HAMBY'S POST:

   

John, I have some things I'd like you to think about. I don't know if you've noticed my comments about your discussion with a "blog site owner" but I come down on the side of that certain blog site owner, though not without some caveats. You really should read my comment on the blog in question, but I'll explain it here, too.

I've read your arguments rather thoroughly since my initial response to you (linked below) and I think you're making two very serious errors.

First, you've admitted that you are not well versed in mythicist arguments, and you display this lack of knowledge when you get into spats with mythicists. I'm not going to validate your exchange with a blog site owner by calling it an argument because that implies the logical exchange of ideas. No ideas were exchanged because you didn't address or refute any of his arguments. You just restated your opinions.

Please bear in mind that I'm saying this to you in a spirit of constructive criticism so that we can all get along and get on with the business of finding true answers to legitimate questions. I hate it when people have ego spats, and from where I sit, you threw the first stone in the fight you're talking about.

I don't know who's right in the question of Jesus mythicism, but I have a question for you and others who come down hard on either side. How much does it really matter?

Think about that before you jump to a conclusion. We're all atheists and skeptics here, right? Would the existence of a historical Jesus change our minds about God? Would the nonexistence of a historical Jesus change our minds?

Your second mistake, in my opinion, is a matter of broad perspective. The fact is, this is an issue dripping with angst and ego, and I can't for my life figure out why a bunch of atheists would get into such a huge snit about it. If there is or is not enough evidence for a historical Jesus, so be it, but everyone reading this knows that a Christian can be logically and philosophically whipped into a Self-Pwnd Frappe with or without even cracking a bible, much less mentioning Jesus.

John, if you want to get into academic history and make a case for a historical Jesus, please do. However, I have to ask you in all seriousness if you are prepared to stake your professional reputation on what amounts to your feelings about the interpretation of academic arguments. Do you really have the epistemic right to make the proclamation? Please remember when you were a Christian how hard it was to see logic when someone talked to you about the very emotionally charged issue of God. You weren't that way just because you were a Christian. That's human nature, and you're still subject to it.

John, you and the blog site owner had a temper tantrum playground fight. Both of you are at fault for letting your emotions get in the way of reason. However, he has reason on his side. You haven't dealt with (or apparently read) what he's said. I'm not saying his position is right. I'm saying you haven't done anything to prove it wrong. Please remember John that the most well meaning of people have spread opinion to the point that it became perceived as fact. Please, unless you're prepared to make an academic issue of it, don't muddy the waters of Jesus' historicity with less than scholarly analysis. Your voice is too loud. Do the right thing and just shrug your shoulders when someone asks what you think about it.

I offer you the following link (http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-jesus-historicity.html )to my own thoughts on Jesus as a historical figure, and I invite you to consider them, particularly since they come from someone much like yourself -- a former Christian apologist who has devoted much of his life to study -- and more importantly, someone who knows when he has the epistemic rights to make a claim, and when "I don't know" is the only acceptable answer.

You'll notice that I've also addressed as many of your arguments as seemed relevant in a detailed post here: http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/12/response-to-john-loftus-historical.html

 

3:29 PM, January 06, 2009 

NOTE: ******This is the post I submitted to his website.  He did not publish it, opting instead to quote mine it for things he wanted to answer. ******

HAMBY'S POST:  (Not posted by John)

John: Ham, there you go misrepresenting me. I only said there was more to learn and I could say that about any issue I write about.[/i]

Hamby:  If I have misrepresented your intent, I apologize.  Have I misrepresented your knowledge?  I'm sure that you've read quite a few books by various historians, as have I, but does that qualify you to use your considerable influence to proclaim that your interpretation of the various arguments is the better one?  I've read everything that Richard Dawkins has ever written, but I hardly think I'm qualified to speak as an expert on more than the very basics of evolution.  I'm sure you did study antiquities and literature in your theology degrees, but are you really qualified as a Jesus scholar? (I mean have you the methodological knowledge AND are you thoroughly versed in the most current data?)

Mythicist arguments rely on very detailed comparisons of ancient documents for evidence of various tropes, and on very specific linguistic analysis of textual minutia. These are the supports on which mythicist arguments rest, and from your discussions, I don't believe you are qualified to address them.  If this is the case, then you aren't prepared to make a substantive claim about Jesus' historicity because you don't know both sides.

Even if you did some of this kind of work in the seminary, have you really examined both sides of this argument and produced a scholarly opinion?  Are you prepared to defend your views against mythicist scholars, and if so, would you offer arguments or disagreement?  I know you know the difference.

John:  It doesn't matter a bit to me at all. Since that's the case I can be more objective about the evidence. And since I can be more objective about the evidence Christians will listen to me. They are my target audience. I do not think people understand this. [/i]

Hamby:  Feh.  I know you're pissed, but this just isn't constructive.  I admit I'm biased.  I wish you would admit it, too.  Everybody's biased, John.  It's nothing to be ashamed of.  It just means we lean one way or another.  I think the evidence leans away from historicity, but I don't go around proclaiming it as truth just because I like my own reasoning.  Yeah, I know, you always say you might be wrong, but you accuse people on the other side of being crackpots and having axes to grind.  (I have quotes if you'd like, and I'll print them in the full paragraph so you won't accuse me of quote mining.)  I wish you'd get off of that soapbox.  Passion is not the same as blind devotion.  Carrier, Thompson, et al, are genuine people -- just like you.  They also study this for a living.  I wish you wouldn't dismiss them, particularly since you don't study this for a living.  And frankly, if I may say so, the vitriol you've spouted since being rather strongly contested belies your assertion that you don't care.

