Wednesday, 7 January 2015

A sharp new voice in the Mythicism conversation



A new blog takes up the cause of mythicism. And here's the thing - it's actually well written. The anonymous blogmeister is obviously well grounded in the field of biblical studies and, hallelujah, doesn't come across with the earnest pretentiousness of so many of those "bah, humbug!" types in the 'historicist' camp.

My one initial reservation concerns the anonymous thing. I understand that "coming out" as mythicist-friendly can be akin to committing professional harakiri (just ask Bob Price!), but it would be helpful to know - for example - if the writer is a graduate student.

The Mythicism Files is likely to become a frequent port of call for those curious to explore the concept. It doesn't seem to have gained much profile yet... but I suspect that will change quite quickly. I'll be bookmarking this one.
Posted by Gavin R at 09:25

13 comments:

  1. James F. McGrath7 January 2015 at 10:39

    The author is anonymous but known to me from a long history of interaction. He isn't a Biblical scholar or grad student in the field but an interested layperson, like most other mythicist bloggers. In fact, we had a falling out, as I recall, over his championing of this stance despite the evidence against it and the fact that its claims are consistently found to be implausible, unsubstantiated, or downright false in many instances, and at best unpersuasive in most others. It is sad to see that there has been no change, and I'm not sure why his decision to devote a whole blog to a subject he has been blogging about for ages is noteworthy.

    http://leoquix.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-on-historicity-of-jesus.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quixie7 January 2015 at 12:06

    I just started the blog about a week ago. Thank you for posting this and for your kind words.

    I am not a graduate student in NT studies at all. My formal education was actually in engineering but I work as a freelance artist.

    I just started the blog about a week ago.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Minimalist7 January 2015 at 17:08

    As scientific resistance to murderous Christianity/Islam intensifies, see if your local community has a Mythicist organization;
    I found one here and they have snagged Richard Carrier for April conference! http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/events/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quixie7 January 2015 at 17:44

    No, James . . . we didn't have a falling out.

    I merely stopped reading your blog altogether (without any fanfare whatsoever) when it occurred to me that you are willing to be dishonest in service of your agenda.

    The curious thing about this now is . . . .
    Why does what I think make you sad, or glad, or anything at all?

    I think that you taking this condescending and patronizing attitude says more about you than it does about me, but I'm cool with letting whoever is reading along decide that for themselves. .

    At all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James F. McGrath8 January 2015 at 02:37

      It is interesting that you think that writing as you do would not involve a falling out. Mythicists, like all purveyors of fringe ideas, have to resort to accusations of dishonesty, as they seem unable to grasp that, in scholarship, when someone wants to revive a long-abandoned view, or offer a new one, the onus is on them to make the case for it and to persuade their peers. If, having failed to do so, you resort to claims of dishonesty or other tactics involving conspiracy of scholars against you, I guess some in the public might actually fall for that claim, but academics won't, because we see it all the time from various cranks and fringe figures who prefer to insist that they are being treated unfairly, rather than consider the hard truth that their claims are unpersuasive.

      Delete
  5. Ryan8 January 2015 at 08:43

    I posted before, it didn't show up for some reason. But Quixie, you should correct the errors in your "Index of Scholars." There are several repeats. The two Price boys, for example, net a full 5 recurrences between them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quixie8 January 2015 at 12:18

      On second thought . . . you're right, Ryan . . . it is excessive .. . I'll limit it to last names and nick names . . . thanks for the advice.

      Delete
  6. Quixie8 January 2015 at 10:36

    Ryan. Thanks.
    The repeats are there so that they can be searched by first or last name or nickname . . . or what have you . . . it is intentional. The list will grow to include many more . . . i"m just starting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quixie8 January 2015 at 10:38

    James . . . feel free to not read a word I write.

    I'm okay with that.

    Or . . . you can keep relentlessly repeating yourself ... un which case I can just ignore you.
    Suit yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James F. McGrath8 January 2015 at 13:36

      Biologists often have to repeat themselves when responding to evolution-deniers. The response is often to ignore them, too.

      Delete
    2. Gavin R8 January 2015 at 14:53

      Right lads, back to your corners.

      Delete
    3. Quixie8 January 2015 at 15:47

      Thanks again, Gavin.

      Delete
  8. Ed-M2 February 2015 at 06:22

    Except biologists usually don't believe in a god, or believe he keeps HANDS OFF the developing biosphere.

    Evolution-deniers, on the other hand, insist a god created everything only 6 thousand years ago, give or take some fudge factors, or constantly meddled in the biosphere's internal affairs over the past several hundred million years or more.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)