Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

[ABuddhist]

Please give up that moralizing of yours dude. You should be condemning both Carrier left and right for being far more "wicked" than I am.

After that giant post of mine, the only things you respond to have nothing to do with the actual relevant evidence but only my characterization of Carrier, who you definitely must 100% defend:

1. Yes dude, Carrier's book was not a self-published booklet. It's not far off, though. It's just a really long rambling that wasn't subjected to any sort of critical standards before publication, hence my characterization of it. I wonder if you're better with that way of phraseology, though: "just another long Carrier rambling not subjected to any critical standards before publication". Are you more comfortable if I worded it this way? LOL.

2. "You admit that in recent years, two books advocating mythicism (one of which did not involve Carrier and was published by Brill) were published."

Sure, one of them was totally and utterly refuted by a number of scholars plus Tim O'Neill, and the other is literally the exact same ideas rehashed that hasn't had many impact whatsoever. I mean, have you read Lataster's book? It's literally the exact same thing as Carrier's ideas, without anything new. You also latch onto Wells, who literally abandoned mythicism because he couldn't take it seriously anymore. The one credible guy who ever advocated the theory dropped it. Amazing.

Yup, mythicism is ABSOLUTELY a clown-show. Nothing needs to be reconciled. You somehow have this idea that clownish ideas can't get peer-reviewed. But they do get peer-reviewed, literally all the time, in tons of journals. The fact that mythicism so often fails to meet even this standard, is a testament that it's a particularly unimpressive clown show. By the way, there actually ARE young earth creationist scienitsts. Actually, there's a solid number of them. At least one member of the National Academy of Sciences was a YEC. That proves that clowns can do particularly well. A tiny handful of peer-reviewed publications by a loud minority of hyper-biased activists does not unmake a clown show.

3. Nah dude, O'Neill didn't make "basic errors". You should scroll up, I completely wiped your repetitive citations of Godfrey against O'Neill. I basically exposed Godfrey's thousands of basic errors in an attempt to show O'Neill making a handful. If you applied your own standards of dismissing O'Neill, you'd have literally zit to do with either Carrier or that Godfrey dude. And by the way, O'Neill's lack of credentials are a red herring. You know why? Because he's not making up his own theories. He's not saying anything new. He's literally pointing out just basic facts known and already published by the experts in the fields and showing just how easily Carrier's theories splinter off.

By the way, you wrote a WHOLE OTHER COMMENT to me and didn't bother responding to ANY of the relevant points concerning the actual facts, i.e. the wishful thinking of interpolations in ALL the texts that just so happen to refute you based on not the slightest hint of actual, relevant evidence which is somehow backed up because Godfrey was able to go back and find one or two credentialed people in the last entire century who held these hyper-fringe views, and then he combines a ton of hyper-fringe views supported by one or two people based on almost zero basis in the last century to make this sort of super-complex of fringe nonsense without the slightest shred of evidence. If you're going to bother responding to my comments, kindly don't waste my time on details like "Carrier is a clown" (he is) and try to actually defend the theory.

"As a final note, when you accuse me of having fallen for Dr. Carrier's claims, you implicitly call me a liar - because I have said that I am not a mythicist."

Yeah freaking right you aren't a mythicist. You know, this is actually really odd and almost kinda funny. All these people who believe in just the right mythicist interpolations, space sperm theory, fans of Carrier's theories (and Godfrey's endless defenses of it read by no one other than Carrier's fanboys) all over the place, just can't bring themselves to being open about their mythicism. I don't know why, but these closet mythicists, even when only surrounded by other mythicists on places like this forum, just can't admit they're mythicists.

With all due respect, I personally think that Carrier is wickeder than you are for many reasons - but I refrained from mentioning such a personal opinion because I did not want to discuss his conduct and his behaviour (however reprehensible they may seem to me) and instead focus upon his ideas. You have been unable to meet this standard.

As for your assertion that I am a closeted mythicist, have you considered the fact that hostility towards mythicism such as yours (which is not just condemning the ideas but also the people) may explain why mythicists (of whom I am not one) would remain within their closets.

Since you are unwilling to present your arguments without insults (unlike Dr. Carrier in his peer-reviewed book), I am unwilling to read your evidence. This is a pity, because your evidence may be very persuasive.

[karavan]

"As for your assertion that I am a closeted mythicist, have you considered the fact that hostility towards mythicism such as yours (which is not just condemning the ideas but also the people) may explain why mythicists (of whom I am not one) would remain within their closets."

Oh come on dude we're all behind a screen here. You just don't want to come out of the mythicist closet because, per the responses found in comments like mine, you actually aren't personally sure whether you'll be caught in the future of having labelled yourself with some BS theory.

