Jeffrey Gibson

Let alone that Crossan has ans such doubt or, more to the point, that when confronted by the JM position he shows the same kind of emotional response that Toto attributes to evangelicals when they are similarly confronted.

I wonder, though, if we can get back on topic -- which is whether Jay's claims about who should be placed on the list of JMers are valid and whether the people ones he places there do indeed have "good credentials".

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Huon,

Yes, he appears to be well qualified. Thanks.

I am also adding C. Dennis McKinsey to contemporary writers.

This brings our list up to 63.

I'm still checking about many others.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

1) G. A. Wells, 2) Robert M. Price, 3) Thomas L. Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard*, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack*, 19) Jan Sammer, 20) Arthur M. Rothstein, 21) Michael Martin

Second List: These living writers with academic credentials that I am not sure about (but whose work may be just as important as the above) include:

1) Earl Doherty, 2) Richard Carrier, 3) Archaya S., 4) Joseph Atwill, 5) Ken Humphreys, 6) Harold Liedner, 7) Zane Winter, 8) Gary Courtney, 9) Michael Hoffman, 10) Max Rieser, 11) R.G. Price, 12) Barbara G. Walker, 13) C. Dennis McKinsey

Third List: These deceased 20th century mythicists with academic credentials (although possibly not relevant fields):

1) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 2) John (J.M.) Robertson 3) Bertrand Russell, 4) Joseph McCabe 5) Livio C. Stecchini, 6) Thomas Whittaker, 7) John E. Remsburg, 8) Arthur Drews, 9) P. L. Couchoud, 10) John Allegro, 11) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 12) Robert Taylor, 13) Joseph Wheless, 14) Peter Jensen, 15) Gordon Rylands, 16) Guy Fau, 17) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 18) Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 19) John E. Remsburg, 20) Marshall J. Gauvin, 21) J.G. Jackson, 22) William Benjamin Smith, 23) S.G.F. Brandon*, 24) Marcel Simon*, 25) Cita Rom Goel, 26) Salomon Reinach, 27) Albert Bayet, 28) M.F.A. Aulard, 29) Prosper Alfaric

Toto

Let's back up. You seem to have misinterpreted my point. I did not say that non-evangelicals have the same response to the MJ thesis. I suggested that the emotional reaction of evangelicals, and their growing political power, might be one reason why the subject is touchy. Non evangelicals might treat the subject with scorn, or contempt, or fear, or whatever. But the evangelical response is a different order of magnitude, because Jesus' existence ON EARTH is central to their psycho-social existence.

I think that most non-evangelical scholars probably think that the JM hypothesis is a fringe theory, but also know the weakness of the historical evidence. They just attribute this to the weakness of most historical evidence from the first century, and it isn't an issue that they can say anything meaningful about, so they don't discuss it. But evangelicals need to prove that Jesus existed, and that his Resurrection happened in history.

I am not going to become an expert in astrology, but I still reserve the right to say that astrology is bunk.

I have no complaint about what NT scholars do. They earn a living as best they can in this world. And most of them stick to literary analysis without making untenable historicist claims.

squiz

Sometimes I venture over to the Evolution/Creation forum. The long suffering scientists over there patiently explain the evidence to the silly creationist internet nutcases. Rarely does one see appeals to authority, even though it is much more appropriate, as the level of certainty is orders of magnitude higher. Over here, on the other hand, the only argument that I have ever seen defending the status quo is that it is not taken seriously by serious scholars. I would truly love to see some discussions that focus on the actual details concerned for a change.

Many years ago I was a fundamentalist Christian who managed to build an apologetic edifice that turned out to have been built on sand. This included a teenage belief in Creationism. This has made me quite aware now of the dangers of doing the same with my current beliefs, so when confronted with the opinions of the majority of scholars, I am very ready to humbly defer. Nevertheless, it is greatly disappointing that the proponents of the HJ view can't bring themselves to humour us and debunk such online silliness.

Solitary Man

So, you've somehow missed the threads dealing with the evidence?

Online silliness has been debunked. Even here. The problem is that, similar to creationists, mythicists only know how to hand-wave away.

youngalexander

If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:
I’m a genuine philanthropist – all other kinds are sham.
Each little fault of temper and each social defect
In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.
To all their little weaknesses I open people’s eyes;
And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;
I love my fellow creatures – I do all the good I can –
Yet everybody says I’m such a Solitary Man!
And I can’t think why!

I’m sure I’m no ascetic; I’m as pleasant as can be;
You’ll always find me ready with a crushing repartee,
I’ve an irritating chuckle, I’ve a celebrated sneer,
I’ve an entertaining snigger, I’ve a fascinating leer.
To everybody’s prejudice I know a thing or two;
I can tell a posters error in half a second – and I do.
But although I try to make myself as pleasant as I can,
Yet everybody says I’m such a Solitary Man!
And I can’t think why!

CHORUS. He can’t think why!

With apologies to W.S.Gilbert

Toto

We've all missed those threads. You can use the search function to locate a few and point out the evidence and the reasons why it should be considered reliable. Go ahead.

And when people point out the holes in your evidence, that does not constitue "hand waving."

Solitary Man

It's been stated before, I suppose I'll state it again: the Gospels themselves, extra-canonical gospels of an independent tradition, pagan sources, Josephus, Paul, the group Paul refers to including the brother of the so-called myth, the various early "Jewish Christians" whose views of Jesus stem from a much earlier tradition, traditions behind the gospels that point to a real figure instead of a myth, fiction, literary device (rather than historical figure made literary) or mistake.

Hand-waving is abundant. Most mythicists attack the Four Gospels as though they are unified, interpolating as they please (there is no virgin birth in Mark). I've seen pseudo-scholarship, lacking any knowledge of real literary theory, on "literary" connexions in the gospels and the OT, even though the phenomenon "parallelomania" has been roundly rejected. I've seen people argue for ad hoc interpolation, especially kata sarka (see Doherty). I don't recall anyone taking the early Jewish Christians into account, or if so, discuss with reason and evidence why Paul would attach himself to such a group. Those that try fail to take in the overwhelming evidence for the Jerusalem group's affiliation with Jesus Christ. Then there are those who ignore the linguistic evidence for the connexion of James as the real brother of Jesus, coming up with such bland proposals as "it was a title", even though there is little to no evidence for such. And not one mythicist yet has tackled the traditions behind the gospels, ignoring essentially all scholarship on ancient literature, except for the bits they plucked for their own particular thesis. I think a rather sound scholar once put that as "cooking the evidence". Picking and choosing what fits and ignoring the parts that point elsewhere. Or in my words, hand-waving.

All this and we haven't even touched Ancient Mediterranean and Ancient Near East anthropology.

Per spin's question, I'm outlining a full post on the evidence of the Jesus Myth. I cannot commit to any deadlines, as I'm very busy, as I'm sure are you.

Solitary Man

-- removed poem --

schilling.klaus

unless they deny the historicity of Julius Caeser,
they are of course to be counted as HJers,
guilty of Euhemerism.

Klaus Schilling