jgibson000

In how many university and academic libraries in America and England, let alone around the wold, do you find the JHC? In how many of the standard indexing and abstracting journals and data basis (ATLA, RS, NTA, EPHL, etc.) do you find this journal referenced?

Not if his present publication record is any indication of anything. There's noting from him in the area in which he has (for years now) been writing his doctoral dissertation in any non vanity press, peer reviewed Classics or Ancient History Journals.

I think you are backing the wrong horse.

And what log jam?

JG

Gregg

Was it you, or was it Ben C. Smith, who said that I should clarify which Jesus Myth theory I follow, because Jesus Mythicism is a huge field (although, as I countered, not as huge as Jesus Historicism)? Do you just assume that all MJ theories are created equal or that MJ theories from a hundred years ago are identical to MJ theories today? Doherty himself points out that the earlier MJ theories had problems.

Malachi151

I never said that they did. But it is nevertheless impossible not to read Gospel ideas into the Pauline letters if you read the Bible in the order that it is written, even if you know that the Gospels were written after the Pauline letters.

Zeichman

You're working within a paradigm that suggests that the supernatural claims of Christianity cannot be divorced from the "historical" claims within the Bible. This is quite a straw man you've set up. Why cannot one, for example, deny the virginal conception, fleshly resurrection, temple event, or even everything in the gospels and nontheless declare him or herself to be Christian? Your assumption that history and faith are inherently related only lends credence to the fundamentalist paradigm which has been rendered moot long ago. Chris Weimer, despite frequent mis-assumptions otherwise, is not religious, let alone Christian. I don't think I've said anything in this thread or others recently that clearly indicate my confessional bias, unless explicitly stated.

The fact is, you can't credibly assess the Biblical tradition if you're working from far-from-perfect translations, especially when it comes to grammar-intense issues like the synoptic problem, where translations often hinder attempts to solve the problem. Again, this exaltation of ignorance ranks alongside creationists and anti-intellectual fundamentalists. I would have expected the opposite from this forum.

Gregg

The recent symposium on MJ theories sponsored by, I think, the Council for Secular Humanism might have given the field a boost. Increasing awareness of Doherty's work might encourage some scholars to take another look themselves and challenge the consensus.

I know he was on the fence up until a year or two ago, but a while back someone linked to a post of his (no longer have the link) in which he stated he was no longer an agnostic on the issue. I haven't heard that he's retracted this statement.

Malachi151

May be, it's not a something that I follow.

Here is just an example though. I often see people of all stripes, including academics, say that Paul was converted on the rode to Damascus.

WTF?

No he wasn't. This is what the book of Acts says, but there is no reason to put any stock in this claim.

Here is another example from James Tabor, which was posted here from the Discovery Channel forums:

This too me looks like a totally absurd and stupid question, at least in the way that Tabor puts it. His statement clearly reflects the idea that this event in Mark is a recounting of some real historical event. He is treating this as though GMark is an eyewitness account or based on a real account. He implies that maybe this person is "the son of Jesus"!

Oh boy, how lame is this so called scholarship?

It took me about 10 seconds to come up with what I think is a much better explanation:

The "naked person" is just the author of Mark completing his reference to the scriptures.

I've put my view of the Gospel of Mark to the test many times, and so far it has always come through, yet I see no one else taking this view.

My view is that Mark is fiction based on the scriptures. Virtually every detail of Mark can be explained by going back to the Old Testament and looking for referring key words that tie into old passages. There is nothing historical to Mark at all, the whole thing is fabricated using the OT as the template.

Sorry, but anyone treating the Gospels as history is a fool in my opinion.

jgibson000

It is? Compared to what? How huge is huge?

Does it make itself apparent beyond the internet? Does it, if and when it sees print, appear in anything besides vanity press publications?

Is it advocated and advanced by people who actually have scholarly qualifications and solid expertise in and familiarity with the primary sources they examine, as well as with the relevant secondary scholarly literature on ancient history and religious beliefs, and who are not dillitants and sensationalists who are familiar with the materials they discuss only in translation, and who rely on outdated and discredited history of religions school materials, all the while unaware of how bad their sources are? If so, how many of these people are they and what have they published?

I'd be grateful for an answer.

JG

Chris Weimer

That's preposterous. How do you know it's impossible?

Chris Weimer

I'm neither theist, nor Christian, nor Communist. Where does that put me?

2300 years ago, Aristotle "reasoned" that a heavier object will fall faster than a "lighter" object. Reason can be misleading if you don't know how to use it properly.

Zeichman

Then why do you comment about it so strongly? This is irresponsible, to say the least. I have strong opinions on the war on Iraq, but I don't voice them (ever) because I know I'm not as well informed as I should be. Reservation is not a bad thing.

Your example of prooftexting is an unconvincing method to follow. Without getting into the specifics of this particular example, I will note the following: If given a few months, I'm sure that I could find parallels to to every major and minor event in my life in the Hebrew Bible, as you doubtless could too. To suggest that it means that my life was ahistorical, or that every event that I found a parallel to was unhistorical would be silly. Simply adducing parallels does not indicate dependence, as almost any credible scholar would tell you. To draw a dichotomy between MJ and Tabor's scholarship is a false dilemma, as there are many other options which are available and generally accepted. Additionally, how can you assess the quality of scholarship if you don't even attempt to keep up with what is going on? It would seem impossible to do so.