jgibson000

Nope. But I never claimed I had.

Well. one might object (and I think rightly) that this isn't, as your quote of your own words shows, what Betz (according to you) actually says. He makes no such global claim and he actually admits that some people have mounted a denial of the HJ. So if anyone has done anything here, you've "done an Earl" and claimed, as you have with Van Voorst and as you have with Burton, that a particular author has made a claim that is far more restrictive than his "actual" words show his claim to be.

But perhaps your orginal quote of Betz was not accurate? To help us see, I wonder if you'd be good enough to provide us with the whole text of the relevant passage that you say appears on p. 9 of Betz's "What Do We Know"?

Have I now? And as usual?

I do not think that in an article that claims to be scholarly that imprecision on the names of scholars one is quoting is an irrelevancy. Try stating that to any editor of any peer reviewed journal to whom you might -- if you ever actually have the courage to do so -- submit your work. Or are you claiming that your article is not scholarly and should not be taken as such.

:huh: Apparently?

Come on, Earl. Though it is typical of your style when you are trying to score some points against an opponent, this overblown straw man rhetoric and is beneath you

Leaving aside not only (1) the questions of whether the above accurately represents the circumstances that led to, or the actual grounds for, your issuing your charge against me, and of ) how "belatedly" you belatedly learned what you learned, but also (2) the fact that it was through my "admission" to the moderators that you learned what you learned, it is the case, isn't it, that you did apologize off list to the modeartors for issuing your charge?

Jeffrey Gibson

krosero

It takes time to respond properly to 43,000 words, and in waiting for someone to respond, you should wait at least as long as you took to prepare for the project and to bring it to completion, before you say, “That’s it?”

Questions like that, I think, give your position the mere appearance of strength, but no more.

I know, Earl, that you’re merely inviting to me to comment and not requiring it, but I thought I’d say anyway that it is not very likely that I will have a response. I know that you and TedH feel that your piece is very important, and I can’t doubt that as mythicists it must be very important to you – but I am going to read your piece chiefly to see if there’s something in it that applies specifically to the current debates. As far as I’m concerned, you could be 110% correct about the what’s happened in the past with refutations of mythicism, and all that would matter to me is meeting the current versions of mythicism with authentic arguments.

Ted Hoffman

I think I would have to read the titles Rick. What do you use to identify the books? Telepathy? Their colour? Their smell? Size?
I don't have a hard copy of Sander's book and I have never seen Bultmann's book.
How do you Rick, go about identifying one book from another? Please enlighten me. Or you just meant to insult me?

Rick Sumner

I don't mean to insult you, I mean to suggest that you aren't nearly as familiar with HJ research as you try to portray yourself as (or anywhere near familiar enough with it for your blanket condemnations of it to carry much weight), a point you've just demonstrated further.

Comparing Bultmann and Sanders is akin to comparing Crossan and Meier. Sanders' book is in no small part a response to Bultmann.

Because of the impact both of these scholars have had, nobody with the field familiarity you pretend to have would confuse the two. Or need to look at titles to tell which is which. Or, for that matter, need to ask me how one could tell them apart.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Wow Rick, first I am an albatross around Doherty's neck. Then, my rhetoric becomes too unpleasant to tolerate so you ignore me. But that is not really effective so I am now a pretender who can confuse Bultmann with Sanders and who, (unlike a god like Rick) has to actually read the titles to differentiate the books.
Thanks for such a fine refutation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis. You have actually managed to stay on topic and haven't engaged in any ad hominems. I can see that when you tell Doherty "Courtesy and convention, of course, should preclude" ranting, you really mean it and it is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You know, so many people defend evolution yet so many haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Maybe ID proponents should also report them to scientists to tell these dilletantes to cease defending the theory because they "aren't nearly as familiar with" scientific research on evolution as they appear to be. This is a very brilliant idea Rick. Plus, it is actually on topic! Brrriliant! :notworthy:

jakejonesiv

You mean where I subjectively rated the probabilty of the existence of Jesus at 2.5 on a scale of zero to ten? Considering who your hero is, I am not suprised.
On the same scale I would rate Constantin Brunner's theories about Jesus at zero.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Speaking of rhetoric! Moderators -- is this sort of ad hominem to be tolerated?

So far as I can tell, the purpose of Rick's message was not to refute -- and had nothing to do with refuting -- the JM hypothesis. Rather, his purpose was to point out that you are nowhere nearly as grounded in HJ studies as you pretend to be, let alone would need to be for your claims against HJ scholars to be considered well informed or to be taken seriously, and that you yourself provide good evidence for this conclusion.

So your critique of what he said is irrelevant and a gross equivocation.

In any case, what is becoming increasingly clear is that, to use your own analogy, you are like those who argue against Darwin and are confident that they can dispute his arguments, but have never actually read him.

