dont want to trouble The Other Michael). The reasons I changed to TH are obsolete now anyway.

Jacob

andrewcriddle

This post may be biased by my belief in a Historical Jesus but IMHO the influence of Christian belief on modern NT scholarship can be exaggerated.

There are several prominent NT and Early Christian scholars who are either Jewish or Atheist or Christian in an extremely unorthodox sense.

This is particularly true in Europe where Biblical Studies Departments are increasingly separate from Theology Departments.

On the whole non-Christian NT scholars have not shown much interest in the idea of a Mythical Jesus.

Nor IMO are sources about the Historical Jesus generally treated more credulously by scholars than sources about the Historical Buddha or the Historical Muhammed (where somewhat similar problems occur).

Insofar as there is a prejudice against the idea of a Mythical Jesus it may not be primarily a matter of religious committal.

The problem may be more that if one is highly skeptical about both the external evidences concerning Jesus and the historical value of the NT narratives then most scholars would regard the only legitimate position as one of radical agnosticism about Christian origins. ie a position in which one may well doubt a Historical Jesus but where one is even more doubtful about any specific non-Historical alternative. These doubts about any specific Mythical Jesus proposal are increased by the number of mutually incompatible proposals of this type.

There may well be a bias among those interested in Christian origins against the idea that the data just aren't there. But this does not mean that 'mainstream' scholars are wrong to reject specific proposals which for example combine radical skepticism towards the external and internal evidences for a Historical Jesus with excessive credulity towards Doherty's controversial ideas about Middle Platonism.

Andrew Criddle