Dilbert on the Interwebs

Thanks to Wayne for the strip.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus writes…

– Epistula ad Pompeium

Mr. Deity Season 1

Check out Mr. Deity here.

John Loftus’ Reading Incompetence

In an attempt to put all of this behind me, I posted a message up for fans of my blog to not expect me to respond to John’s two additional sections on Jesus in his blog.  I made it clear that John wished me to stop talking to him and leave him alone, and in a manner of respect I said I would, which included responses to additional material I promised I would get out to readers.  But as if going against his own request, John came onto my blog and threw some pretty harsh accusations at me.  John has accused me of acting like a Christian because I am “so sure” of being right.  John then suggested that I had mischaracterized him and his reasons (here on my blog), which has forced my hand.  In order to stall any more inescusable libel directed against me, I have decided to show my readers the conversation in which John claims I have mischaracterized his reasons (check comments).  You, the reader, can decide the veracity of his claims.

My initial email:

John (& Richard),

To start, I want you to know John that I only contacted Richard to get an additional perspective.  It was not my intention to bring him into our conversation (if I had an ulterior motive, it was only to bring his attention to a comment of yours, perhaps said in anger, where you suggested that mythicists were crackpots or something to that effect after listing Richard–a mythicist–as a friend).  His comments were unbiased and worked as a means to help me understand some of your arguments because I don’t think you were making them clear initially. (Richard had equally exposed my bias in our conversation which forced me to reevaluate how I was going to respond; for that I am thankful)

I will leave your comments in red.

I was presuming the first step, that the source is trustworthy when merely claiming there was a charismatic doomsday prophet who was crucified by the Romans. And sources are neither compleltey trustworthy or completely non-trustworthy. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must do the hard work of finding out what we can trust and what we can’t.

I do not feel you have adequately made the case (nor has any historical Jesus scholar) that it is acceptable to assume there was a charismatic doomsday prophet who was crucified by the Romans.  You are welcome to believe that–but that does not make it a trustworthy claim.  In antiquity, it was common for scholars like Apollonius of Rhodes to debate with other scholars over the historical Achilles; the Trojan War was even dateable.  Would it be fair to say their claims concerning a historical Achilles were trustworthy?  What about a historical Homer?  More on this below.

I don’t think I’m making a mistake here, since I agree with Richard. I was presuming that the work in question was a non-fictional one. And there are elements in the Gospels and the NT itself that indicate they are not indending their works to be complete fiction. One strong piece of textual evidence is the eschatological predictions in the NT itself, which were an embarrassment to the early Christians and were watered down and/or explained away as time went on, from Paul to Mark to Matthew to Luke to John to Revelation to II Peter. Therefore I conclude these writings are textual evidence. Once established as textual evidence then the burden of proof shifts to the person who denies this evidence. But I don’t disagree with this first step.

I will let Richard deal with the Argument from Embarrassment as he is currently working extensively on this issue (and even addressed it at Amherst in a paper which I unfortunately could not attend to listen to).  However, just because a Christian in the second century was embarrassed by origin tradition of the first century does not imply–at all–that the escatological predictions in Mark are authentic.  Further, our earliest source of Eschatological predictions come from Paul who never once suggests that Jesus will “come again” – simply that he will, eventually, come.  Paul had no inclination, it seems, of an original coming.Just because the Gospels contain failed eschatological promises does not mean that the Gospels represent anything more than complete fiction.  In Lucian’s True Stories, he makes the claim “for I will say one thing that is true…that I am a liar…My readers must not believe a word I say.”  But as G.W. Bowerstock points out in his Fiction as History:Nero to Julian (1997) even that is a lie.  Lucian does make historical claims in his True Stories that reflect locations, travel, dress, etc… But these historical truths (as the Gospel has some, such as the existence of Pilate and Jerusalem, for example) do not imply that authorial intent was to write anything but fiction.

Additionally, escatological promises have been made since Isaiah 53 and probably before.  The whole of the passion, crucifixion, and resurrection have roots in Isaiah 53, which I have written extensively on (and linked to you almost three times now) here in response to James McGrath’s argument of the same calibre while also abusing (in some form) the Argument from Embarrassment.

