spin

The argument based on embarrassment may be pretty standard, but to use it seriously is extremely hard. One cannot simply project their thoughts on embarrassment into the past. One needs to know what is embarrassing to the writer or at least to the intellectual current in which s/he is writing. One cannot just assume something would be embarrassing. Mores change. What's embarrassing to you may not be embarrassing to me. As normally used, embarrassment is pretty hopeless.


spin

Rick Sumner

I am certainly not inclined to sympathize with the criteria of embarassment. I could count on one hand (on one finger, in fact) the number of times I think it stands on its own in leading to a given conclusion, but I certainly wouldn't consider addressing arguments based on it as "stooping," and "following scholarship" would in no way encourage me to do so, as it is quite prevalent in current scholarship. The entire paragraph was nothing more than an ad hoc effort to poison the well in Doherty's favor, having no basis in reality.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

The criterion of embarrassment is not used in any field of research other than New Testament scholarship, and in NT scholarship is favored by Christians who attempt to justify placing some historical value on the gospels.

The criterion of embarrassment is discounted here, in course materials which no historical proponent has ever rebutted:

Brian Trafford is an apologist. The apologists that I read often present their arguments as if they were not faith based, just as a lawyer representing a client will attempt to present an argument that appears to be neutral, but is actually determined by the corporation paying the bills. Apologists describe themselves as apologists - I was not aware that it had such negative implications.

Your contempt for mythicism is well known and does not add anything to the discussion. But even there, there are mythicists who are validly described as "fringe" such as Acharya S. Doherty works very closely with mainstream NT scholarship.

You could have given the full URL. But it is clear that Metacrock uses the term as an insult, and there is no basis for it under any definition of cult.

I keep track of the Jesus Mysteries List, and there are no posters there who adhere to Doherty's arguments in a Fundamentalist fashion. I think that most of the regular posters there would disagree with him on some point or another. Many would probably find him too conservative.

Your attempt to portray anyone who is not convinced of the existence of a historical Jesus as a fringe nut case is getting tired. You are just using it to avoid discussing the issues. If you don't want to discuss the issues, that is your right, but there is no call for disparaging those who do find issues worth discussing.

Rick Sumner

This has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that "following scholarship" leads him to view it as "stooping." That remains exactly what I called it: An ad hoc effort to poison the well.

The arguments in that debate were not apologetics. Despite your categorizing of it as such, the criteria of embarassment is emphatically not apologetic in nature. Deal with the current topic.

If you can't tell the difference between what is an apologetic and what isn't, perhaps you should clear that up before you continue (mis)using the term? Again, the criteria of embarassment may be wrong, that doesn't make it an apologetic.

I've exhibited no contempt for mythicism, in fact, I can't think of an instance where I've done so in well over a year and a half, perhaps even two years. Some mythicists irk me, to be sure, but that's another issue.

Name one mainstream scholar who Doherty works closesly with. Let's use a standard measuring stick: Name one scholar who has published in the JBL in the last ten years who Doherty "works closely with."

It's a fringe theory, that's simply reality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the way it is.

I haven't disparaged anyone, I haven't called anyone a nut, haven't even implied as much. What I said is that 1) There are those who follow Doherty's position religiously (though we could expand that to include "follow mythicism religiously," and it would probably be more apt), and 2) That mythicism is a fringe theory. Both of these are facts.

Quit attributing sentiments to me that I emphatically have not stated. Deal with what is said, not with what you'd like to imagine. This last paragraph is nothing but invective and strawman, and has absolutely nothing to do with the sentiments being expressed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

Toto, addressing Rick, writes:
Rick, old buddy, is this true? I mean, are you convinced of the existence of a historical Jesus? I have solicited Metacrock for the evidence for such a conviction. As he is not forthcoming, perhaps you might care to proffer your wares on the subject. Why should someone be convinced of the existence of a historical Jesus?


spin

Toto

The current topic is why Doherty did not continue the debate with Brian / Nomad. I presented my views of his reasons - that Brian was an apologist using arguments that Doherty did not consider worth his time.

I think that the criterion of embarrassment that Nomad relied on in his argument was apologetic in nature, as he used it, because it is generally unconvincing.

You are free to disagree with that assessment, but that is another topic.

