Solo

I am sure when Earl looks a little closer at the page he's quoting from, he will see that the tank battle took place near the city of Kursk (Курск www.kursk.ru/ ), and the score was on a Soviet T-34.

And while we all know that Earl wants to wax nostalgic over the great might of the Soviets who decreed and enforced a Jesus Myth theory as part of Marxism-Leninism, the fact remains that that the Soviets are gone, suffering the regular fate of people who do not know how to read history and whose ideas are out of touch with reality. So Earl, where is the Soviet victory, where is their sting ?

Jiri

EarlDoherty

Dear Kevin,

I am not going to retreat from the position that the vast bulk of historicist scholars have a ‘predisposition’ to regard the HJ as both necessary and desirable, and that this leads them to interpret (or even force) the evidence in favor of that predisposition, as well as to turn a blind eye to the evidence on the MJ side. This attitude on my part is almost inevitable, since I see (rightly or wrongly) the case for the MJ as overwhelming. It is also inevitable because I have seen so many HJ scholars do precisely this, and I have laid out in so many ways and in so many places how in fact they do this. This is not to say that I have accused HJ scholars of being dishonest or devious (well, almost none of them), but I think my latest “Refutations” article demonstrates the often invalid and self-deceiving nature of their methods and arguments in support of an HJ. I think you would find a lot in that article to illuminate the mythicist position in regard to HJ scholarship. Have you read it yet, Kevin? Perhaps then we can discuss these issues at greater length.

By the same token, in answer to your earlier question (as I recall it before the crash), I am hardly going to turn The Jesus Puzzle into a ‘neutral’ consideration of the evidence on both sides for and against an HJ, simply because I see so little on one side and so much on the other. What am I going to present on the historicist side? genomenon ek gunaikos and kata sarka? “the brother of the Lord”? Josephus? The mythicist case can and has readily dealt with that handful of alleged counter-indications. In the face of the “overwhelming” weight on the other side (as I have presented it in my book and on my website), it simply isn’t feasible. And I’m certainly not going to include the “overwhelming opinion” of historicist scholars that Jesus did exist, especially in view of what I have had to say in reply in my “Refutations” article.

Since it’s related, I’ll drop in a comment here on Jeffrey’s provision of the context from the Funk quote I gave. The “contextualizing” material he quotes is immaterial. My quote does not, nor did I intend it to, imply that Funk denied the HJ. His words do not say that. That is Jeffrey imputing (as usual, through distortion) an implication to me I nowhere suggested. What the quote does is make it clear that “as an historian (Funk) does not know for certain that Jesus existed,” because that’s what the words say. I was not guilty of misquoting, misrepresenting or putting words in Funk’s mouth. What I wanted to highlight was Funk’s uncertainty, and that uncertainty cannot be denied, according to his own words. To add Jeffrey’s ‘context’ to the quote would simply have obscured that simple fact, the simple fact that Funk, despite all his education and study, despite his commitment to HJ scholarship, is stating that HE IS NOT CERTAIN THAT JESUS EXISTED! (Otherwise, he has seriously mis-spoken himself.)

Consequently, Jeffrey is wrong in stating that I “leave out also significant material within the section of Funk that he is quoting that indicates that Funk is not saying what Earl presents him as saying.” Funk most definitely is saying what I present him as saying, and it is Jeffrey who needs (as so often) to worry about his own “selective misreadings, misquotations and misrepresentations.”

All the best,
Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! (Where is that headbanging smilie now that I need it?) I knew when I typed that without checking that some ***** was likely to pounce. Thank you, Jiri, for demonstrating your profound knowledge of Soviet tanks, cities, and Cyrillic spelling. It is so typical of what goes on on this forum in lieu of substantive argument. It is so relevant to my post, that you have entirely destroyed my point, the mythicist case, my manhood, and I think I've even broken a fingernail.

And thank you for demonstrating that you still haven't got your head out of your....preoccupation with the old saw linking atheists with Soviet communism (via the implied link between atheists and mythicists). As for your final remark, the "sting" of the "Soviet victory", which we are all presently enjoying, was their destruction of Naziism, since I doubt very much that the West could have accomplished it on their own, certainly nowhere near so soon, and certainly not if the Nazis had had free rein with no complications in the east during the time it took for the Allies to mount their own assault on occupied Europe. Perhaps you need to learn how to read history yourself.

And please don't turn my comments into some kind of support for Stalinist communism, which I wouldn't put past you. It is mentalities like yours, Jiri, that give historicist defenders a bad name.

Earl Doherty

krosero

Thank you for the reply, it's an honest one and I appreciate that, without sarcasm or ill will.

Have I read your refutations piece? No, because it's not a short piece and because I'm more interested in your version of mythicism, given its popularity. If and when someone resurrects the older versions of mythicism, I will become interesed in those.

However, your version is in many ways an extension of the old, and if only for that reason, among others, I plan to start reading your piece sometime after I get back from Ecuador in late summer.

You refer to my pre-crash post from memory, but I reproduced it at this post.

Though I was not suggesting that you actually revise your book and make it a balanced approach, I appreciate that you actually address that possibility.

