2 of 2
2
New Mythacist literature being published in response to Ehrman
Posted: 04 April 2013 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2888
Joined  2011-08-15

It’s obvious that you’re lying because I posted several criticisms that were not just “egregious attacks and name calling by his critics” that are just “nitpicking.” You also have claimed to have read the responses, yet I have and come away with a different conclusion than you do. That says that either we are not reading the same critics or you’re just lying to save face. Considering you have shown several times your ignorance on the subject I am inclined it’s the latter than the former. Simply own up to the fact that you have not read the criticisms of Ehrman’s work and just commit to reevaluating your own position. What’s so hard about that?

And because I don’t completely agree with your contention as expressed by your mythicist champion Doherty I’m somehow lying? Yes, I read his comments on Vridar. You didn’t have to post them but while we’re at it here’s one from Ehrman as a partial refutation of both Carrier and Doherty:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

It was never my intent to get into a pissing contest between two bible scholars,but let’s suffice it to say that from MY research including books and references from the Jesus Seminar the Quelle, The L Gospel, Josephus, studies of the Roman Empire, of the Greek influence on literature from that era and the newest Debate in the five views of Jesus’s existence, I am convinced at this time that there was an historical Jesus. Likewise I see a trend dating from scholarly works over the last thirty years that there is indeed a humanist agenda as refuted by Doherty and this motivates their desire to discount an historical Jesus. I’ve also read many peer reviewed papers on historical topics but few as sanguine as this topic which leads me to believe that indeed there is an agenda driving the mythicists. Now here’s the dichotomy, as an atheist and a secular humanist I do however agree with Doherty’s claim concerning the harm that religion has historically been done in the name of Jesus. On that point I’m definitely with him. Oh, and BTW, I never lie to save face. What would be the point? If my conclusions are wrong I’ll freely admit it and change my stance as I have on the nature/nurture argument. I will
admit however that I haven’t read Doherty’s book. There, you caught me! I will however, and Price’s also. I have listened to Price’s podcast on the Human Bible however. I did post that I’m no bible scholar and have no intentions of ever pursuing that line as my interest lies in other fields of historical research but you’ve piqued my curiosity. I’ll get back to you after downloading both books.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2013 05:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2012-12-10
Thevillageatheist - 04 April 2013 08:12 AM

And because I don’t completely agree with your contention as expressed by your mythicist champion Doherty I’m somehow lying?

No, you’re lying because you’re attempting to downplay the significance of the criticism that Ehrman has recieved by Mythacists and I have been able to show you time and time again why the criticisms are more significant as you seem to be letting on. By the way, I am not a mythacist as you seem to be implying but then again you would have to have paid attention to my original post where I declare flat out that I am not one.

Thevillageatheist - 04 April 2013 08:12 AM

Yes, I read his comments on Vridar.

It was a full blown article, not a comment on a blog. Did you even look at the link I gave you?

Thevillageatheist - 04 April 2013 08:12 AM

You didn’t have to post them but while we’re at it here’s one from Ehrman as a partial refutation of both Carrier and Doherty:

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

It’s interesting that you bring this up because in the instance where he starts talking about Doherty, I find the response to be nothing more than hand waving and moving the goal with his criticism… even with this little gem here:

I was urging that Doherty should come clean and inform his readers in clear terms that even though he quotes scholars on one issue or another, not a single one of these scholars (or indeed, any recognized scholar in the field of scholarship that he is addressing) agrees with the radical thesis of his book.

Not only does Doherty do this at the very beginning of his book… but he actually does this several times which indicates to me that Ehrman never read the damn thing. That being said however, the original accusation I gave towards Ehrman was about how he sloppily misquotes Doherty to say something he never said to begin with, the article you gave does not answer any of that criticism, so I suppose at this point you’re just acting as an apologist for Ehrman.