Part 1: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/did-jesus-exist-a-response-to-james-f-mcgrath/

Part 2: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/messiah-vs-messiah-deja-vu-and-james-mcgrath/

Part 3: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/gethsemane/

I have written extensively on this issue precisely because I was tired of repeating myself on it.  I feel there is significabt reasons for Jewish authors of antiquity to write fictional stories (Just look at all the Pseudepigrapha and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls) concerning their Jesus Christ (eponymously named…”Anointed Savior”).  And Mark had copies of Paul’s letters (or was at least strongly influenced by the same theology) enough where he created an origin story based off Paul’s vision-accounts including Jesus being crucified by “the powers” (archons) of the ages–which Paul speaks of elsewhere as heavenly bodies (Paul discusses the Archon’s elsewhere, although he also uses another term (stoicheia) in some places. See: Gal. 4:3, “elemental spirits of the cosmos” (stoicheia tou kosmou), 4:8-9, “However at that time, not knowing God, you were slaves to gods who by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elemental spirits, to which you desire to be slaves all over again?” (Alla tote men ouk eidotes theon edouleusate tois phusei mê ousi theois: nun de gnontes theon, mallon de gnôsthentes hupo theou, pôs epistrephete palin epi ta asthenê kai ptôcha stoicheia, hois palin anôthen douleusai thelete) and Col. 2:8, “Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elemental spirits of the cosmos, and not after Christ.” (Blepete mê tis humas estai ho sulagôgôn dia tês philosophias kai kenês apatês kata tên paradosin tôn anthrôpôn, kata ta stoicheia tou kosmou kai ou kata Christon); also Rom. 8:38, “For I am persuaded, that neither…angels, nor Archons…nor powers…” (pepeismai gar hot…oute angeloi oute archai…oute dunameis) and 1 Corinthians 15:24, “Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power.” (hotan paradidôi tên basileian tôi theôi kai patri, hotan katargêsêi pasan archên kai pasan exousian kai dunamin,). Additional first century evidence: Ephesians 2:2, “in which you once walked according to the course of the cosmos, according to the Archon of the powers of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience;” (en hais pote periepatêsate kata ton aiôna tou kosmou toutou, kata ton archonta tês exousias tou aeros, tou pneumatos tou nun energountos) See full article here: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/intertextuality-between-paul-and-the-hebrew-bible/).

It is interesting to note that your “trustworthy claim” (i.e. that there was a charismatic prophet named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans) is at every turn refuted by our earliest, most credible Christian source: Paul.

I make no such error at all. I ONLY talk in terms of probability. I was talking about textual evidence. If someone denies the textual evidence then what is left to establish that someone existed in the historical past?

Archaeological evidence, voids that are left in our historical timeline (as best we can put together), other nonbias attestation that is clear was not redacted (or, as Kurt Noll will put it in an up and coming SBL article…varying memes did not overtake earlier, existing ones at such a quick rate), to name a few.  Although the very fact alone exists that I can make a compelling and persuasive case concerning the origins of Christianity without a need for a historical Jesus isn’t evidence for ahistoricity, it does suggest (by using the same data you do) to some degree the level of complete irrelevancy such a historical figure would have really had if such a figure existed.  This, combined with hundreds of other collaborative interpretations lead to a lot more problems with historicity than ahistoricity.  Try to take away Alexander the Great from history and your timeline just does not make any consecutive sense.  Take out a historical Jesus and your timeline of Christian origins can still happen even when looking only at the available data we do have.  Just because I do not count the Gospels as

If we have to depend on coins or busts then only a very tiny number of people could be shown to exist in the past because only a tiny number of people ever had coins or busts made of them.

I don’t think this is a fair statement.  There is more to history than coins or busts, clearly.  And at times (and I make this distinction for a reason) the textual evidence is helpful (often textual evidence should be taken with a pillar of salt).  In this particular instance, the textual evidence can be very useful in supporting my interpretation of it. You seem to be implying that the textual evidence can only support your interpretation and that if I accept ahistoricity the textual evidence is useless.  I disagree.  The textual evidence is very important, not only in determining genre (I feel, as Michael Vines rightly points out in his The Problems of Markan Genre, that the Gospel of Mark–our earliest Gospel that we know of–was written intentionally as edifying Jewish fiction) but in determining the manner in which the Gospel authors employed their uniqueness to a common trope.  (See my article here concerning this issue)  This argument has been fleshed out in my blog to some degree, but will be made more completely in upcoming articles for collections of essays and for my monograph.  I’m certain Richard’s book will deal with these issues more primarily being as his monograph will be allocated entirely to arguments against historicity.  My monograph will deal primarily with Gospel exegesis (although another collection of essays I am working on with Bob Price will focus on Christian origins without a historical Jesus).

