|
Post by unkleE on Jul 6, 2008 23:00:28 GMT
James,
I was interested to read about this. You asked for reports of any reviews. I haven't seen any yet, but I did come across some comments on the Infidels forum and they reinforced some thoughts I've expressed previously. (They were not impressed!)
It seems that, on this matter as on others, the atheist and the christian views are not even being considered by the other side. The atheists are increasingly arguing that Jesus never existed, that the christian arguments to the contrary are tired old tripe, and that scholars who believe Jesus existed are biased. The christians put forward their champions (Lee Strobel and his experts, now Holding and his experts) and say that the atheist arguments are tripe and their champions lack scholarship. But no-one's connecting here. The christian books, such as "Shattering the Christ Myth", are surely helpful to believers, but will they make much difference out in the marketplace of ideas?
Another approach is to find the middle ground, the historians who are neither atheist debunkers or christian apologists, and see what they say. We can choose (1) those recognised by their peers as the leading scholars (my reading suggests Crossan, Borg, Sanders, Meier, Vermes and Wright might be the main names here, perhaps also Charlesworth), (2) those at the most prestigious universities (e.g. Bockmuehl, Stanton & Paget from Cambridge, Tucket at Oxford, etc) or (3) scholars who are avowedly agnostic and hopefully unassailably neutral (e.g. the late Michael Grant). Unfortunately, this approach doesn't seem to work either, as the atheists dismiss even these people as biased apologists, and tend only to read their own champions.
One side or the other must be wrong, and obviously I think it is the atheists. But we seem to have reached a situation not unlike Orwell's 1984, where if you repeat a lie often enough, and people want to believe it, they will, and nothing, not even facts, will change them. It is truly a case of subjective truth and no objective truth.
Obviously I haven't read "Shattering the Christ Myth" yet, so I am just asking questions. But do you think it will make much difference?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 7, 2008 8:50:09 GMT
James,
Just a follow-up question addressed to you as a historian ..... We all know that history, like science, proceeds by way of peer-reviewed publication, whereby papers finding favour with other experts are quoted more often and more favourably, and thus have greater influence than those which contain less merit. It is an almost Darwinian survival of the best scholarship, and in the long run it seems to work out well, eliminating bad ideas or even fraudulent ones.
My question to you is this: Is there any objective way to measure this influence, measure which scholars are most respected by their peers? (It might help in resolving the dilemma in my previous post.)
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by josephbfischer on Jul 8, 2008 6:45:07 GMT
Dear Unklee,
In the world of the "hard" sciences, they track how many times papers are cited by other papers. In this universe you can see which ideas, and which scientists, are most influential.
I don't know if there is a similar system for historians.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jul 8, 2008 20:49:17 GMT
Hi unklee,
“Shattering the Christ Myth” is not intended to convince the head bangers over at Internet Infidels. It would be a waste of time even to try. Rather it is intended as a resource for people coming across the Christ Myth who want answers to all the various claims from the myther side.
The reasoning is that if we don’t respond then people who would be open to our rebuttals will assume we don’t have any. Simply saying all genuine scholars disagree with the mythers is not enough. You need to provide a level of detail that shows the mythers don’t really know what they are talking about.
Remember most people, including a depressingly large number of Christians, know very little about NT scholarship. They have no way to verify claims and counter-claims. I do get emails from people concerned about the Jesus Myth looking for answers to convince themselves that they don’t need to worry about it. I hope Shattering the Christ Myth will deal with their questions.
Also, further to what Joseph says, we have citation indices in the arts too. It is proposed that they be used to hand out research grants in the future here in the UK.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jul 8, 2008 22:25:25 GMT
I would insist that the minimum position of concluding that Jesus existed (and that in the sense of a historical person who in some way inspired the stories in the NT) is extremely hard to avoid for any serious scholar.
That is one reason one doesn't (AFAIK) find any peer reviewed scholar holding this position.
One amusing thing at IIDB and other places (e.g. the RD-forum) is that they cry foul when any Christian concludes other than peer reviewed papers in scientific matters (e.g. creationists), and at the same time they consider themselves as some kind of heroes, forced to provide far from peer reviewed historical arguments.
My take on the Jesus Mythers is that they are Functional Creationists. In practise they have the same lack of peer review, not to mention little thoughtfull consideration of established methodology within the relevant fields. Anything goes, as long as the conclusion is skeptical kosher.
Of course they may amend that by establishing their own magazines. Which is another copout, where they once more act just like creationists.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 9, 2008 11:34:52 GMT
Thanks everyone for helpful comments. I have just finished reading the l-o-n-g Internet Infidels thread on Tacitus (referenced by James' first post on Tacitus in this forum ( jameshannam.proboards83.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=29) and I now see clearly what you mean, James when you say: “Shattering the Christ Myth” is not intended to convince the head bangers over at Internet Infidels. It would be a waste of time even to try. It was an amazing thread, with FathomFFI showing a pretty learned understanding, and the counter arguments rarely showing any understanding at all. Even if I were an unbeliever, I would recognise that he "won" easily, and would be embarrassed by the "quality" of the arguments of the Jesus-mythers. And I laughed at this little exchange: But it would help non-historians like me if we could pin a few things down if possible please: Are these any use in establishing scholarly credentials in this debate? If so, can one obtain the results? Is there any way to substantiate this? Objectively and irrefutably? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jul 9, 2008 12:44:00 GMT
Is there any way to substantiate this? Objectively and irrefutably? Probably One reason why I insist on this (which I also have done in various books and discussion fora) is to give a challenge to provide just one counterexample. So far (I started this during the da Vinci craze four years ago) none of the mythers have managed to mention even one, though it would benefit their case enormously. QED.
|
|
Petersean
Clerk
A page of history is worth a volume of logic.
