Ahab

There's a huge amount of public interest in the ID/Evolution issue because of all the PR done by ID'ers and the attempt to interfere with the teaching of evolution in high school. The debunking by scientists is done to convince the layperson not to take seriously all that ID PR work.
Even with all that interest and money being thrown around, there is still a very small percentage of scientists who are bothering to debunk ID. Most simply ignore it and continue on with their work.

I'm sure if was required that the mythicist position be taught in a school course that there would be more mainstream scholars taking time to critique it.

Like you, I don't have the scholarly background to get a real good feel for who has the strongest case. On a gut level I tend to favor the mythicist position, whatever that is worth.

Ahab

You've already falsely charged me with accusing "Earl of purchasing his way into an academic journal".
And now you're twistng my words. I said the mythicist's should stick to the same rules other academics use to promote their scholarly work.
You just come across as sore losers with you ad hominem attacks and claims that the establishment is not paying enough attention to you.

Amaleq13

He was correcting someone else's comparison of mythicists to creationists.

You are mistaken. Nothing he has said implies this extreme generalization. He is simply suggesting that we cannot necessarily expect a scholar who has made a religious vow which, in part, asserts the historical existence of Jesus to pursue lines of inquiry that are expected to contradict that assertion.

Do you honestly not understand you are being given a reason why Christian scholars might choose to ignore mythicism that has nothing whatsoever to do with a rational consideration of the evidence? They have taken a religious vow and we should assume it meant something to them to do so, shouldn't we?

Do scientists who study evolution have to take a vow where they declare the tenets of the theory to be certainly and undeniably true? No. And there goes any attempt to draw an analogy between the two topics.

Vorkosigan

"Is it the scholarly norm to pay money in order to get your paper published in a journal?"

that "your" was pretty clear there, unless you are using a form of grammar and convention hitherto unknown.

That's fine, so we're still stuck with your failure to substantiate this claim.

Whatever. Let me know when you have some substantiation for any claims you've made.

Speaking of twisting:

When you called them creationists. When you imply that because they happen to be Christians that their scholarly work is of no value. When you said the following:

As I said, the historicists are the ones who in the historical Jesus vs. mythical Jesus argument, are the ones without a reliable and widely accepted methodology, to cite one of the field's leading thinkers. I never said anything about the work being of no value, as even agenda-driven work can be valuable.

I love the way that though you are unfamiliar with the arguments, you nevertheless are sure that I am wrong in my assessment.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I think what you are seeing is apologists claiming that experts have rejected mythicism, and mythicists trying to explain why that rejection is not good evidence against mythicism. For some reason you interpret this as blaming the mainstream for not accepting mythicism.

I don't think that's how ID'ers act. They do not in fact have a new idea, but they are trying to work their way into the academic system, so they don't yell at people or claim to be smarter.

There are a number of "cranks" on the edge of academic fields who have eventually prevailed and established their case. Sometimes in the course of arguing for their position, they may appear frustrated. This has nothing to do with the truth of their position.

Where do you come up with this?

Scientists present arguments against ID and creationism based on facts, not solely on their authority as scientists.

The Historical Jesus faction has no equivalent to talkorigins.

Vorkosigan

Actually, i haven't "dwelled on that". I raise the issue because too many people yammer about the "consensus" and the "majority of scholars." You hit me with that, and I will respond, as I have, that no valid methodology exists, and that the individuals in the field have a definite agenda. I simply remind them that the majority of scholars are those who have an agenda with respect to the conclusions of the field. In every other case where that is true, the results are discounted accordingly -- for example, climate research from Exxon-funded anti-global warning think tanks, research on sugar from the Sugar Institute or on tobacco from the Tobacco Institute, and so on. We're not working with anything different here, only that for the nonce it is impermissable to point this out with respect to scholarship in the NT. In fact, no one in the aforementioned institutions is oath-sworn to support their conclusions, unlike in the NT studies area.

I also note that as soon as this observation is made the critics become surly and begin launching personal attacks.

Vorkosigan

guy_683930

Ahab,

The differences between JM theory and ID theory must be looked at within a historical context. 250 years ago, almost all western researchers into biology were for all practical purposes IDers. Creationism was the rational mode of thinking until uniformitarianism and evolution by natural selection were discovered. And these ideas were fought over very vigorously, and also derided by church authorities. Evolution by natural selection won the majority of scientists' acceptance by being the best fitting based on evidence. Although evolution contradicts several parts of the bible and also church opinion, it has not proven to be a "death blow" to peoples' beliefs. Also, biology is conducted in a secular setting, allowing for a free exchange of ideas. Constructions of historical Jesus(es), if there was one (or many), or the constructions of mythical Jesus(es), however, is done in a religious setting, usually in the department of religious studies at universities, many of which are religious institutions.

Consider, for a moment, that 2000 years ago there was no historic Jesus whom the epistles were based upon. And consider what it would do to people's beliefs if it were discovered, especially to religious institutions. It reminds me of a saying by Voltaire, "If there were no god, it would be necessary for man to invent one.", likewise, if there were no Jesus, son of god, it would be necessary for man to invent one.

GakuseiDon

How about a reasonable compromise: The guy pays Doherty $5000 to publish several articles in a peer-reviewed format?

There are a few topics that would advance the Mythicists' cause without alerting the oath-makers too much:

1. Minucius Felix was a part of a Christianity that rejected the notion of a crucified man.
2. Justin Martyr's Trypho implied that the Jews believed that Jesus couldn't have been the Christ because he didn't exist
3. Paul/Ascension of Isaiah suggests that Satan crucified Christ
4. Comparisons between descending saviour figures and Christ.

yalla

I get my books on Christianity mainly from libraries. I read them and make rough notes.
I've read about a hundred books or more, most of the major but older scholars and have exhausted the books on this subject available from the public libraries in my area and from 3 university libraries.
So I reckon it's some sort of sample of what's available for a semi-serious amateur.
Here is my point.
With the exception of G.A.Wells, Hyam Macoby and Geza Vermes [?] ALL of the authors I have read:
..are believing Christians
..believe in an HJ as a given
..are Christian academics or leaders in their churches or involved ecclesiastically.

Again, with the exception of Wells, I have not read a book that even mildly examines the MJ position.

Belief in a HJ is an unexamined given.

And I can't purchase Doherty's book in Australia..I tried through 3 major book importers for 6 months.
It's almost enough to make me a conspiracy nut.

rlogan

Toto has the best explanation.


The sneering about "bribing" is irrelevant insofar as the membership "newsletter", as it were, made no claim to the inappropriateness of a donation and instead cited the lack of room and priority for other material. They could turn the donation down if they wanted to.

So the question is merely why are they not interested in Earl's truly bonus material.


The material they find more important to their values is deduced by simply reading the newsletter. I have some trust in what Toto has related to us on that.


Taking on Jesus as a myth begs the question of lies and deceit, striking at the very core of religion's phony "morality". Talk about poking the dragon.



Playing the stupid argumentum ad populum game among the "scholars" who believe in coming back from the dead, walking on water and all the other miracle rubbish is obviously bankrupt.



I find it odd to claim "mythers" are tantamount to "creationists". Because in actual fact, creationists are in charge of many biblical journals. Many biblical journals are not "scholarly" in that sense - and pretending otherwise is just bunk.