EarlDoherty

How would you know? Have you read my books?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Seriously addressed? What planet are you living on?

Have you ever read my website article "Alleged Refutations of Jesus Mythicism" which examines every major scholarly attack against mythicism in the 20th century (1912 to 2000). The most highly regarded response (in the 1920s) was that of Maurice Goguel, and he REFUSED point blank to directly respond to the mythicist case of his day. He maintained that it was sufficient to 'prove' that the evidence shows that Jesus existed. (Josephus, Tacitus, brother of the Lord, blah blah blah.) The same old stuff even the mythicism of his own day had discredited. And how would he know, or hsi readers know? He refused to address it!

The rest of the lot was pathetic. Shirley Case in 1912 based his rebuttal on lamenting the rejection by modern scholarly trends of disallowing an acceptance of the supernatural in the Gospels!

Robert Van Voorst's book (Jesus Outside the Gospels, 2000) was shot through with fallacious reasoning, and downright sneaky conclusions which his own examination of the evidence has just tended to disprove, and so on. The odd smaller book here and there through the course of the century did little but repeat the same mantras against mythicism.

By contrast, Paul-Louis Couchoud's Creation of Christ (1922 I think) was a masterpiece of scholarship and logical deduction. Wells' books, though flawed in some ways, were models of good reasoning. My own books have been called the most convincing presention of the mythicist case in the last generation.

So typical. Pontificating from a position of ignorance.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

This shows the state of historicist grappling with mythicist arguments...

1) Historicists: "Brother of the Lord" can only mean one thing, the plain meaning of brother, which is sibling.

2) Mythicist counter-argument: My own book has several pages of argument that it can mean something else entirely, with here the evidence in the texts to lead us in that direction; the epistles of James and Jude fail to identify anyone as a sibling of Jesus; here is why Paul could have felt the need to identify James as a member of the sect, etc., etc.

3) Historicist counter-counter-argument: "Brother of the Lord" can only mean one thing, the plain meaning of brother, which is sibling.

(Maybe Ehrman has given us a little more in regard to No. 3, I certainly hope so. I'll be tackling that very chapter in his book next.)

You call it "explaining away" which is an admission that there is argument being presented. Why, then, is attention not given to addressing and dealing with, and, hopefully, doing your own 'explaining' of why the mythicist arguments are invalid or have no force, rather than simply dismissing it as "explaining away"? What's the point of making an irrelevant 'comparison' with Aristotle? Does that do anything to disprove the mythicist position on the matter?

Earl Doherty

LegionOnomaMoi

Wrong. Either your knowledge of historical methodology is so lacking and or faulty that you lack the capacity to understand what I said, or your just treading water to avoid drowning.

I don't need to fall back on anything. I have history. Whatever epistomological bullshit you qualify as adequate means nothing to me or anyone other than pseudo-historians.


Probability is all we have for history period. It holds true for the historical Jesus as much as it does for any historical reconstruction. Hell, it's all we have for most of science as well. But given your limited interaction with disciplines within the humanities, I can hardly expect you to be familiar with the sciences.

How pathetic. It's the best explanation of the evidence that matters.

Them or you? Are you having trouble following you own convoluted arguments? Or understanding the intellectual and cultural background behind them? You can throw out a name behind a particular sociological theory, but the context of said theory causes you problems?
I'm still waiting for the evidence behind your claims. Your argument is nothing more than "It's a hegemony, and I can show this because you deny it is. Also, a hegemony is really complicated, so I can't pin it down. You just have to accept it and if you don't, then you are just part of it." Very convincing.

When you have some knowledge of linguistic theory, including construction grammar, get back to me. Until then, I expect you will continue to avoid the issue because of your ignorance.

I've consulted with experts in hellenistic greek, I have a background in linguistics, and you have....what exactly? What is your basis for refuting an argument based on a construction grammar approach? Is it Gramsci again?

aa5874

There is NO evidence that Galatians was written in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Please, why waste time arguing about Galatians 1.19 when the veracity of and historical accuracy of the Pauline writer has NOT ever been established???

The Galatians writer made claims about Jesus that MUST be or most likely was FALSE.

The Galatians writer claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead. The Claim is FALSE.

What else is FALSE in Galatians???

You cannot continue to PRESUME the Pauline writings are credible while you simultaneously claim there are interpolations in the same supposed authentic letters.

Who wrote Galatians 1.19??? When was Galatians 1.19 written??? It is EXTREMELY important that it is known when Galatians was written.

The DATED Pauline writings are NOT from the 1st century.

We cannot continue to be wasting precious time using PRESUMPTIONS, and UNRELIABLE sources for history.

LegionOnomaMoi

Thank you for so adequately proving my point. "Website article"? That's the basis for your "hegemony"? What happens on the internet? Tell me something: You're well read, you've studied this for years, etc. How do you access the journals which deal with greco-roman studies, historical jesus studies, early christian studies, etc.? Because as with Spin, it sounds as if your conception of the debate is based on what happens online.

Most highly regarded by whom? Schweitzer included a response in his later edition. More importantly, what is your basis for comparison? That is, given that the historical figure of Jesus is shrouded behind christian myth, how do you seperate any historical figure from the cloud of myth, rumor, tradition, etc., present in every single ancient account. Or do you write them all off?
And you take that as a compliment?

LegionOnomaMoi

I read your book and the special pleading with respect to James. As I said to Spin (with whom I tried to demonstrate using an argument from linguistics about this), I've written to an expert on Greek during this period about my intention (and the probability that I'm right) to publish a study on identification constructions using the XYZ-construction as applied to hellenistic/koine Greek. But quite apart from such arguments, your treatment of James within Josephus, the NT, and Paul is almost as convincing as Bauckham's argument that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Almost.

Vorkosigan

Earl, can't you see? If you really want to do research on this topic, you need to send an email to an expert saying you intend to publish a paper. That's how a real scholar like LOM does it.

Vorkosigan

Will Wiley

Yes, Earl needs you to comfort him I think. He's not doing too well on his own.
Do you have anything of substance to add though?

Vorkosigan

Naw, I'm just following in your tradition of flying overhead and leaving a few stinking droppings. You've been an inspiring example!

Earl's doing just fine. LOM is well beyond the point of argument and is flailing around irrationally trying to hurt. Perhaps he needs to take a break from this thread.

Vorkosigan