Posts: 36
|
Post by Petersean on Jul 10, 2008 5:26:37 GMT
Too funny.
After handing them their lunch, and showing that he has a terrific grasp of the subject, Fathom gets banned.
Things are way too classy over there at the IIDB.
;D
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 10, 2008 9:02:57 GMT
A question and more of a funny story ....
1. Bjorn, I am just a mug at all this, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn, thanks for your patience. I can think of three strong critics of conventional christianity who seem to have relevant academic qualifications, and I would think go close to being Jesus-mythers. They are Bart Ehrlman, Robert Price and Burton Mack. Do they meet your criteria, or is it just my ignorance?
2. More on Fathom and the internet infidels.... I have been a member of that forum for two years, but had never posted (I joined for some reason that quickly became redundant). So after I read all the discussion referred to above, I posted asking why he was banned. I returned today to find two posters suggesting I was he under an alias (would that I were that knowledgable!), the thread was closed and I was under investigation. Curiouser and curiouser.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jul 10, 2008 12:21:18 GMT
A question and more of a funny story .... 1. Bjorn, I am just a mug at all this, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn, thanks for your patience. I can think of three strong critics of conventional christianity who seem to have relevant academic qualifications, and I would think go close to being Jesus-mythers. They are Bart Ehrlman, Robert Price and Burton Mack. Do they meet your criteria, or is it just my ignorance? Ehrman and Mack definitely hold to some kind of a historical Jesus, while Price is a lot more of a skeptic (see e.g. www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=price_20_1). Still, he finds it possible that Jesus eksisted. However, when he says it is just a tad more possible than the evidence for a Histotical Moses, he seems to drop some pretense of doing serious history. OTOH, he has AFAIK never argued in a peer reviewed journal for there not being a historical person behind the "Jesus Myth".
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jul 11, 2008 3:58:56 GMT
How does Robert Price account for emergence of Christianity if not a historical Jesus? If anything seems arbitrary it's the idea that there was a person who decided to invent a Messiah who died a humiliating death at the hands of the authority he was supposed to overthrow. True, there is a bit of obfuscation in the Gospels, but to call it wholesale mythology seems infinitely more implausible.
I guess when people want to disbelieve they'll find a way.
|
|
|
Post by TheistusMaximus on Aug 4, 2008 12:25:36 GMT
How does Robert Price account for emergence of Christianity if not a historical Jesus? If anything seems arbitrary it's the idea that there was a person who decided to invent a Messiah who died a humiliating death at the hands of the authority he was supposed to overthrow. True, there is a bit of obfuscation in the Gospels, but to call it wholesale mythology seems infinitely more implausible. I guess when people want to disbelieve they'll find a way. I agree wholeheartedly that it makes completely no sense, and I don't see how Price can argue himself out of: a) none of the pagan mystery cult Gods (as Price argued, are similar to Jesus) had made any appearance in the first century Palestine. b) a crucified savior was sort of an oxymoron, and thus less acceptable to people at the time, and thus made it much more difficult for the Jesus movement to survive if not for a shred of historical evidence for his existence. c) there was never anybody questioning the existence of Jesus anywhere in antiquity. And of course he would have to reasonably make sense of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, the testimony of the early church fathers belief in an earthly Jesus, the genre of the gospels, and other fairly basic stuff. It's a stupid hypothesis for a reason; it has to explain away, obfuscate, and work around things that have already been established.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Aug 4, 2008 14:47:23 GMT
I just received the book, and at a quick glance it seems like a thorough and well done work. James introductory chapter was of course learned and enlightening, comparing the Shakespeare mythers with Jesusmyther.
The next chapter on Josephus made me again realise how good the evidence for a large part of the TF to be authentic. You have to protest rather too much or be a world champion in special pleading to dismiss all of it. And both activities are of course rather revealing.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Aug 9, 2008 18:11:42 GMT
Almost finished with the book - a true gem.
Not the least as it is so comprehensive, thorough and researched that it is difficult to dismiss (except for the stray quibble).
Though no doubt it will meet all the vehement denial, ad hominems and ritual ridicule from those who have been protesting far too much for years.
|
|
|
Post by TheistusMaximus on Aug 10, 2008 2:59:42 GMT
Hahaha. A post by Earl Doherty on IIDB regarding Holdings new book:
Perhaps Mr. Holding would be willing to send me a complimentary copy of his new book, if he is so confident that he has "whupped" the mythicist case, and mine in particular. Although I couldn't do anything with it until I'm finished with my second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, I'd be more than willing to attempt a rebuttal. Maybe I could make it a new book myself, a companion piece to my rebuttal to Lee Strobel. It wouldn't be a court cross-examination, but perhaps I could call it "Interview With An Apologist." Given Mr. Holding's unbridled language and handling of opponents, I'm sure we could get a colorful exchange going.
I know he's always shy about providing Internet links to the material that he claims to have so confidently destroyed, but perhaps he might be willing to send the book to (and don't worry, my post office can handle an oversize book):
Age of Reason Publications PO Box 49059 110 Place d'Orleans Ottawa, ON K1C 7E4 Canada.
(In fact, I'll make that a "double-dare".)
Earl Doherty
Cheap-o indeed. Ever heard of Amazon? ;D
|
|