John:  And you know what? I have even been accused of having "blind faith" and accused of choosing to think Jesus existed against the evidence because I want to impress Christians who are my target audience! Wow! The extent that people who disagree with me will go to discredit an informed opinion is strangely similar on both sides of the fence. And this is something I'll not have a part in. My beliefs are sincerely held ones.

Hamby:  John, if you'll take ten seconds to follow the links I gave you, you'll see that I've defended you on these counts.  I believe you to be sincere and well meaning, and I have never accused you of having blind faith.

I accuse you of having less than enough knowledge to have epistemic rights to your claim.  There's a very, very big difference.  You're clearly well read, and I believe you've done a great thing for atheism.  I love your site, and I think you have an incredibly compelling story to tell theists.

I just don't think you're qualified to weigh in on Jesus' historicity.  Please, if I'm wrong prove me wrong, and I will recant, but I have yet to see you even address a mythicist position with anything other than a statement of disagreement.  That's not scholarly rebuttal.  That's seeing who gets the last word.

Please, consider leaving this debate to the scholars, and focus on what you're qualified to do, which is expose Christianity for the lie that it is.  You're very good at that, and I hate to see you getting caught up in this fight when it's not even important to what you are doing for the atheist community.

When you're feeling less pissed, I wish you would ask yourself if maybe you're a bit more emotionally invested than you think.

(Originally posted Jan 6, approximately 5:30 PM)

******NOTE:  This is all that appeared on John's blog.  You can see that he has left out significant parts of my post and has not addressed the spirit of the argument******

Hambydammit, I didn't publish what you wrote because I had to cool off before responding and because I'm pretty much done with this topic for now. I do not like how you've treated me but I'll comment on a few of the things you wrote.

Ham said...I'm sure that you've read quite a few books by various historians, as have I, but does that qualify you to use your considerable influence to proclaim that your interpretation of the various arguments is the better one?

John:  Is that what this is about? That since I have "considerable influence" I should not make a case unless I'm qualified to speak? Thanks for saying I have such influence. I don't claim to. But even Einstein wrote a book of opinions and ideas. Would you say he shouldn't have done so?

Ham said...I'm sure you did study antiquities and literature in your theology degrees, but are you really qualified as a Jesus scholar?

John:  See above. Don't get so bent out of shape here. My views are well argued. They are the ones the overwhelming peer-reviewed scholars accept. I fear my friend Carrier could become marginalized as a scholar if he doesn't make a strong case. What's wrong with my concern for him? His scholarship is too good for that and for our cause. If he becomes marginalized people will write him off and his credibility will be in need or repair. I do care about that. YOU should care about it too. But apparently you want an actual scholar to quote from who defends what you believe regardless of what happens to him. In the minds of many other scholars he may be treated like a Holocaust denier, rightly or wrongly, and that's bad for atheism I think, since the historicity of Jesus is a non-issue to me. 

Ham said...I don't believe you are qualified to address them (mythicists). If this is the case, then you aren't prepared to make a substantive claim about Jesus' historicity because you don't know both sides.

John:  I deny this, although I have more to learn about the issue. You continue to claim I'm ignorant. That's what Christians claim too, you know. Why do they do so? Because they read a few paragraphs and disagree, that's why. Now I do back up what I say in my book, but until they read it they will think I'm ignorant, and they do. Now you come along and claim the same thing, but because I have not written a book on the topic to show you I'm not ignorant you can claim that I am. I cannot say all I know unless I wrote a book on a topic. And it's not true that someone who disagrees with someone else is ignorant anyway. Are the overwhelming number of scholars ignorant too? Is Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Dom Crossan, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman? Get a grip, okay?

Ham said...Are you prepared to defend your views against mythicist scholars, and if so, would you offer arguments or disagreement?

John:  I think I have done so. Do not think I'm ignorant on this topic and do not be so ignorant as to say I cannot write what I think about any topic I want to do so. I have and I will.

Ham said...I accuse you of having less than enough knowledge to have epistemic rights to your claim. There's a very, very big difference. You're clearly well read, and I believe you've done a great thing for atheism. I love your site, and I think you have an incredibly compelling story to tell theists.

John:  Thank you for the compliment, but I see no basis for you to tell me to basically shut up...none at all and I brittle and such a thing. 

Ham said...I just don't think you're qualified to weigh in on Jesus' historicity. Please, if I'm wrong prove me wrong, and I will recant, but I have yet to see you even address a mythicist position with anything other than a statement of disagreement. That's not scholarly rebuttal. That's seeing who gets the last word.

John:  Again, you sound just like the Christians who visit here. Yeah, that's right, I'm ignorant, I don't know what I'm talking about, I should just shut up until I write a book on a topic. Right.

Go away, idiot.