EarlDoherty

Well, Steve, if or when I do, you can review it and give us your evaluation. Or you can just accept Ehrman's axioms and evaluate it without reading it, which is the usual procedure, isn't it?

Earl Doherty

avi

Perhaps you intended to write "well-known, purported historical facts"?

Personally, I am unaware of these facts. I do share your intention to "shred" Dr. Ehrman, should he offer such an opportunity, for while I admire Ehrman's obvious skill in writing, I do not accept the myths of the bible as having any historical basis.

I wonder what Ehrman thinks of Paul of Oscoda? As a kid, I used to look up at the lumberman's monument on the Au Sable, and imagine what life must have been like, back in the day....Later, as teenager, instead of studying Greek, as I should have been, I was reading Hemingway's novel about Nick, fishing on the Au Sable.

avi

PhilosopherJay

Hi Earl and Doug,

This clear format Doug suggested would be deeply appreciated.

Unfortunately, we know the historical evidence that will be presented and we know that we will be told to stand ten feet back, lean our heads on our shoulder, and squint at it for us to believe it is good evidence.

As time passes and no new evidence is found, the old evidence looks worse and worse.

When I first looked at the evidence fifteen years ago, I was hopeful that a little more research here, a few more excavations there, and at least something concrete could be shown. However, things have moved in the opposite direction. Bit by bit, good scholarly research comes out which annihilates the old arguments.

If Dr. Ehrman has discovered some new material/method to prove the existence of the historical Jesus, we should cheer him, but if he's peddling the same old "trust me, the evidence is indubitable, line" neither he nor us should bother.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Steven Carr

It seems there is this new verse in Galatians that has been discovered, near the front of it ,according to early press releases.

And somebody has found a 1st century Jew ,who wrote about Jesus, somebody called 'Josephus' (Have I got that right?)

Anyway, I'm sure Bart will clarify.

I wonder how much of Earl Doherty's material will be ignored.

Doug Shaver

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

But . . . therefore, what?

Would you have us believe that the typical historicist feels differently about his own criticisms of mythicist writings?

Juststeve

Doug:

If by historicists you mean the mainstream scholars at major Universities, as far as I can tell they don't bother to criticize the mythicists, so I don't know how they would feel about their nonexistent criticisms. Why they don't bother to criticize is an open question. They may fear the intellectual power of the guy on the internet. They may not want to waste their time addressing the arguments of crackpots. The choice is yours.

Steve

Steven Carr

Good to know that mythicism has not been refuted as it is not even addressed by mainstream scholars.



Are these the same scholars who write books documenting the failure of the Quests to find the Historical Jesus? How many failed Quests to find the Historical Jesus have there been now?

If only these scholars could find one person in the first century who named himself as ever having heard of Judas,Thomas,Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Mary Magdalene,Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene, Barabbas, etc etc

But those people are as elusive as the second gunman who shot JFK.

Juststeve

Steven:

You might ask whether the theory that aliens built the pyramids is unrefuted because mainstream egyptologists haven't bothered to refute it. I would say the answer is no and that some notions are simply self refuting.

In academic circles there is a test of seriousness that an idea must pass before anyone bothers to work on it. Get it published on a peer review journal and then scholars will consider it, support it or attack it. Were it not this way much time would be wasted debunking fringe notions some people believe with great sincerity but which are never the less fringe notions. Consider for examples faith healing, ancient astronauts, hollow earth theories and the real truth behind astrology. How much time do professional scholars spend on those? Jesus was just a myth remains a fringe notion which is not yet deserving of scholarly attention.

Steve

Toto

Thanks in part to the Templeton Foundation, there have been numerous studies recently on faith healing, and I recall some actual research on astrology (you can google the Mars effect.)

The problem is that scholars have ruled out any attention to the historicity of Jesus, whether it supports mythicism or not. The mythical Jesus was at one time discussed in academia, and then was ruled out of order. This is in the process of changing.

Juststeve

Toto:

I'm not sure Templeton of the Templeton prize is much of an argument for you. In their own words "The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. " To be sure they have attempted to affirm the efficacy of faith healing as I would expect any religious organization to do. Not really an effort to debunk faith healing at all although it seems they have contributed to doing so quite by accident.

Perhaps you could cite me to some sources on the discussion of the Jesus was merely a myth in the academy. It would be informative. I would also like to know who you think ruled such discussion out. As far as I know there is no moderator for academic discussion.

Steve