I hope James doesn’t mind the title of this blog. I have been following the recent discussion of the ‘Social Media’ and ‘Myth’ discussion with interest, though I will have to blog my own thoughts on it soon. I was pleasantly surprised to see this comment from James:
And even if it were so applied, it presumably wouldn’t convince the mythicists, who are determined to be denialists, while for mainstream scholars it might simply confirm what the evidence already points to.
But James still is using this term ‘mythicist’ in a wide, umbrella-type format that is problematic, since not all mythicists can be lumped into this. Perhaps he might amend the statement to read something like:
“And even if it were so applied, it presumably wouldn’t convince many mythicists, those who are determined to be denialists, while for the mainstream scholars it might simply confirm what they believe the evidence already points to.”
See the difference? One is hyperbolic, the other is far more accurate and erudite. And fair. So maybe James will consider rewriting that paragraph in a manner akin to what I have rewritten above?
Incidentally, it might also be worth mentioning that simply because someone has a new method, it does not necessarily mean that method is useful or will provide any particular information within a different field of study. So I am not in agreement with James that by simply applying the method, it would suddenly prove the validity of the historicity of the figure of Jesus. One does not simply apply the same method the way, across all types of texts. That is irresponsible scholarship, and I’m sure James would agree.
Filed under: Uncategorized