Tuesday, 15 February 2011

Jesus Mythicism - decaff or extra shot?

I view the ongoing dialogue (or perhaps "exchange of fire") between Neil Godfrey and James McGrath as a sideline spectator who really doesn't know who to cheer for. My heart pulls me one way, my head the other. Neil takes a hardline mythicist position while James cautions "just hold on there cobber." James has a nuanced position, but such niceties are often lost in this sort of debate. So when someone like Thomas Verenna enters the discussion, it's helpful to see the issues from a third-party perspective.

If James chooses decaff and Neil takes his dark roast with an extra shot, I suspect Thomas prefers his espresso mild roast, double shot. I enjoyed his book Of Men and Muses very much (hopefully the second edition will purge the distracting typos.) Over on his Musings blog he responds to some of James' reservations with (what seems to me) some well made points.

On a loosely-related topic specifically for those Ocker readers out there, I'd be interested in your comments about Mike Adler's article The Religious Impulse of Richard Dawkins in the current issue of Quadrant, should you have read it.


  1. $30 Australian to read one article in Quadrant (emphasis on the "rant"): I think not.

    As for the Musings: What?!?! Josephus gave historical accounts of fictional characters??!!?? You must be joking!!! The only fictional account Josephus would ever give is about himself (and a lot of that there is!)!!!

  2. That's kinda why I suggested the article as an option mainly for the Aussies who can pick up a copy of the entire issue for under $10 (also in NZ, if you can find a copy.)

    I might post some quotes later. Actually there's a lot of good stimulating stuff in this issue.

  3. Douglas, I do hope you're being factitious.

  4. No, I was not being facetious, it really is $30 for a subscription... oh. You mean about Josephus.

    Well, see, if you follow the links, it turns out that apparently Josephus did make up an historical account of a fictional character.

    The facetious part was all about Josephus being so narcissistic about declaring the wonders of himself and his ancestry -- which might have been historically accurate -- the rest he wrote? Not so much.