[neilgodfrey]

Sorry, you believe there's an institutional bias against mythicism among scholars in secular, public universities? Can you please explain why literally nothing happened then, to G.A. Wells, Thompson, Davies, Lataster got to publish his exact rehash of Carrier's theories in Brill, and on? LOL. Just be honest dude. The idea that Bart Ehrman is too afraid to be a mythicist lest his higher ups get him is blatantly ridiculous.

You forgot to add Brodie. Like Davies, waiting till career's end before "coming out".


The rest of this comment is added for the benefit of others. Karavan is clearly not interested in dispassionate and reasonable discussion.

What happens is that nothing happens to them. They are ignored. Their arguments are not addressed seriously. Though sometimes they are indeed misrepresented. That's how it has been since the nineteenth century. That's how institutional bias works in all areas, political as well as religious. Recall the Herman-Chomsky model of propaganda: dissident views are always allowed but never seriously addressed. That way the myth of objectivity is sustained.

You can claim that poor mythicists are falsely claiming they have been misrepresented, and that those complaints are a copout. But if you are serious -- and your tone suggests you are in it just for a laugh -- you will pinpoint exactly where any of the mythicists have been seriously addressed since Albert Schweitzer.

[neilgodfrey]

"If they are not too hard to find then simply copy and paste the debunking you've done in a separate comment."

It's literally on the previous page on the thread dude. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3737&start=20

I have no intention of reading through heaps of comments to find the bit where you debunk my arguments. I have to conclude you are not prepared to single them out here for my attention.

[ABuddhist]

Sorry, you believe there's an institutional bias against mythicism among scholars in secular, public universities? Can you please explain why literally nothing happened then, to G.A. Wells, Thompson, Davies, Lataster got to publish his exact rehash of Carrier's theories in Brill, and on? LOL. Just be honest dude. The idea that Bart Ehrman is too afraid to be a mythicist lest his higher ups get him is blatantly ridiculous.

You forgot to add Brodie. Like Davies, waiting till career's end before "coming out".


The rest of this comment is added for the benefit of others. Karavan is clearly not interested in dispassionate and reasonable discussion.

What happens is that nothing happens to them. They are ignored. Their arguments are not addressed seriously. Though sometimes they are indeed misrepresented. That's how it has been since the nineteenth century. That's how institutional bias works in all areas, political as well as religious. Recall the Herman-Chomsky model of propaganda: dissident views are always allowed but never seriously addressed. That way the myth of objectivity is sustained.

You can claim that poor mythicists are falsely claiming they have been misrepresented, and that those complaints are a copout. But if you are serious -- and your tone suggests you are in it just for a laugh -- you will pinpoint exactly where any of the mythicists have been seriously addressed since Albert Schweitzer.

I mentioned in my discussion with karavan that when Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic, wrote his (non-peer-reviewed!) argument for why Jesus existed, he believed that he had written the first book-length treatment of the matter. Yet the book was not peer-reviewed! Surely this reveals a major blindspot within mainstream biblical scholarship - and I say this as a non-mythicist (despite Caravan's claims that I am lying!).

[karavan]

"You forgot to add Brodie. Like Davies, waiting till career's end before "coming out"."

Yeah freaking right, Thomas Brodie wasn't employed by a secular academic institution but the actual Church. Of COURSE the Church will retire a priest of theres that is a literal mythicist. Still though, they support Brodie's living expenses. But please stop the clownery: can you provide actual evidence of institutional bias against mythicism in secular, public universities? Note the pretty blatant fact that there was no bias against Brodie that came from the actual academy at public universities. Sort of screwing up your whole theory.

I already listed a literal ton of counterexamples which you just blatantly ignore. Thompson, Davies, Wells, that guy whose name I forgot who wrote the preface to Lataster's book, like God DAMN dude nothing happened to ANY of these guys.

"What happens is that nothing happens to them. They are ignored."

Oh come on, this is a blatant and utter lie. There have been literally numerous long engagements with Carrier's ridiculous 2014 book. Gullotta published a whole response. As did Simon Gathercole. Vigilae Christinae published a full-length paper by some guy called Blom on Carrier's pseudo-Tacitus theory. Jeremy Corley wrote a full-length paper response to Brodie's book in the Irish Theological Quarterly. David Litwa produced a VERY fair amount of space in a 2020 book of his to the ideas of Brodie, Carrier, and some third person, despite their ridiculousness. Lataster got to publish a fawning review of Carrier's book. Christina Petterson also published an academic review. Carrier then blatantly lied about Petterson being an evangelical because her review was critical, and it turned out she was an atheist or something LOL. Anyone whose head isn't up their hind can OBVIOUSLY tell you're just BSing yourself about being ignored in light of all this. Your only serious copout at this point is to claim that literally everyone completely lied or misrepresented Carrier's work, and therefore did not "seriously" engage with it, thus circularly confirming your own theory to yourself dude. Or maybe you'll just admit that real experts aren't convinced when your guy has to claim that Romans 1:3 is talking about a literal cosmic sperm bank (despite no mention of any such thing anywhere, at all in Paul's letters) to dispatch such blatantly obvious disconfirmation of the theory.