I hope these suffice as answers for now.  I linked to additional material because I have come down with something recently (some bug or virus that has been passed around between my girlfriend and I for a week or two now despite our best efforts to get rid of it and as a consequence I have not been able to write much).  If you or Richard need me to elaborate on an issue raised here let me know.

Warm regards,

Tom

Here is John Loftus’ reply:

I never called Richard a crackpot.

I’m out of here.

You have an agenda, an axe to grind. After reading that first sentence I haven’t bothered to read the rest of what you said.

John

My reply to John:

John,

Do you read things all the way through?  Where did I say you called Richard a crackpot?  I said you called mythicists crackpots or something to that effect – and I said I contacted Richard as he is a mythicist.  My exact sentence was: “(if I had an ulterior motive, it was only to bring his attention to a comment of yours, perhaps said in anger, where you suggested that mythicists were crackpots or something to that effect after listing Richard–a mythicist–as a friend)” (emphasis mine) and it wasn’t my first sentence, it was my second.  Please do me the courtesy of reading everything I say and stop skimming.

I’m forwarding your comments below and mine above to Richard so he can get a gyst of where my frustration is with you and our current conversation – we cannot be productive in this dialogue if you insist on being stubborn and not reading my replies fully.  If you wish to be intellectually lazy, just say so.  Rather you be lazy than dealing with slander (by suggesting I have an agenda when clearly I do not).

Regards,

Tom

John’s reply:

I will no longer dialogue with you, Tom. Do not email me again.

I’m done.

John

As you can see for yourself, John not only did not read what I wrote, but he apparently forgot what it was that he said.  Talk about being close-minded and having an axe to grind!   He also likened me to a Holocaust Denier here (and he was exposed here for doing the same thing to others) which is not only insulting but ignorant.  If John wants to apologize for his actions I will accept his apology and remove this post.  Otherwise, he asked for it.

Mark and Paul

A member over at FRDB has been kind enough to link to one of my blogs dealing with John Loftus’ posts on a historical Jesus.  Another member, aa5874, responded to some of the errors he felt were present in my blog.  I would like to address them.

There are errors in Tom Verenna’s post. He wrote, “The fact that Mark used Paul is not new to scholarship.” But it is not a fact that the author of Mark used Paul, it is just a theory.

This is correct. It is not a fact. However I feel that it has merit and will be writing an article for a collection of essays dealing with this possibility. There are many instances in Mark where it seems as though he is pulling from Pauline theology. It would not be contra-scholarship for Mark to have had copies of Paul’s letters, in some form, and to have used them as models for his narrative.

Again, in the same post, he wrote, “The Gospel author of Mark used Paul’s account to create the Last Supper scene.” But upon examination, words found in Paul’s Last Supper scene are only found in gLuke.

That is not necessarily correct. Just because Mark did not copy Pauline literature (assuming he had copies, that is) verbatim, does not suggest that Mark had no available copies. Mark very well could have utilized the last supper scene from Paul and altered it to fit his narrative better, which would explain discrepancies. Luke, writing against Marcion in the second century (if Tyson and Price are correct, which I think they are) would have made it more clear where he was drawing the scene from being as he was trying to secure Paul’s letters as orthodox tradition.

John Loftus and our Dialogue

John has asked me to stop corresponding with him.  Why?  Because John does not know how to read criticisms of his work.  Not only are there examples of John not replying to direct questions on this blog (see here and here) but apparently on another forum, a poster by the moniker of ’spin’ is facing the same situation, where John refuses to read a post in its entirety and makes spin repeat himself and continue to demand evidence from John (It has apparently also happened with a mod there named Toto, as well).

