Who are the Scholars for JMC?
Offline What are their credentials? I've been googling the subject off and on and I see more criticism from academia, secular and religious for JMC. Some call it "contrived" and "pop science". I read some of Acharya S's material, which I found interesting, however she draws much criticism from secular academia. Her credentials always seem to be in question. Now I'm not sure if that's an attack on her own sheepskin or the schools she attended.
Is there anyone in JMC camp that is respected by mainstream academia? What is your (JMCers) opinion of this? Do you see this lack of academic respect as some sort of "conspiracy" the way YEC'ers see mainstream science academia regarding evolution?
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Login to post comments
The main names I can think of are Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier has Carrier's credentials.
Carrier (and most) think Acharya goes too far in her myth matching.
They probably wouldn't say it is a conspiracy, more a matter of the subject not having being studied enough, partly due to most of the scholars in this area coming from a theological background.
I have only dipped my toe into this subject, but from what I can gather, strict mythicism is indeed a fringe area in academia.
http://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/are-we-all-mythicists-now/ states:
"The consensus among NT scholars and historians of the early Jesus movement is roughly:
There was a man named Joshua who was a follower of John the Baptist, an itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee who caused a kerfuffle one Passover in Jerusalem and got himself executed.
And that’s about all we can say about him with any kind of historical agreement. All the Sunday school stuff: the birth, resurrection, claims to be the Son of God, salvation, and so on. All that is myth, according to consensus."
So, the scholarly consensus is that it is mostly myth, and there are only a few who state that it is likely that there was no historical figure at all.
I gather that those who believe that it is almost all myth are sometimes referred to as minimalists.
Thomas L Thompson is a professor of theology and seems to fall into that category.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/thompson_messiah_myth.htm
http://www.renesalm.com/mp/mythbibl.html
is a short list of mythicist writings.
Anyway, that's something to start with.
Thanks, X. It seems to be a typical strategy of theist critics to JMC (or anything else for that matter) is to attack their opponent's credentials and therefore, their sources. I'm wondering if, perhaps the reason why many in manistream academia don't pursue this further is out of fear for negative press. Colleges and universities are money dependent like everyone else and since education deals with folks of all beliefs, it might not be in their best interest if too many professors claimed belief in JMC.
Many proponents of Jesus as history claim ( this is an outdated claim) that the same amount of historical evidence for Julius Caeser exists for Jesus, however from what I've read, its more like Robin Hood.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
For Julius Caesar, we have his likeness on busts and coins, his war commentaries and the writings of contemporaries.
I don't understand why they try that argument.
I have read comments by people suggesting that fear of loss of tenure is an issue.
Thus far, I've read more Carrier than Thompson, Price or Doherty, so my examples are a bit biased in that direction.
For example:
https://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/bart-ehrmans-huffing-and-posting-against-mythicism/
I find myself in synch with Richard Carrier’s claim to know professors who do doubt the historicity of Jesus but keep their opinion quiet to safeguard their professional reputations. Since starting this blog I have had the opportunity to make contact with a number of scholars, biblical scholars, who have likewise admitted they do not believe Jesus was a historical person. They of course keep it quiet for the obvious reasons. Dr Joseph R. Hoffmann himself has even stated in a comment on this blog that the reasons mythicism is not openly addressed in academia have to do with risks to tenure more than to the reasonableness of the arguments. If Ehrman were less disingenuous he would also acknowledge that Albert Schweitzer himself (whom Ehrman cites tendentiously in his book — Dr McGrath would call it “quote-mining” ) did at least acknowledge the theoretical probability and plausibility of historical studies being unable to decide whether Jesus was historical or not.
Carrier also covers a part of the issue here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667
And while I'm here, this amused me:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/not-impossible-faith.html
AIGBusted said... Have you seen Tim Callahan's article which debunks the Zeitgeist movie's attempt to link Jesus with earlier Sun Gods?
No, but I'm so glad he did. Thanks for the link. Until now I had to rely on fundamentalist rebuttals, which weren't terrible but not entirely recommendable. That crap movie has done more damage to serious Jesus myth scholarship than any fundamentalist treatise ever could. I'd like to kick the director in the crotch. That's right. Square in the crotch.
Marty,
I am going to give you one more chance to take me up on this. We are hiking down way down to Mt. Saint Helens with a Ph.D #1 expert on Mt. Saint Helens. He is a geologist and primary researcher. We will be studying this in relation to Uniformitiarianism vs. catastrophe and a presuppositional means in the are of geology as a whole.
YOu need special permits to go where we are going and it is very hard to get a permit (impossible unless you have credentials.). THe geologist got the permits for a limited gruop of people for this august.
If you wish to go, give me your email address. ITs' $200 bucks. Otherwise if you wish not to go then evidently you are not putting it where your mouth is. And yes, the geologist is a YEC.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Thanks Jean, I appreciate your offer, I really do, however I'm already committed to a teaching engagement for the summer and money is very tight right now. I have a niece in Seattle that I haven't seen in a few years as well as a cousin up that way I haven't seen in decades, but it will have to wait until a more prosperous time. Please publish your findings and let us know where we can read them.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
Back to the subject at hand. What is the ratio of popular scholarly positions among apologists,minimalists and mythicists? I've heard that mythicists make up the minority followed closely by apologists with minimalists being the majority of scholars. Anyone have a percentage ratio?just curious.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."