outhouse

its OK Earl

Like you I dont have a scholarship and i'm not a historian either.






I really doubt you could get past my arguements anyway concerning the historicity of jesus

outhouse

Thanks, this is a fascinating subject, and like a sponge, im soaking up what I can.

outhouse

define anti-mythicist


I mean I see paul as mythology, and the gospels as mythology, with a historical core

there are people that see this differently? being hellenistic traditions are exactly simular.

stephan huller

anti-mythicism = against people who argue that Jesus is a supernatural being or a figure from a myth.

stephan huller

spin is a great scholar and you can see how intelligent and well-read he really is by looking at the archives (especially in the 'golden age' of the forum 2004 - 2006 when a lot of intelligent people used to come here). He basically assumes an agnostic position on almost every issue and used to spend time (= when he used to think there were actually people worth engaging here) asking members to prove the dating of Paul, prove anything that was generally assumed to be true. Typically the intelligent defenders of orthodoxy (Andrew Criddle, Stephen Carlson) would take up his challenge and there were some remarkable exchanges. Really wonderful to see.

spin really has no weaknesses as a scholar as far as I can see. He is very comfortable in what is a defensive posture - i.e. defying people to prove their assertions. The only person that was ever his match was Stephen Carlson. You sense a growing respect for Carlson as a scholar (even though at this time Carlson was not a 'professional' scholar in any sense of the word). The pairing of spin and Carlson is almost as peculiar as Ehrman and Carlson - save only for the fact that both share a love of learning.

Iskander

Everybody is very comfortable asking ( defying) people to prove their ‘assertions’. This is an example of unintelligent praise

stephan huller

most of the posters here have something to prove. it's a different degree of sophistication to set up the kind of theoretical abstractions that spin used to set up for the apologists. but he's rarely saying anything. there is carefully crafted obscurity. even the usual drone about the titular and non-titular use of lord. its not really a position per se. he, like ehrman doesn't really have a position. he's just constantly jabbing behind the defensive posturing of agnosticism. what does ehrman really believe? I'm reading DJE and i dont even believe ehrman accepts the historicity of jesus. he just enjoys hurting people.

At the very beginning of the book he goes out of his way to say to believers - I am not against Christians, just evangelicals. So this is his effort to pick on a new group. Even J P Holding is telling his followers to go along with Ehrman on this one.

outhouse

of course he is mythical.


but like many myths, a historical core can exist

DCHindley

During a period when I quit Crosstalk for a while (around 2003) I think I looked here, but really didn't find the atmosphere to my liking and apparently never joined. Looks like I missed the heyday (2004-2006). Crosstalk's heyday was 1996-2002 or so. Uncivil tone was rising, and many scholars resented mixing with the great unwashed (amateurs) because of our stoopid questions. I know I used to push, perhaps too insistently, requests for insight into their methodology or critical philosophies, only to find they often really didn't have any.

Spin is good. He is well informed and knows exactly what he is speaking about. I once called his style "highly nuanced" because most of the time I knew exactly what he was referring to, as I too am a stickler for little details most overlook. Unfortunately, some took it as a put down of them for not picking up on the nuances. He and I hardly agree in anything, but he sure can return a volley, so I like it when he posts, although he can goad people just for the sake of it. Whether he has any formal education in this field (I'm pretty sure he is a college grad, though) I don't know, but my guess is that he is pretty much self taught about biblical studies, speaks Italian fluently enough to live there, and knows enough Greek and Latin to be dangerous.

Andrew too knows a great many facts that most of us haven't considered, and can dig up the most obscure sources. I am not really sure about his educational background, although he does know Greek and is damn good with analysis and statistics. I believe he has connection with the book publishing business, but all I really know is that he "indexed" some scholarly monographs, and written some very in-depth analyses of events current in biblical studies.

Stephen Carlson, while undoubtedly bright as a new penny, has long had a tendency to interpret his data to support his existing predispositions. While developing his "1,488 Viable Synoptic Theories," he defined 'viable' as meaning 'ones I agree could have happened.' As a Q skeptic, he even wanted to throw out any hypothesis that required hypothetical documents (such as Q), but several folks (me included) urged him to deal with them nonetheless, and to his credit he did consider them.

I liked Ben Smith as well. Had a background in Classics and could slice and dice texts like a "samauri" chef cuts and serves up your food at a Japanese teppanyaki steak house. I always thought he tended to the conservative side, but he recently admitted to me he was a closet atheist. Too bad he has decided to turn to other things, a great loss here. No, he's not coming back, I think the constant bickering and sniping here really rubbed him the wrong way.

You, Stephan, are also smart and in many ways spot on (especially the Morton Smith thing). However, you take way too many tangential trips and rants that make some of us wonder about your sanity.

Then there were the "dilettantes" who used to post here. You know, the wags who pretended to be persons with an amateur interest in biblical criticism, but who were really those who made the claim without real commitment or knowledge. They and some actual grad students who also frequented this site were quick to jump on the bandwagon with Crossan, Sanders, Meier, Mack or whoever was hot in the Context Group (especially Philip F. Esler, Douglas E. Oakman, K.C. Hanson, John S. Kloppenborg, John J. Pilch & Richard L. Rohrbaugh), whenever they came out with a new book, citing them like scripture. Don't get me wrong, I like Kloppenborg, but the rest I am not so sure of - it's like they have something to prove, and prove it they do by hook or crook (no pun on Zeba Crook's name intended, I swear :melodramatic.

Despite that, the discussions were in fact very lively, especially on Crosstalk2 (XTalk) and Ioudaios discussion lists in them years long gone. If that was the norm here, I guess I missed out.

What's happened to FRDB (beside the name change)? The Admin recently made a post to advise we had a new updated TOS on account of a number of problems, including too many appeals to authority rather than actual rational discussion of underlying issues. The post was perhaps a bit over the top, and I cannot now find it, but it was true.

It would be nice to return to discussion of issues by folks who pay attention to the little details (there I go again), but maybe I am a dinosaur. Imagine, posting using our own real names because we weren't going to say anything that would get us fired. Silly boys.

DCH (yeah, I can rant too)

LegionOnomaMoi

Certainly not when he's writing a book intended for the public and for sales. But have you read, for example, his article from Journal of Early Christian Studies on Secret Mark ("Response to Charles Hedrick's Stalemate")?