I respect John a lot for his work on freeing minds.  I do not appreciate, however, his laziness at reading and responding to things in an appropriate manner.  He skims (he does not read) through material and his replies reflect this.  If John lacks the time to read critiques through from start to finish, he should avoid responding until he has the time.  But since John refuses to read my emails now, I can no longer continue this discussion with him (as he fails to read beyond the second sentence of every email I send him).  So I must apologize to my readers who are anxiously awaiting a reply from me to John’s two additional parts of his historical Jesus posts, but out of my respect for John, I will honor his (albeit somewhat ignorant) request to stop all communication with him.  I hope he comes around and actually takes the time to read where our conversation went poorly, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.

If anybody reading this would like to bring up John’s points that they would like me to address, I would welcome that exchange and would be happy to respond.

Gossip from Pompeii: A Brief Excursus

I know I have not written anything in a while, partly because I have been so busy with working on a new collection of essays I am putting together with Bob Price and partly because I have been working on articles for another collection of essays I am contributing to, that I have not had the time to blog (even though I really, really want to).   In between drilling myself silly with book proposals, abstracts, and contacting contributors, I have managed to start working on the article concerning ancient literature, literacy and model use in antiquity that I promised a few months ago.

During my research for the article, I have been very interested in Pompeii as a possible example for one of the points I make throughout.  In Pompeii, there are some 11,000 instances of the written word.  Some of these instances show signs of bilingual semi-literates (where something is written in Latin, but in the Greek alphabet), which belay the influence of Greek culture on the region prior to the war which later brought that region of Italy into the Roman empire.  Other instances are far more elaborate (like official inscriptions) or less than fascinating (like who is in love with who).

The questions that I feel are important concerning literacy rely primarily on the banal.  Much of this will be covered in the main article, however the question must be asked; if the common man or woman (much less frequently) could write graffiti on the side of a building, or could even write their name, what does that imply about their level of literacy?  Who would be able to read the graffiti anyway?  What purpose would literacy even have in the commoners life?  These questions aside (like I said, answered in the main article I am working on), while reading through some of the graffiti, I had more than my share of chuckles.  I thought as a quick blog post I would share some of them with you.  You might see similar graffiti above urinals in a public restroom. (The Complete Pompeii, p. 102)

• Samius to Cornelius: go hand yourself!
• Chios, I hope your piles irritate you so they burn like they’ve never burned before!
• Lucilla was making money from her body.
• I hate poor people.  Anyone who asks for anything free is a fool; he should hand over his money and take the goods.
• At Nuceria, look for Novema Prumgenia near the Roman gate in the prostitute district.
• Virgula to her broke Tertius: you’re a dirty old man.

The Day the Theatre Stood Silent

On Friday night, my dad, girlfriend and I went to an IMAX theatre expecting to be blown away by the remake of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still.  We were all excited, particularly my father (an avid SciFi guru who thoroughly loved the original).  The previews for the movie made it look awe-inspiring and interesting, as though this would blow away the great Spielberg remake of War of the Worlds, which was quite excellent (as far as I’m concerned, despite Tom Cruise as the protagonist).  The tickets were purchased, we found ourselves good seats (and just in the nick of time, too), and sat down to be amazed.

Unfortunately, we were left asking ourselves why we paid for IMAX tickets when we could have spent 1/8 of the money to rent it on DVD.  We’ll come back to this.

First, the good things I did enjoy (the list is short).  (Spoiler Alert) My favorite scene is where Keanu Reeves corrects a math problem with the professor.  It is iconic and memorable and specific.  Unfortunately for this new film, the scene was in the original.   The acting, however, was overall much better than the original, as are the special effects. (Although as Jim West rightly points out, if you saw the previews, you saw the best of the CGI)

Now the bad (decidedly longer).  What is uncertain from the perspective of those of us who have seen the original is what exactly the director/writers of this film were thinking.  More than once I wanted to grab the writers by the collar and shake them violently asking, loudly, “Just what in the hell were you thinking?”

