|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 30, 2012 3:53:51 GMT
I have saved the June 27 and June 29 versions, but wish the earlier ones were available.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 30, 2012 13:00:08 GMT
I've been getting back to my posts on Carrier and Ehrman. I'm also starting on Godfrey; here and here.
|
|
|
Post by bullpeople on Jul 7, 2012 19:44:24 GMT
I Don't know if this has been posted already (please delete if it has), but here is a short post by Thomas L. Thompson on Bart Ehrmans latest book. I'm not that familiar with Thomas Thompson and I don't really know what his reputation is in regards to this topic.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 8, 2012 2:17:17 GMT
Thompson is a Biblical scholar whose views on the pre-Christian history of Israel are fringe, and which are typically rejected by the overwhelming majority of archaeologists across the spectrum (his work on literary aspects of the Bible are more mainstream, and this is where he should stay focused). The fact that he has turned his hand to comment on another field in which he is unqualified, does not surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 24, 2012 10:10:00 GMT
Those silly mythicists have turned up like an infestation on Professor Hurtado's blog: larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/the-did-jesus-exist-controversy-and-its-precedents/#comment-3227The “Did Jesus Exist” Controversy and Its PrecedentsSo in one sense I think I’m not alone in feeling that to show the ill-informed and illogical nature of the current wave of “mythicist” proponents is a bit like having to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat, or that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, or that the moon-landings weren’t done on a movie lot. It’s a bit wearying to contemplate! Apparently from some of the responses by Carr and Erlend, the mythicists are about to storm the academic world.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 24, 2012 11:19:32 GMT
Oh yeah. Any day now. I'm holding my breath for that great day.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 25, 2012 5:51:08 GMT
Carrier has posted his version (in summary form), of the exchanges between himself and Ehrman. Predictably, it contains considerable spin and links predominantly to Carrier's own posts (omitting certain replies by Erhman and others who identified Carrier's errors), in order to avoid confronting the faithful with inconvenient facts. I posted a few criticisms in the comments box. Naturally they're on moderation, and I expect them to be deleted. At best I expect Carrier to try and obscure the issues by waffling, while he quietly removes the errors in the article without telling anyone he has edited it, as he has done with articles before when he has been found wrong. I have made a copy of the original article just in case he does that.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 25, 2012 8:28:12 GMT
You should put that up on your blog.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 25, 2012 15:56:06 GMT
Yes, I think I will. Meanwhile Carrier responded in his usual way, and I replied.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 26, 2012 7:22:03 GMT
I can see why he'd find that uncomfortable. Definitely blog material. He can't hide it there.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 27, 2012 10:27:22 GMT
Larry Hurtado reflects on his encounter with mythicists: larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/the-did-jesus-exist-controversy-encore/The “Did Jesus Exist” Controversy–EncorePerhaps the most puzzling claim, that would be amusing were it not apparently asserted so seriously, is that sometime in the 1980s a massive conspiracy (by “New Evangelical” interests) engineered the appointment of scholars in departments of Religion, Classics, Ancient History, etc., and that it managed to skew scholarly opinion, even among Jewish scholars and people of n0 religious affiliation, to support the historical existence of a Jesus of Nazareth. HmmBut it’s an interesting sociological (or pycho-social) question as to what makes some people feel the need (and it does seem to be a need) to exert such efforts to go against the rather solid judgement of qualified scholars in the subject, whatever their religious persuasion. What is it that leads some to prefer the assertions of people with no established scholarly reputation or recognition in the disciplines in question? And why the zeal and fervor of some of those who buy into these assertions? Perhaps a good question for some graduate student in sociology.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 27, 2012 12:00:22 GMT
Good post; I added a comment.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 27, 2012 16:24:17 GMT
This is part of the mythicist reaction to the polite kicking by Larry Hurtado: vridar.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/larry-hurtados-wearying-historical-jesus-question/I think we are entering a period of a paradigm shift. From unquestioned acceptance of an HJ towards a rejection of such. The present era will, I suspect, be recognised in the future as the decade of a few when the tide turned and no longer could Christian apologists take for granted that their baseless asertions would be blindly accepted on face value without being subjected to analysis.
Soon, measuring ‘soon’ in decades perhaps, the HJ concept will take a battering from ‘acceptable’ academics because, thanks significantly to those such as Earl and Vridar, Carrier and others, the shell of protective armour has started to be chipped away from the apologists..
It is, I reckon, pretty close to inevitable, the juggernaut is building up steam.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 27, 2012 17:21:39 GMT
What a joke. The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 28, 2012 0:20:28 GMT
Godfrey is utterly delusional. If he thinks a few loudmouthed bloggers represent a global paradigm shift that will change the universal consensus, he's dreaming.
All this proves is that he still doesn't understand the significance of peer review and the academic process.
|
|