Jeffrey Gibson

Rick Sumner

You've actually skipped a step. First I declined to respond to you for well over a year. A period during which the ad hoc nature of your rants became thoroughly apparent by the fact that you continued to incessantly engage a phantom during that period.

Now? You were always a pretender who couldn't tell the difference between Bultmann and Sanders, despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed. You're also a plagiarist and a quote-miner. And I can provide examples of both. I'll explain why this is, despite your charges, not an ad hominem below.

"Unlike a god like Rick?" Not at all. Rather, unlike someone who has actually engaged the relevant literature in any sort of meaningful fashion, which is why the example was used. People who engage HJ research are generally familiar with Bultmann and Sanders, and why they are identifable when contrasted with each other. I'm sure Earl could tell the difference. So could Stephen. And Jeffrey. And Chris Weimer. And Peter. And Ben. And so on.

You might want to take a look at what post I was replying to, and what comments I was addressing. The fact that you think Earl was arguing the Jesus Myth, or me replying to such a thing, seems to indicate that you've failed to do so.

I haven't engaged in any ad hominems. The issue at hand was Earl's assessment of the historicist case. The examples I provide call into question the ability of mythicists to assess and honestly engage the historicist response. You, as a vociferous proponent of it who demonstrates a woeful lack of familiarity with relevant literature, provide an adequate example.

I think you have things backwards. I was responding to Earl's post (a point you still don't seem to understand). What I provided was not only factual, but easily ascertained to be so. It was also quite relevant as a reply to Doherty's assessment of his opponents--I was offering an assessment of my opponents. That not only isn't ranting, it couldn't have much more bearing on what was being said.

Many people defend it ineptly too. But that's neither here nor there, for the moment, because your analogy is thoroughly flawed (which is why I'll snip the rest of it). I haven't suggested that you need to have read Bultmann and Sanders (though you should), merely that you should be able to tell them apart.

So, to make your analogy more apt, if someone arguing for evolution could not tell the difference between Darwin and Behe, they probably aren't qualified to argue it, and I probably wouldn't accord what they had to say much weight.

Sarcasm is only really effective when it's to the point. When you issue it against a strawman, it just makes one look silly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

No Robots

At least you're able to spit out his name, something Doherty doesn't seem to be able to manage.

Ted Hoffman

Historical Jesus proponents have tried arguments that dismiss the JM hypothesis. These have been effectively met with counterarguments from mythicists. Then they looked past the rebuttals and demanded academic credentials and questioned the authority of mythicists. They were accordingly exposed as presenting red herrings. Some then went into protracted sulking episodes until they could not contain themselves anymore.
Then they tried various other things, from creating huge storms in teacups, quibbling over transliterarions, page numbers spellings and semantics and so on. They also demanded that every referenced scholar be cited in full. They were called on these tangential issues.
Then they complained that they are being insulted and adhominemized and aren't there rules to stop this kind of thing ? They pleaded with the moderators and pretended to roll over and die. The moderators insisted on remaining partial.
They then complained that I am damaging the JM hypothesis and implicitly urged Doherty to distance himself from me, since they, masquerading as self-imposed consultants concerned for the well-being of the JM hypothesis, had discovered that I was like an albattross around Dohery's neck and was a liability. Doherty ignored them.
Then they complained of being tired and fatigued and accused mythicists of making themselves irrefutable and engaging proponents in a 'stupid cycle'. They were shown to be merely ventilating and not engaging in systematic argumentation of the issues.
Then they resorted to accusing Doherty of misquoting, mischaracterizing amd misrepresenting other scholars. This was shown not to be the case. In fact, the historicists ended up misquoting, mischaracterizing amd misrepresenting Doherty. Much to their chagrin.
Then they accused Doherty of not having read some books. Doherty asked them if they themselves had. Need I even say it? They had not.
Then they resorted to preoccupying themselves with the trivial and treating them as if they are significant. They were called on it.
Then they raked up history and resurrected irrelevant past issues to discredit mythicists. These were ignored since they were clearly irrelevant.

Then they sat at thought for a while. Mortified. You could hear rusty gears turning in their heads. Some smoke escaped from their ears and their brows glistened in perspiration as they raked their brains. Nothing emerged.
So now, it is open insults. Doherty is insulted as being unable to even 'spit' a name and I am a pretender that is so uninformed that I have to read book titles in order to recognize the books!

This infantile mud throwing aside, what is important is that we have seen no substantive response to Doherty's detailed response to A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth. Play in the mud all you want, then after you are through, please shower, clean up and present your reasoned, hard-hitting response to the article.
For that is what this thread is all about. Like they say, every noise and insult is a transitory thing after which the grim silence of facts remains.