But more on this in a minute. For those who don’t know, the original film was made in 1951 during the cold war, where nuclear missiles were aimed at every major superpower.  It was a troubling, fearful time where it was felt that the end might come any minute.  World War 2 had ended a few years previous, man had seen attrocities done in the name of prejudice and hate.  The Day the Earth Stood Still was a movie with a message for this age.  It had an impact on so many people.  The socio-cultural environment for it was crucial to its rhetoric.  In today’s world, there are new fears and new attrocities, new messages and new rhetoric would could have been brushed on by the writers.  So much of the human condition, our socio-cultural environment, our digital age, could have been discussed in a way that would have reached us as the original had reached those over five decades ago.  But that was not the case here.  The human condition, we are shown, is not nearly as compassionate as the alien condition.  This is so strange.  The movie did not focus on our human ability to change – all of the change, it seems, takes place with the aliens who visit earth.  Gort changes into a self-reproducing hive of nanobugs; Klaatu originally is “reborn” from alien to human into *three* distinct genetic codes; the sphere’s alter in shape and size and power; Klaatu changes his mind about destroying the human race (for what seems like ridiculously superficial reasons); but where is the human change?  Where is the human ability to become good “at the brink of destruction?”  It is not truly shown in the movie in any way that could be noticeable.

For the most part, the movie wasted its two-hour time slot.  So much was spent on non-plot-related things (as if one could say there was a decent plot, that is) that there was no time for character development or connections with the cast.  These digressions from the plot led to way too many internal contradictions.  For example…at the beginning of the film, an orb ascends to earth in India (why?) and draws the DNA from a nearby mountain climber (deus ex machina, much?) who just conveniently happens to be right there and also happens to be American.  The sphere’s primary purpose is to extract DNA to use sometime later.  The mountain climber touches the sphere, which turns into a bright, glowing incandescent ball and burns the man’s hand (not exactly the most useful way to take a DNA sample…)  This is all taking place in 1929, supposedly.  Later in the film, Keanu Reeve’s character (so “reborn” into humanity from his alien self using the DNA extracted in 1929) meets with an agent who was sent there 70 years previous from his time (2008) meaning that the guy was sent here in 1938.  This begs the question, why was the sample taken in 1929?  The guy does not look like Keanu Reeves and he does not appear to have any likeness to him (he is Asiatic in appearance, unlike Keanu’s character who is clearly European).  What was the purpose of the scene?  It was completely irrelevant and leaves observant viewers scratching their heads. Situations like this are rampant throughout the movie.  (See issues with the ending for more details)  For a race of evolved aliens who canmaster space travel, they pull a “God” manuever here and send an emissary to a desolate part of the world, where the majority of the people at this time were illiterate, to extract a DNA sample they would use later to developanother emissary who was meant to speak to all world leaders.  (Sort of like how God apparently sent his son Jesus to a dessolate and backwards area of Galilee to speak to a group of people who were oppressed and illiterate at this time…etc…)  It’s just too incredibly odd from a writers standpoint to make any logical sense.

Another problem is Keanu’s characters’ (Klaatu) indecisiveness.  Going back to my favorite scene, Klaatu can easily fix a mathematical miscalculation but he doesn’t know for sure if he can stop what he started (and then ends up stopping what he started).  It’s so incredibly ridiculous and it does not inspire thrills or suspense (which is what the angle would be for writing in an indecisive alien being); rather, it led to annoyance which does little more than distract the viewer.  Elsewhere, Klaatu seems to use overkill powers.  In one scene, a Cop draws a gun and holds it at him.  Klaatu kills him first, then revives him.  Why?  In other scenes he can produce a noise in peoples minds that make them crumble to the ground without killing them.  In this instance, he abuses his power and makes him come off more or less like an ass.

The military, it seems, has paid quite a large sum of money to the producers/etc… to turn this fantastic 1950’s movie into a military recruiting film.  So much time was wasted from telling the story on scenes where vast amounts of military personnel were shooting stuff.  From Predator UAV’s to Abram’s tanks and even a few Raptors made an appearance at the end.  A lot of time was spent on interrogation scenes and attempting to subdue Gort (Made into an acronym “G.O.R.T” in this movie, which stands for Genetically Organized Robotic Technology).  About 25-30 minutes of the movie had to be made up of soldiers firing some sort of weapon, taking away from the story and making the film a pain to watch.

