Steven Carr

The Archive was not up last time I tried to access it.

Here is what Dawkins wrote.
Seems clear enough to me, but Bede just will not tell his gullible readers what Dawkins actually wrote.

''A miracle is something which happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle , because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that.'

As that clearly supports Bede's interpretation that Dawkins tells people never to look for a supernatural explanation, one wonders why Bede refuses to quote the passage in his article.

Of course, Dawkins says a natural explanation of a 'miracle of this magnitude', is as likely as a cow jumping over the moon, which most reasonable people would take as a complete disavowal of a natural explanation.

But Bede is [deleted] . . . a Christian apologist. His job is to calmuny people who do not support his views.

Mind you, I'm not defending Dawkins judging religious books (such as The Jesus Mysteries???) by the company they keep in bookshops.

As Bede wrote ''Dawkins makes various snide and unnecessary asides about what he thinks of religion like mentioning how he saw it coupled with UFOs on a bookshop's shelf......'

It is simply snide and unneessaty to judge a book by how booksellers classify it., and I can't imagine Bede ever doing the same thing. (For the ironically challenged, read Bede's deunciation of The Jesus Mysteries, ehere he does exactly what he accuses Dawkins of. No wonder he does not want the thread 'derailed')

Toto

When I read the Jesus Mysteries, it was clear to me that it was not "scholarly" and not trying to be scholarly. It was a religious exercise meant to open the minds of people in Christian cultures, with the aim of giving them a different version of Christianity. The main thesis of the book is not "Jesus was a myth (and we have proof)" but "Gnostic Christians had a better idea."

But because it was marketed under a slogan that indicated that Jesus never existed, Christian apologists got their backs up and attacked that part of the book, ignoring the other parts.

Toto

<mod hat on>

I would like to remind all posters that personal sniping is unseemly and generally blows back in the face of the sniper. But I assume that we are adults here and will not let this get out of hand, right?

Bede has objected to the derailment of this thread, but gregor finds a general discussion of Bede's reviewing habits to be relevant. If anyone else has an opinion or has an idea of how the thread could be split or whether it should be, please PM me rather than discussing the question here.

Bede has objected to the sentence by Stephen Carr [deleted for consistency] Bede is clearly a Christian apologist. But is his job to "calumny people who do not support his views?" I think that Christian apologists who are any good should be able to do their jobs without calumny. However, I observe that the usual tactic on Tektonics is to calumn, abuse, and ridicule any perceived opposition. Surely Holding must realize how off-putting that tactic is to the "reasonable person"? I am not sure why any Christian would adopt this tactic, except to pump up the faith of the already true believers. Anyone can see on this thread how the tactic can backfire.

Please stay on topic and chill down the rhetoric. PM me with any comments.

Thanks.

Toto
yer mod

Bede

Giving a book hundreds of footnotes is certainly purporting to be scholarly. While it may be clear to Toto that TJM is not, many readers were impressed by this impression of scholarly apparatus. It is further clear that they were intended to be (footnotes are a huge effort and no one does them if they don't have a good reason to).

B

GakuseiDon

Which parts do Christian apologists ignore, IYO?

Looking through TJM, I can only think you mean the parts on Gnosticism. If so, F&G claim (p. 145 in the paperback edition):
Is that an accurate reflection of Gnostic beliefs?

F&G also say in that section (p 152)
The reference they supply doesn't support their view. The view that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute occurs after the 4th C CE, IIRC.

The problem with critiquing a book is that if you concentrate on specifics, you can be criticised for ignoring parts of the book. But if you review the book as a whole, you can be criticised for ignoring the specifics. I've tried to get around this by reviewing one section ("Death of the Godman") in depth, but if there is a part of the book that you think shouldn't be ignored by Christian apologists, please let me know, and I'll take a look at it.

Steven Carr

I feel that any reasonable person would regard Dawkins saying that a waving statue of Mary should be regarded as a miracle as a claim that something supernatural has happened.

Similarly, I feel that people who lambast Dawkins for lumping religion books with books on UFO's (and we all know that many religious books really should be filed under F for flaky), well, such a person should not make a big fuss about what imprint TJM is printed under.

This has nothing to do with the merits of The Jesus Mysteries, a book I have no intention of wasting my time on.

I feel though that Bede has enough ammunition to fire at TJM without these irrelevant attacks in his review, attacks of the sort he lambasts other people for using.

His review would be better without them.

