rationalskepticism.org

GakuseiDon wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Now I have not read Nailed, but it seems that if it's true as Fitzgerald says he cites scholars by name and identifies majority opinions among scholars the charge of a 'false dichotomy' might well be a misreading of the book.

And doesn't that sound weird in itself?

Not to me. Sounds very straightforward.

Fitzgerald writes how:

"the facts that support [Fitzgerald's book "Nailed"] are often considered not radical at all by the majority of Biblical scholars - many have been accepted as the majority opinion for centuries"

on the one hand, and on the other:

"the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect them to say?".

Simply weird.

It's probably the context that is important - the facts Fitzgerald uses are those uncontroversial ones, not at all radical by any means, despite the fact that many scholars simply assume there was an 'historical Jesus'.

It only seems 'weird' when you remove the first part of the second quote:

"...the majority of Biblical historians reject the idea that Jesus never existed, the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect them to say?"

Makes more sense?

One of my criticisms of Doherty's latest book is his tendency to address apologetic arguments, even when critical scholarship says something different.

The pickle is that the 'mythical Jesus' hypothesis is under fire from both straight up christian apologists as well as biblical scholars, so Doherty for example must address criticisms on both fronts.

It seems that Fitzgerald is aware that Biblical scholars -- whatever the majority believes -- are doing good enough work for Fitzgerald to use. So if it is a bad argument, why address it? And if it is a good argument, why worry if it is being made by a believer?

I'm not certain which particular argument you are referencing here.

Like Doherty, I think Fitzgerald is preaching to the converted.

Not sure why this charge couldn't be as easily made of 'academic scholars' whose work is published in forums only their fellow 'insiders' will ever read.

He should just work from critical scholarship, and forget what 2.1 billion people believe.

If you'd like such a book to be written - there's an opportunity for you to write it.

Or alternatively, he should work from the beliefs of 2.1 billion people, and not worry about critical scholarship.

I expect Fitzgerald had reasons for taking the approach he did. If he's espousing a 'mythic Jesus' hypothesis, then he will expect to be attacked on all fronts. Best be prepared for that, eh?

But Fitzgerald mixes these two approaches, and the result is not good.

I actually haven't read the book.

You have?