Thevillageatheist - 04 April 2013 08:12 AM

It was never my intent to get into a pissing contest between two bible scholars,but let’s suffice it to say that from MY research including books and references from the Jesus Seminar the Quelle, The L Gospel, Josephus, studies of the Roman Empire, of the Greek influence on literature from that era and the newest Debate in the five views of Jesus’s existence, I am convinced at this time that there was an historical Jesus. Likewise I see a trend dating from scholarly works over the last thirty years that there is indeed a humanist agenda as refuted by Doherty and this motivates their desire to discount an historical Jesus. I’ve also read many peer reviewed papers on historical topics but few as sanguine as this topic which leads me to believe that indeed there is an agenda driving the mythicists. Now here’s the dichotomy, as an atheist and a secular humanist I do however agree with Doherty’s claim concerning the harm that religion has historically been done in the name of Jesus. On that point I’m definitely with him. Oh, and BTW, I never lie to save face. What would be the point? If my conclusions are wrong I’ll freely admit it and change my stance as I have on the nature/nurture argument. I will admit however that I haven’t read Doherty’s book. There, you caught me! I will however, and Price’s also. I have listened to Price’s podcast on the Human Bible however. I did post that I’m no bible scholar and have no intentions of ever pursuing that line as my interest lies in other fields of historical research but you’ve piqued my curiosity. I’ll get back to you after downloading both books.

I do agree with much of what you say here with the exception of agenda driven mythacists being a mixed bag. To my knowledge Doherty’s books are not agenda driven and neither are Price’s, Carrier’s and Wells’ previous work on the subject. It is clear that Murdock’s work is agenda driven that much is for certain but she has mostly abandoned such an issue when it came to her work in Christ in Egypt and she must have made substantial in-roads to get an article of her’s featured in anthology book about the goddess Anahita (Anahita: Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata) featured alongside some of the most prominent scholars of mythology, occultism and archaeology regarding this specific goddess.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2013 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2888
Joined  2011-08-15

No, you’re lying because you’re attempting to downplay the significance of the criticism that Ehrman has recieved by Mythacists and I have been able to show you time and time again why the criticisms are more significant as you seem to be letting on. By the way, I am not a mythacist as you seem to be implying but then again you would have to have paid attention to my original post where I declare flat out that I am not one

Foaming at the mouth again Mr. Maier. If you want to engage someone in a meaningful conversation then dial down the rhetoric. At no time did I accuse YOU personally of being a liar because I disagreed with your contention, nor did I call you a mythicist: I specifically stated that you “champion” Prof. Doherty’s contention that Ehrman’s conclusions were flawed, so yes I paid attention to your posts.

It was a full blown article, not a comment on a blog. Did you even look at the link I gave you?

Yes, all of them and read the Jesus puzzle article where I found your post BTW.

 

I do agree with much of what you say here with the exception of agenda driven mythacists being a mixed bag. To my knowledge Doherty’s books are not agenda driven and neither are Price’s, Carrier’s and Wells’ previous work on the subject. It is clear that Murdock’s work is agenda driven that much is for certain but she has mostly abandoned such an issue when it came to her work in Christ in Egypt and she must have made substantial in-roads to get an article of her’s featured in anthology book about the goddess Anahita (Anahita: Ancient Persian Goddess and Zoroastrian Yazata) featured alongside some of the most prominent scholars of mythology, occultism and archaeology regarding this specific goddess.


I’m not going to bother responding to the quotes above this one as Ehrman can speak for himself and as I stated in my post, (did you read it?) I rely strictly on the research and mine is one sided at this time. I haven’t delved into the mythicist material as yet. As stated before, I’ll withhold judgement and further comments UNTIL I have read Professor Doherty’s and Prices and Carrier’s works. Blogs, reviews, and scholarly papers aside, I’ll read the books and their references first. Also, I believe we’re aiming at two different targets, mine is anti-mythicist derived from the research I’ve done and posted a few of the books and material I read, while your posts aim at Ehrman’s “flawed” research and attacks on Doherty. My siding with Ehrman comes essentially from my anti-mythicist stance while yours appears to be focused only on Ehrman. At this stage, I’m more interested in learning what lies behind Doherty’s contention of the jesus myth than his attack on another scholar. And as to their books being agenda driven, I’ll make that judgement myself after I read the books. And as I mentioned before, I’m no bible scholar and my interest in this subject is basically how xtianity has impacted history, not the nuts and bolts of the religion itself. Bronze age beliefs are fascinating and give insight into the thought processes of prescientific civilizations and that’s about it for me. The historical references are subjective but the poetry can be considered beautiful. Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use me as a foil on one of your blogs. Posting that I have faith in anything is well, lying.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2