Finally, the end of the film was a let down.  In the original film inspired, showed a change in mankind, and Klaatu left the earth with a message…change or we’ll be back.  He literally stopped the earth for thirty minutes to prove he wasn’t playing around.  This film had none of the qualities of the original.  It utterly lacked in human change (in fact, the scene which could have been the “change” needed to satisfy the original plot was completely wasted – the Secretary had the ability to disagree with the president and offer Klaatu and the others a chance and in the end she followed orders, launching a destructive air strike that killed one of the better characters in the film – a scientist no less).  By the end, you still felt no connection with the protagonist female and her step son who–on all accounts–is the biggest pain in the ass (which speaks to his acting abilities).  There was no warning to mankind, not “change or else”…the sphere left and mankind was let be…only mild damage was done to NYC, including the destruction of Giants stadium (I’m an Eagles fan anyway).

This film was not only a waste of money, it was a huge disappointment.  It could have ben so much better, but it really was horrid.  Of course, others may disagree, but this is my opinion of it.  And clearly others felt the same, as we left the IMAX theatre, everyone was in silent shock at how just incredibly inescapeably disgusting of a film remake it really was.

The Jesus Project in Amherst: Reopening the Question of the Historical Jesus

This Just arrived in my inbox. It may be a little hyped (and a little early for the headline), but it certainly got my attention enough that I am really considering submitting a paper or two. Check it out.

————————————————————————–

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Nathan Bupp

Phone: (716) 636-4869 x. 218

E-mail: nbupp@centerforinquiry.net

Quest for the Historical Jesus Begins Anew

Amherst, New York (December 08, 2008)—Scholars gathered this past weekend, December 5-7, in Amherst, New York, for the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project in a renewed quest for the historical Jesus. The project, sponsored by the secular think tank Center for Inquiry and its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), is an effort by historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to determine what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity.

An earlier inquiry, “The Jesus Seminar,” founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and CSER, said that the “The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered.”

The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.

At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as “evidence” for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor’s argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. “Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization,” said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. “Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archaeological record.” Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that “the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions.” All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.

The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a “consistent” translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as “Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity.”

Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title “Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry,” by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project’s next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.

*Listen to Robert Price interview about The Jesus Project on WBFO, Buffalo’s NPR affiliate.

CSER was founded in 1983 and is now a research committee of the Religion and Science division of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York. It encourages the use of the historical and applied sciences in the study of religion and provides educational programs for the public as part of its religious-literacy initiatives. The Center for Inquiry/Transnational is a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York. Their research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-scienceclaims; and medicine and health. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .

This Weeks Projects

I promised everyone some blog posts last week the last few weeks, but because of life issues I have had to put them off for more important matters.  Thankfully, I will have some available time this week within the next week to deliver what I could not by tonight.  This includes the following (so stay tuned and keep checking in to see what I’ve written – or subscribe to this blog):

1. A blog on ancient literature and its composition, model use, genre, and most important of all, how ancient authors learned how to compose literature (the use of ‘ancient’ here should be read as ‘hellenistic and roman period’) This is taking longer than I would have preferred.
2. The second installment of my disagreement with John Loftus.  He has three parts and I will have to work on my response to his second part sometime this week sometime in the near future.  My apologies to those readers and John Loftus in particular for not being able to complete this task as quickly as I had hoped.
3. I am reading Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin, by Nicholas Ostler.  I hope to finish by the end of the week (because it is on loan and needs to be returned by then) and when it is done, I will be writing a review of it here.
4. I would like to write another installment of my ‘Why the Gospels Contradict each Other’ series, but doing so is time consuming–more than other blog articles.  I will work to include an article in this series this week, but I cannot make any promises.
5. The first installment you’re likely to see is an article on how classical peoples and behavior compared to our modern society.  In antiquity, out of fear of eternal powers and all encompassing fate, some turned to mystery religions to deal with and try to predict not only their own ends, but the ends of others and even life itself.  Today, people hold similar fears, and even more pressing, realistic ones (nuclear holocausts, bioterrorism, etc…), but instead of joining mystery religions, many turn to metaphysical spiritualism (i.e. Sylvia Brown) or self-help (Wayne Dyer, Dr. Phil).  I want to explore why this happens, how people went from joining religions and partaking in rituals to spending hundreds of dollars on pseudoscience and con artists.  It is not so much that these people have changed how they interpret the world (its still all completely huey), but rather it is the means by which they buy into it – the method in which the message is transmitted – that has changed.  I thought it may make an interesting article. I decided to scrap this one.