Jeffrey Gibson

Or not. Why don't you find out for yourself? And in addition, you may want to look at how Price's mythicist views are evaluated by Crossan, and Dunn, and L.T. Johnson in Jesus: Five Views.

But I note that you didn't answer my question regarding whether you think "Ktotwf's" actually knows what he's talking about or whether he (she?) is laying claim to knowledge he (?) doesn't possess? Do you think he/she has read Schweitzer, et al?

Will you do me the kindness of doing so?

Jeffrey

dog-on

I haven't read "Jesus:Five Views", I'll pick up the book.

Regarding what another poster has or hasn't read, I suppose you could ask them.

Toto

Ktotwf's comment was spot on, in the sense that the only argument that has been presented in this forum against mythicism is that no serious scholar believes it.

But when one asks WHY no serious scholar believes it, one is typically referred to some other work, and after chasing footnotes and searching, it turns out that there is no there there.

The Five Views book was discussed here, for reference. Was there something in that book that impressed you?

gurugeorge

IIRC Doherty himself pursues this in one of his online essays - he digs into some typically high-handed dismissals of mythicism in modern scholars via references to previous scholars who are supposed to have dealt with the matter sufficiently, and notes the smoke and mirrors.

Ah, here it is (and the 2 essays following).

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of whether your characterization of what's gone on on this forum is accurate, it's hardly the case that those of whom "Ktowft '" was speaking are only those who have posted on this forum, is it.

Really? Are you speaking from first hand knowledge of what is an is not in the works that one is "typically" referred to? Can you please cite the works that "one" is typically referred to and that you yourself have searched only to find the results that you describe above?

Leaving aside the fact (easily seen when the thread you refer to is reviewed) that what was actually discussed here was things that appeared in a blog review of the book and not the book itself, I note that the issue is not whether I was impressed by something said in the book, but whether those who responded to Price said nothing more than that "no serious scholar believes the mythicist case".

I take it you haven't read the book, let alone all that Crossan, Bock, Johnson & Dunn said there in response to Price's essay, and that your actual familiarity with it is at one remove.

Jeffrey

Toto

Hi Jeffrey - I have pursued this issue for too long. I think you even emailed me some articles that were supposed to be the basis of the anti-mythicist case, which turned out to be Shirley Case's work.

The main argument we get in this forum is that all experts agree that Jesus was a historical figure, so who are you to disagree with the experts? Check out the current thread by ercatli, and see if you can find anything else there.

It seems that these experts agree that there must be some history that can be recovered from the gospels. But then, there is no basis for this "expert" opinion, other than some handwaving about embarrassment or dissimilarity which doesn't hold up under examination. And no one can explain why there are no other historians who think they can extract history from religious documents or who feel the need to.

And then there's the personal incredulity bit, and how could the gospels be pure invention.

I have to assume that if there were any good arguments for Jesus' existence, someone would have mentioned them, instead of implying that there might be something if I read another book on the subject.

So put your cards on the table. Have you read the Five Views book? Does it say anything new? Do you have a coherent argument for the existence of Jesus, or do you just want to challenge other people's arguments against the existence of Jesus?

Jeffrey Gibson

I didn't ask you about how long you have pursued the issue. I asked you cite the works that, according to you, "one" is typically referred to to see why no serious scholar believes the mythicist casei, but which, when examined, do not actually tell you why they do.

The issue then as I recall was not whose work they were, but whether anyone had ever mounted a case (good or bad) against the arguments of mythicists.


The issue wasn't whether there were good arguments for Jesus existence, (and given your apriorii and your lack of training in matters ancient history and NT, you are hardly the best person to evaluate what is and isn't a good argument), but (a) whether the only argument that was ever mounted against the mythicist case was the "argument" that "Well, no serious scholar believes [the Mythicist case]" and (b) the validity of your claim that when one examines the places where people "typically" claim scholars say why they don't take the mythicist case seriously, one usually finds that such arguments are not really there.

I note with interest not only that you've ignored those issues-- and have done so by changing the subject -- but that you haven't cited the works you claim do not show what they are supposed to so.

You've also not answerd my question about whether your claim in this regard stems from your first hand acquaintance with the works in question.

How interesting. The question was whether you have read it and whether you could tell me that the scholars who respond to Price do what "Ktotwf'" claims they do, namely, say nothing more than "Well, no serious scholar believes [the Mythicist case]."

In case you haven't noticed, the only thing I've been intent to challenge here is the validity "Ktotwf's" claim that " The only argument every [sic] presented to counter the Mythicist hypothesis is, "Well, no serious scholar believes it!"" and his imp;lied assertion that on this point he knows what he is talking about .


Jeffrey

neilgodfrey

Jeffrey once pointed me to a page of dot-points in an old volume by F.F. Bruce to "refute" Doherty's discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum. I have never seen any evidence from Jeffrey that he has even read the arguments he claims have been so thoroughly refuted.

Neil

Toto

You're right, I haven't cited any works. And I'm not going to. It's just my experience, which you devalue anyway.

You'll have to guess.

So you want to insert a few assumptions into K's fairly casual remark, and drag the whole thread off topic to discuss your challenge? No thank you.

I thought it was clear that he was talking about this forum, and not the entire universe of discourse. And I know from personal experience that his statement is true for this forum.

Jeffrey Gibson

No, there have not been to my knowledge.

Good god -- are you capable or accurate reading? Where did I make any such claim about Eddy and Boyd?

What I noted was that books that get reviewed in journals are books that have been sent to the book review editors of journals. Academic presses see that this gets done with the books they publish. The type of press through which Earl has published his book -- a vanity press -- does not ordinarily do so. These presses leave it to the authors of the books they publish to see that books published through them get sent to journals for review.

To my knowledge, Earl never sent his book to any review editor of any peer reviewed journal. And since he has not done so, he bears the primary responsibility for there being no reviews of his book in peer reviewed journals.

Jeffrey