In this very thread you have exhibited contempt by the use of the term "fringe theory".

Correction: scholarship, not scholars.

How do you define "fringe theory?" It is a general term of abuse, with implications of pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. Do you describe Christians who believe that Jesus was divine as fringe theorists? That is certainly a minority position within the academic community.

Apologists describe themselves as apologists, but no one describes themselves as "fringe."



Facts? Where is your evidence.

You have produced no evidence that anyone follows Doherty religiously. There are religious mythicists (e.g., the Theosophists) but your attempt to link Doherty to them or to a religious belief is just an insult to him.

Mythicism is a minority theory, but it is not based on pseudoscience or conspiracy thinkig.

I guess we will just have to disagree about that.

Do you agree that reasonable people can look at the evidence and decide that Doherty is mostly right and that Christianity started without a historical Jesus?

Rick Sumner

I am convinced that it's ultimately a subjective conclusion, in the absence of external means of validation, as I've noted elsewhere more than once.

I've registered www.ahistoricity.com , where I'll tender such arguments in the future. Given my own experience with you, I might be inclined to present some of my arguments for your private perusal prior to their publication therein.

"Convinced of the existence" overstates my conclusions. I think it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. I am convinced that one is on solid enough ground to employ it as a working hypothesis.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

And I noted that that was a matter of opinion. It's you who suggested otherwise. You indicate here that I was correct--it is in fact your opinion. On that note, there is no need for further discussion.

"Unconvincing" is not synonymous with "apologetic in nature." This goes back to my earlier suggestion that you're unclear on what it means.

What I said, actually, was that using the term "fringe theory" in lieu of "mythicist" would be an ad hominem. That doesn't mean it isn't true, just that it isn't appropriate terminology for debate on the matter. Likewise "apologist" is an inappropriate description for arguments that are not apologetic in nature.

Outside of mainstream academia. To use the terminology preferred by the JHC, a "fringe theory" is a theory that is "radical." That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it outside of conventional opinion.

It depends on how they are presenting the argument. It could alternately be a fringe theory, or apologetic, depending on how it is presented.

If I am writing what purports to be a purely historical reconstruction, and in it I conclude that Jesus was the son of God, it is a fringe theory.

See above.

I stated that "cult" was being employed idiomatically. Likewise is "religously." There are people who adhere to Doherty regardless of contrary opinion. For a good example, find a post where our own Ted Hoffman disagrees with Doherty. On anything. I could find dozens where he acclaims him with near religious fever. Likewise until only very recently he acclaimed Freke and Gandy with similar fever, despite the fact that Freke and Gandy do not stand up to even the most cursory analysis. If that's not a cult-like following of Mythicism, I'm not sure what is.

See above for why it is a fact that it is a fringe theory. A theory that exists outside of the realm of mainstream academia.

I certainly never said it was--it was you who attributed such sentiments to me, not me who expressed them. And what a nice strawman it is.

In the main? Certainly. In his entirety? Certainly not.

Since you so emphatically desire to attribute the converse to me, perhaps now you could show me where I have stated--explicitly or implicitly--that it is not a reasonable conclusion to draw? Failing that, I'd appreciate you rescinding the attribution.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I provided you with a link to a course syllabus from a mainstream academic institution that references Doherty. Does this not show that he does not fit your definition of fringe theorist?

And why exactly could a reasonable person not decide based on the evidence that Doherty's theory is the best explanation of early Christian history?

I don't see Ted Hoffman as being religious in his convictions. Perhaps too enthusiastic for your tastes, but as you note, he has changed his mind on F&G, and presumably he would also change his mind on Doherty if sufficient evidence or arguments were presented - which we are still waiting for.

Now here you are reading things in to what I wrote. I asked you explicitly because you were not really clear on the matter - except that "fringe theory" carries the implication to many people that the theory is not taken seriously by reasonable people. But you appear to have your own definition.

spin

This seems to me to be somewhat evasive, Rick. I still don't know if you are convinced or not. I myself am not, though neither am I convinced of the proposition's opposite. You could say I'm agnostic on the matter. To take a position on it one really needs evidence for that position.

Why don't you feed it to the dogs here, for us to rip it apart? Grrrowwlll.

If you are not convinced why do you basically take a position?


spin