Can someone kind please fact check this blog post for me? It's too difficult to find errors in my own writing, and I'd rather not be labelled a liar again by clueless mythicists who have a tendency to be incredibly nasty.
I don't think, personally, that any living mythicist scholar is even worth taking seriously. The two that are actually respected scholars in a relevant field are Brodie and Price. One of the problems I see with this view is that it usually treats Jesus as having less historical evidence than Paul, which is just not true, therefore if you're going to say he was mythical then you really need to come up with a theory that makes Paul mythical too. Price to his credit isn't convinced Paul was historical either, but he fails to present a coherent argument that accounts for his epistles and the account of his ministry given in Acts. In fact, the historical method that is most often denied by both Christian fundamentalists, and by mythicists is that of textual criticism. Denying the validity of textual criticism is a very clear fundamentalist belief, so I don't see how mythicists can claim that they are looking at all the evidence in an objective way - once you reject the best practise techniques used by experts, in my view you lose all credibility. You're just drawing conclusions beyond what the evidence provides for.
I will go where ever the evidence is.
I don't think, personally, that any living mythicist scholar is even worth taking seriously. The two that are actually respected scholars in a relevant field are Brodie and Price. One of the problems I see with this view is that it usually treats Jesus as having less historical evidence than Paul, which is just not true, therefore if you're going to say he was mythical then you really need to come up with a theory that makes Paul mythical too. Price to his credit isn't convinced Paul was historical either, but he fails to present a coherent argument that accounts for his epistles and the account of his ministry given in Acts. In fact, the historical method that is most often denied by both Christian fundamentalists, and by mythicists is that of textual criticism. Denying the validity of textual criticism is a very clear fundamentalist belief, so I don't see how mythicists can claim that they are looking at all the evidence in an objective way - once you reject the best practise techniques used by experts, in my view you lose all credibility. You're just drawing conclusions beyond what the evidence provides for.
I will go where ever the evidence is.
Comment