"you will pinpoint exactly where any of the mythicists have been seriously addressed since Albert Schweitzer."

Just did, eat it dude.

Your other comment is you blatantly dancing around reading two or three of my comments to avoid reading my refutations, LOL. Yet another utter copout. Pretty funny, since I subjected myself to the experience of reading your endlessly cited blogposts by ABuddhist to respond to them. But I'm sure you absolutely require special princess treatment and, unlike everyone else here, get to skip reading literally three comments of mine because I didn't carefully snip out the parts about you and serve you them on a platter, despite the fact that you've already spent more time commenting nothing of substance on this thread than would've taken you to read my ... two or three comments. Amazing.

Sorry ABudhoo, no amount of appeal to Bart Ehrman (who wasn't even trying to write a peer-reviewed study on the subject) is going to save you from the fact that mythicist work doesn't get into real journals.

[neilgodfrey]

"What happens is that nothing happens to them. They are ignored."

Oh come on, this is a blatant and utter lie. There have been literally numerous long engagements with Carrier's ridiculous 2014 book. Gullotta published a whole response. As did Simon Gathercole.

No it's not a lie. Gullotta's and Gathercole's blatant misrepresentations have been addressed in depth. But don't be so rude. I even said my comment was not for you.


(chrissy tim tim and outh? Oh dear.)

[ABuddhist]

Oh come on, this is a blatant and utter lie. There have been literally numerous long engagements with Carrier's ridiculous 2014 book. Gullotta published a whole response. As did Simon Gathercole. Vigilae Christinae published a full-length paper by some guy called Blom on Carrier's pseudo-Tacitus theory. Jeremy Corley wrote a full-length paper response to Brodie's book in the Irish Theological Quarterly. David Litwa produced a VERY fair amount of space in a 2020 book of his to the ideas of Brodie, Carrier, and some third person, despite their ridiculousness. Lataster got to publish a fawning review of Carrier's book. Christina Petterson also published an academic review. Carrier then blatantly lied about Petterson being an evangelical because her review was critical, and it turned out she was an atheist or something LOL. Anyone whose head isn't up their hind can OBVIOUSLY tell you're just BSing yourself about being ignored in light of all this. Your only serious copout at this point is to claim that literally everyone completely lied or misrepresented Carrier's work, and therefore did not "seriously" engage with it, thus circularly confirming your own theory to yourself dude. Or maybe you'll just admit that real experts aren't convinced when your guy has to claim that Romans 1:3 is talking about a literal cosmic sperm bank (despite no mention of any such thing anywhere, at all in Paul's letters) to dispatch such blatantly obvious disconfirmation of the theory.

"you will pinpoint exactly where any of the mythicists have been seriously addressed since Albert Schweitzer."

Just did, eat it dude.

With all due respect, none of these are peer-reviewed books dedicated solely to proving that Jesus Christ existed - or peer-reviewed books dedicated to refuting a book claiming that Jesus Christ was not upon the Earth during the first century CE.

[karavan]

ABudhoo, after me completely destroying your other comments such that you couldn't respond, why are you now literally spamming this thread with your do-nothing comments? Gullotta and Gathercole calmly refuted a number of Carrier's claims, that much is obvious, and your claim that those peer-reviewed refutations and detailed engagements of Carrier don't count, despite the fact that they are literally what Godfrey asked for (i.e. serious engagements with Carrier's fantastical theories), is laughable. "Not a peer-reviewed book" is a complete copout, they're peer-reviewed papers. It's also a copout that they aren't intended on proving Jesus existed — they literally present evidence to debunk the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

You should go ahead and keep defending the space sperm reading of Romans 1:3, and actually addressing my responses to you on that topic. Or present actual evidence for the mass of interpolations you've cited of every disconfirming verse of yours, be it in Galatians or whatnot.

[neilgodfrey]

With all due respect, none of these are peer-reviewed books dedicated solely to proving that Jesus Christ existed - or peer-reviewed books dedicated to refuting a book claiming that Jesus Christ was not upon the Earth during the first century CE.

Exactly. The question is simply avoided. Sometimes the avoidance takes the form of outright misrepresentation. The misrepresentations serve the purpose of warning others not to read those wayward ideas but to stick to the mainstream. That's the point of the abuse, ridicule and the falsehoods that serve as substitutes for serious engagement.

The method of censure is not unique to biblical studies. We see the same in other areas, too.