I was actually suggesting that you either defend the book as it currently stands as a balanced approach, or if you can't do that, then openly present yourself as an advocate but without the defense that all of us must drop our advocacies and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

That's a paraphrase and I suggest replying to the post itself if you're inclined.

But I'd be more interested in a reply to what I've said there about your use of Brandon (and I think Ted H. should have a look at it too if he's not interested in the generalities I've posted in this current thread). I doubt that it would come to much; these debates about misuse of scholars all go the same way, every time, like TV reruns; but go figure, I'm still interested.

Kevin Rosero

Solo

Perhaps, I missed the substance of your argument. What point about the Redeemer were you making that called for a recap of the results of the WWII?

Earl, with me, flattery will get you nowhere !

Look, let's be reasonable: Jesus was officially decreed by the Soviets as having no historical substance. The Soviet state was officially atheist. Your Web Site is atheist. In this thread, entirely on your own, you came up with a weird-looking, vague parallel linking your historicist opponents with some Wehrmacht soldiers' glee at destroying a Soviet tank during a battle which the Nazis lost. You then reminded all that would read, that the Soviets entered Berlin as victors. Now, since it's getting late, you will have to pardon me for taking just two of the most likely scenarios of how the parallel originated: one: you kinda' like the Soviet system, two: it was dictated to you by your cuckoo clock.

I agree with what you say, but a) it is irrelevant to the point I was making, and b) doesn't support the point you are trying to make.

If I understand you correctly, Earl, I am a twisted SOB who argues ad hominem.

best
Jiri

Ted Hoffman

In the process of trying to discredit Doherty, Jeffrey has actually made Doherty's reliability rating go up.
Anyone can see from Jeffrey's long citation of Funk that Funk says that:
This is enough. Doherty need't even have quoted more. In fact, contrary to Jeffrey's assertions, Doherty cited too much. Funk's position is clear from the above alone. In fact
What we see in Jeffrey's long, gratuitous and long-winded post is the pussycat mentality I talked about earlier. People, we have to know how to distinguish the trivial from the significant, and the worthless from the useful.
Jeffrey is dead wrong.
Doherty never claimed that Funk does not believe in a HJ. So Jeffrey's claim that Doherty omitted "the significant contextualizing material that shows that Funk is not denying the HJ" is symptomatic of the berserker approach that Doherty talked about earlier. Jeffrey is just one individual whose speciality is to misread Doherty and to jump up and down on that misreading for hours on end.
Whereas Jeffrey is alone in blatantly misreading Doherty, he is not alone in mistaking the trivial as significant. And I am beginning to think that the MJ opponents are incapable of raising any substantive objections so that any tiny quibble will make a full meal for them.

Its rather pitiful that Krosero can claim that he has not read Doherty's refutation because it is too long. Jeffrey also has not read it. Pathetic.
Now, for historicist scholars parotting the words of other scholars, Doherty writes:
A chain of misguided and unproven claims.

jgibson000

I haven't? How do you know this for certain, as you imply you do?

Yes. Something here certainly is.

But having said that, where are the quotes and the bibliographical data your sense of fair play obliges you to give me?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

It's Otto Betz, not Oskar.

I wonder what the misattribution means vis a vis Earl's actualy knowing what Betz (or Bousset) wrote and whether or not he (or Bousset) made a good case?

We can, I think, be fairly certain what your reproduction of the misattribution means in with respect to these questions.

Seems to me that if he (or you) is/are going to make a real effort to refute the refuters, let alone claim that you have actually done so, you would want to deal directly with their works and not someone else's summary of them.

Can you tell us all that Bousset or Betz said and what is wrong with Bousset's argument?

Jeffrey Gibson

jakejonesiv

Jiri, don't drink the water, it has fluoride in it.

Jake Jones IV

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, you are like someone who is asking where in the NT it is said John The Baptist ate locusts and honey yet you are asking what makes your respondent so certain you haven't read Mark. If you'd read the refutation, you would not have asked the following question.
You have provided names: I provided references. I am busy working: you are on vacation. You have a PhD in this subject: I am an MBA.
Where is the reciprocity here Jeffrey? You have listed names Jeffrey. Hanging, disembodied names. Not references. What is this game? Is it the My-Library-Is-Better-Stocked-Than-Yours for toddlers or is it the I-have-better-research-assistants-than-you for teenagers?
Jeez!

You ask what is wrong with the argument “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.”

First of all, its not an argument. It is a summary decree. There is no systematic presentation where the premise, the inference and the conclusion can be identified.

Secondly. the author commits the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. The scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus are defined as non-serious to suit the author. This can make all inane arguments vacuously true. For example those who want to ingratiate themselves to you here can state "No serious poster at IIDB questions Jeffrey." The author arbitrarily chooses to label scholars that agree with his point of view as serious and the others as not serious.

The statement also fails to demonstrate the truth or falsity of the argument regarding the non-historicity of Jesus. It just associates it with non-serious scholars without examining it.

Tell us something new Jeffrey. This is becoming boring. I thought you had a list of serious misrepresentations and misreadings on the part of Doherty. Like some buggers like to say, where is the beef?