Jeffrey Gibson

To be precise, it is in an endnote (#31) to the Introduction to the Prometheus Books 2006 edition (or via: amazon.co.uk) of Gougel's 1926 work Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History ...

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

Thanks, Jeffrey and Toto.

Toto

Note that except for Doherty, all of those mentioned have PhD's and academic tenure. Carrier did not list as fringe Acharya S, mountainman, Joe Atwill, or others. There must be a different category for these people.

youngalexander

From Carrier's Blogspot Comments
and later
It is this approach which first attracted me to Carrier's aguments, and thus to his forthcoming book 'On the Historicity of Jesus Christ', which I am vary much looking forward to. How feasible it is to employ such a schema in historical research is beyond my competence to assess, altho Carrier seems quite confident and I have never encountered any objections from any other knowledgeable cove.

As a scientist I find this approach immediately appealing since it promises to provide a convergence of results towards a conclusion, rather than the current plethora of Jesi. The devil no doubt will be in the detail. As in 'only facts actually agreed upon' and so forth. I also wonder if the ostensible rigor of such a methodology might not prove to be an artifact? Nevertheless, as Carrier quips "Well, you never know 'til ya try."

wordy

thanks for the links to Carrier and so on

Toto

So a Chili post clinches the case for a split. It's here.

Toto

More press coverage - CFI's latest update takes some satisfaction in claiming New Quest for Historical Jesus Draws Skeptics, Scholars

(But read the comments if you think this is favorable coverage.)

Why can't we ask if Jesus existed?

EarlDoherty

"This referring, of course, to my post questioning the Project for seeming to be avoiding a direct grappling with mythicism, which Jeffrey will keep throwing in my face (and everyone else's) at every opportunity.

As for Carrier's quote, this is Carrier's opinion. We don't know what it's based on. Perhaps his own expectation, or hope. Price's comment (regardless of whether I took the wrong nuance) would certainly belie Carrier's optimism. However, I do hope that he is right. I guess we'll see.

(And perhaps my own sentiments expressed here--which Jeffrey has done his best to disseminate from here to Mongolia--will actually help to bring that about, who knows?)

As for Hoffmann's comment, you can find it on Wikipedia:

Now, what did he mean by this? What has been written on the subject "so far"? G. A. Wells? Freke and Gandy, Acharya? Prior to that, one would have to go back to Couchoud in the 1920s to find a competent presentation of the mythicist theory (and a great one it was, possibly the best ever, though if I have any advantage over him and others of his era it is of course because I benefit from several more decades of invaluable NT research). Is he comparing me to out-of-date works almost a century old? Elsewhere (though I don't recall where I read it) he seems to have made the remark that I was a "pupil" of Wells and had essentially simply copied him. Anyone who knows my book and website knows that this is ridiculous, since I differ dramatically from Wells on a couple of key points--which, by the way, suggests to me that he didn't actually read my book. If he had, he could never have made such a comment.

(I should add the comment that I do not put Wells in the same category as Freke and Gandy and Acharya. We owe a lot to Wells, and I have acknowledged that. However, I think my case is stronger than Wells' and has been organized more effectively. Hoffmann, I get the impression, is a great admirer of Wells.)

One might also wonder why, if it is so inferior, The Jesus Puzzle has made such an impact around the world (Korean, Spanish, Portuguese, German translations), website translations in three Scandinavian languages, etc., and of course the very fine and appreciated endorsement by Robert Price. And while many who have responded positively to my book and website are not professionals, let's not think that the average layman is a simple idiot who can't tell quality from junk.

But above all, there's the clincher. The fact that Jeffrey Gibson takes the trouble to haunt the halls of IIDB (oops, I guess that's FRDB now) seemingly every waking moment of his day, no doubt neglecting family, friends and teaching responsibilities, seeking every opportunity to discredit me and my views. That kind of dedication is usually not found expended in opposition to a piece of low quality garbage.

(Hmmm....Gee, I wonder who might have added that Hoffmann comment to Wikipedia?)

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Earl, I've highlighted some quotes from your post, for my point below:
It isn't a question of intelligence. The average layman often doesn't possess the tools to evaluate the information that they are receiving. That's why they often can't tell quality from junk. I sincerely hope that the Jesus Project does look into mythicist theories, including yours, especially since I have actually looked into the evidence you have provided (unlike most of your supporters IMHO) and come up with my own conclusions.

But the issue here is, WHICH mythicist theories should the Jesus Project be grappling with?

This comment of yours is displayed on Acharya S's website. It is from your review of her "Christ Conspiracy":

"Exciting and provocative... Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion."

Should the Jesus Project be examining Acharya S's astrotheology theories on the origin of Christianity, in your opinion? If so, how should it be brought up to them? Should Hoffman or Price or Zindler or someone else review her (popularly published) work? Or is it fair enough for it to be ignored?

What's the best way for the Jesus Project to proceed with respect to Acharya S's theory?

I'm not hiding that I am drawing a parallel here between how her ideas should be treated by the Jesus Project, and how you would expect your ideas to be treated. Many laymen think that Acharya S is a genius, and are undoubtedly convinced that the Jesus Project should take her ideas into consideration. If the Project doesn't, I have no doubt that her supporters will cry foul. But would that be a reasonable response? How would you expect the Jesus Project to grapple with the ideas in her (popularly published) books?

Steven Carr

It appears that the Jesus Project is not considering any theories at all.

It is considering data.

This is how it should be, shouldn't it?