Bede

Celsus has found this on Tom Harpur. His methods (use very old books and ignore contemporary scholarship) seem quite similar to F&G's. It seems there is nothing new under the sun....

B

Toto

I think I cited that article in an earlier thread. The point is that Tom Harpur may not be a great scholar, but he is not anti-Christian. It would help in this discussion if you did not assume anti-Christian motives on the part of people you disagree with.

Bede

I have to admit that some of my remarks have allowed others here to ignore the meat and drink of the case against F&G (especially as highlighted by GD). Attacking me is a lot lot easier than defending the indefensible. I suppose I should say that F&G are anti-orthodox Christianity which is undeniable.

B

Ted Hoffman

I have no problem with those that think the work of F & G is shoddy - like CX, Kirby and Celsus, and indeed, even Bede. We have people like N. T. Wright and Gary Habermas whose works many of us here regard as full of crap. Indeed, Kirby at one point went as far as calling C. S. Lewis a crackpot.

AFAIK, may writers especially in NT scholarship all have chinks in their armours - I don't know of any of them who produces perfect books. We can all point out flaws in their works - or what we consider flaws. So, I wont look askance at Celsus or GD on that matter.

The important thing, IMO, is to focus on their works, their products - not the people themselves. Criticize their works. Take the baby and splash away the bathwater. Focusing on the personalities was the main problem I had with Bede's review, plus presenting it as a challenge to the thesis F & G were putting forth. We must remember that its easy to snuff out theories in gestation - unlike established, or widely accepted theories. It doesnt mean that the accepted theories are correct and it doesnt mean the unpopular theories are incorrect. At one time, those that thought the earth was round were considered crackpots, and with "good reason".

So it doesn't matter which theory is popular: just the arguments. If you find the arguments to be bogus, very cool, but if you think the people presenting the arguments don't have the correct number of badges, then we have a problem. Many at times, those that haven't been assimilated by the system are the ones that are able to think outside the box and come up with new ways of looking at things. They are the ones that can look at the troops matching in lock step and see alternatives. Peer review is very important, academic qualifications very important, but the arguments are supreme. Especially in this area of enquiry.

GD
I have just reread that post: are you then agreeing with me that Justin's Apology should be treated as an apologetic matter on this very issue thus lacking objectivity?

Me too. Though I have never read TJM, nor do I have any intention of ever doing so.

Steven Carr,
I agree completely. In fact, I consider christianity even more loony than UFO theory and all that UFO is strapped with. In a scale of looniness from 0 to 10, 10 being the most loony, I would rate UFO belief at 5 and christianity at 8. Thats my opinion.

Bede
Assuming that the above is an expression of gratitude, you are welcome.

I missed your initial argument then. However, I have some difficulty understanding how the criteria of embarrasment is applicable here - wouldn't a catena of embarrasing info render that part 'historical' - according to the criteria of embarrasment? Eg. Jesus was baptized by JBap - hence he was occupying a lower station than JBap - the authors should have excluded such an embarrasing piece of info if they were writing fiction but they wrote it so it must have been an (unavoidable) brute fact.

I fail to see how it is "important counter-evidence" or why we should fault F & G for excluding it. You wrote "But suppose there existed an earlier source who stated categorically that no pagan godman was crucified. That would destroy their case and reading the Jesus Mysteries you would assume that neither Freke or Gandy knew of such a source even if it existed" [why would we assume? because they included everything else? Because they know everything?]

I thought 'destroying their case' would entail showing that the 'authors claim that Bacchuus was crucified and Christians copied the idea' was wrong. I understood your citation of First Apology to be proof that even back then, it was known that there were no pagan gods that were crucified.

However, since you now explain it differently, I am ready to accept that I did not get your point.

Celsus
I agree. But IMO, they are both crimes.

Gakusei,
I provided a link. Search for the sentence: "In fact the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature makes it clear that there was no policy of destruction and the church was active in preserving ancient texts"

These sound like shady practices to me, so I would be willing to agree with you on this. I haven't read the book and probably never will. Whats important is willingness to back up our accusations with arguments. That is all.

I agree wholeheartedly. Any links? Remember however, that I am not an apologist of F & G.

I agree. It has 'bogus' written all over it.

I am done here. Thanks everyone for contributing. Oh, by the way, I am collecting all anti-mythisist arguments and resources - especially mythicism as advanced by Doherty. If anyone knows a particularly strong one, please let me know. Links, book titles etc will be appreciated.

May even put up a website.