Malachi151

Why is it that all of the "HJers" use this as their primary argument against MJ? Basically, who cares about the merits of the arguments, it's just if they are in journals or touted by people with PhDs after their name.

This has been an on-going issue since the 19th century. Arther Drews wrote about the same problem. As he stated, very few people who are truly critical and objective on this subject are going to get the degrees that are required to be taken seriously in this field by the people in the field.

Unless you have some kind of theological and Bible studies degree, you aren't going to taken seriously, but what person is going to get such a degree unless they are a Christian and going into this out of faith? Very, very few.

My degree is in biology, I know that I could never get something published in a journal even if it were up to the academic standards.

Elements of Doherty's thesis, or any MJ thesis, are simply unacceptable to Christianity. If they are true, the whole religion is bunk. Do you think that a journal run by Christians is going to say, "oh well, I guess you are right, we are all just masturbating ourselves to an ancient figment of imagination, geee". Of course not.

Personally, if I could publish in a journal and were inclined to do so and had a better grasp of the ancillary material and a knowledge of Greek, I would start by publishing something on the Gospel of Mark, showing it's scriptural basis and discussing its allegorical meaning.

Indeed, I think that Carrier is working on such a paper now, or will soon, at least he claims.

But, I don't know Greek, I have no relevant degree, and I haven't read the last 20 most important works on the Gospel of Mark, so of course, "I have no standing", as will be the case with most people who aren't dedicated strictly to Biblical studies. As such, any observations made by such people are simply dismissed out of hand.

GakuseiDon

Malachi, as per the spirit of the OP, reword this statement as though it were from a creationist talking about evolution. How would you view such a statement then?

Spanky

Haven't we concluded that the OP analogy is NOT analogous? So in the spirit of the OP the link is not there.
Science and history are vastly different. Thus the analogy falls on its face. Especially when it comes to trying to find this Jesus of Nazareth. The more you look, the less evidence there is (more in the lines of creationism, not evolution--where there are vast amounts of evidence).
So, as I said before, one does not need to be a scholar or able to read Greek or whatnot to contribute to this debate (unlike evolution). Especially on this site.

Gregg

Look. For a moment, put this consideration and consideration of Doherty's "bias" aside and just read his arguments and evidence. Now, even if you don't agree with his conclusions, do you really there is nothing there, that it's all just empty talk, without substance, no food for thought whatsoever? That there is nothing in there at all that could possibly interest any serious professional scholar?

Trust your own knowledge and instincts. Do you really think, after examining the evidence and arguments for and against the HJ that are available, that the HJers have a slam-dunk case? If not, do you believe that Bible scholars, by virtue of their vast knowledge of the relevant material and intimate familiarity with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, must possess some information unknown to the rest of us that does render it a slam-dunk case?

I do not think that MJers have been "completely unable" to get their views published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I just think that no professional scholar thus far has been interested in pursuing this line of inquiry to the degree Doherty has. Not because the HJ is a slam dunk, or because the MJ really is a "crackpot theory" that has been discredited beyond all serious consideration, or because of some "vast conspiracy," but because of a general assumption that Jesus did exist and that all MJ theories have been "demolished," as well as a strong bias in favor of an HJ among most Bible scholars. Everyone "knows" Jesus has been proven to have existed, and the idea that he didn't just seems too wild to people unfamiliar with the MJ case (which is basically all Bible scholars) so nobody bothers to research or write papers on it.

Oh, give me a break. "Unbiased" scholars in the field of Biblical scholarship must be as rare as the dodo bird.

How do you know he "can't" if he hasn't tried it yet? And how can you possibly compare Doherty's work to Behe's? I don't understand. ID and MJ research are not remotely comparable. ID is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it is not science! On the other hand, any survey of non-Christian religious beliefs of the first century A.D. will reveal parallels to Christian beliefs, including dying/rising savior gods, descending revealers, and so on, suggesting that Christianity could have developed from those beliefs without any historical founding figure. Coupled with the dearth of references to Jesus' life and teachings in early Christian writings and the lack of independent testimony to Jesus' existence, how is this not a legitimate area for inquiry?

Chris Weimer

No. All anyone has done is waved their hands and pretended it wasn't there.

Spanky

:wave:

Gregg

G'Don, the situations are simply not comparable, as has been made quite clear in this and other threads.

Gregg

This is purest crap. If you call youngalexander's argument "hand waving" your judgment is worthless. I believe I'm putting you on ignore.

Zeichman

If by "us" you mean people who haven't bothered researching the topics and anticipating the most obvious of counter-arguments, then yes.

More likely it derives from the reasons I state above. Involvement with scholarship is barely beyond the superficial popular works, and not into more serious matters.

You seem to be mistaking "analogy" for either "direct parallel" or "allegory." The point is that ID "scholars" have only written at the popular level (by those unable to assess the validity of their claims), and have not submitted their arguments to the kind of academic scrutiny a credible biologist would.

Malachi151

I think this whole issue is an attempt to avoid addressing the facts, which the HJ crowd can't address. Instead of addressing the issues, they would rather just claim that the MJ thesis is quackery and dismiss it based on appeal to authority.