Time to catch up here with blog posts that have appeared in recent weeks addressing mythicism.
There’s now a blog devoted to mythicism: The Mythicism Files. A good many of its articles look like good future reference material. I was worried at first by the the apparently large space that appeared to be devoted to Acharya S (D. Murdock) but relieved to see Quixie’s very fair discussion of her contribution and criticisms it faces. The Otagosh blog addresses questions a number of us will have about the anonymity of the blog’s provenance. If Quixie is a regular contributor, however, that’s certainly a positive attribute. I’ve seen him write good stuff around various discussion groups and blogs (and in comments on Vridar iirc).
Speaking of Otagosh, he also tells us about the current leader of my old cult wading into the mythicist debate. Predictably a pabulum effort from the great apostle or whatever he’s called now.
Peter Kirby has endeavoured to bring some serious balance into the discussion by posting a detailed case, or rather “best case”, for the historicity of Jesus that he thinks can be made. The Best Case for Jesus. This is good to see. So few anti-mythicists [not that Peter himself falls into that “anti” camp — see his comment below] appear willing or able to argue their case with any real awareness of what mythicists actually say. They also seem to fall back on ad hoc responses too often. Comments are welcome in Peter’s blog, of course, but there is also a discussion on the same at the Biblical Criticism & History Forum.
Thomas Colignatus, a econometrician and supporter certain mythicist views I personally consider questionable and less than adequately rigorous in scholarly approach, reviews Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus. See A first reaction on Richard Carrier “On the historicity of Jesus”. Thomas has his own take on the mythicist question that one can see in his online pdf article, How a mainstream historical method creates its own Jesus.
Daniel Gullotta has a more conventional background and approach and recently reviewed Robert Price’s latest volume, Review: The Historical Bejeezus: What a Long, Strange Quest It’s Been. He gives 2 out of 5 stars.
And what post on mythicism would be complete without reference to our good friend Professor James McGrath? He once again misses the irony of his own comments in his post Mythicism isn’t Skepticism. He links to an article (Standing Up For Skepticism) that links to another article (Deniers are not Skeptics) explaining the difference between scepticism and denialism. Everything in the article and similar articles like
- Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
- When Skepticism Becomes Denial: The Unholy Alliance Between Science Denial Movements
- Denier vs Skeptic
alerts readers to the critical importance of methods and attitudes. To be honest with articles like these one has to suggest it is those who knee-jerk their rejection of exponents of mythicism who do indeed address the flawed methods and apologetics of the academy who fall on the denialist side of the fence.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Conspiracy theories — true and false and how to tell the difference - 2021-01-22 20:55:19 GMT+0000
- The 1776 Report: History as Political Propaganda - 2021-01-21 12:18:47 GMT+0000
- Armageddon: Another Eric Cline Interview - 2021-01-21 04:09:16 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!