The only realistic definition of “modern scholarship” is “all modern scholars.”

If he had said “by some modern scholars…” he wouldn’t have any trouble with his claim that he never said “all modern scholars…” But the way he said it can only mean and imply “all”.

By his logic, since I completed Philosophy 101 this semester, can I call myself a Philosopher?

If so, that neat!

Thanks for the backup. I hadn’t thought about this little argument in a while, every time I read Rook’s writing it makes me laugh. Maybe he should go into comedy? Thanks again.

Hawkins calls himself a “Historian”, but no real credentials to back up the authority he assumes. He is a “Historian” of his own making like those who create phony diplomas to impress and influence others. He touts his “membership” in the “JBL” as if it is some sort of accomplishment (see his post above and his self admiring video on YouTube). Rook, first, “JBL” is Journal of Biblical Literature, the quarterly produced by the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). You’re not a member of the JBL; you’re a member of the SBL. You do not need credentials to become a member of the Society of Biblical Literature. It is no accomplishment on your part. You state on YouTube that you can now publish to their periodical. With your currently poor grasp on history, just try it….your work will be rejected so fast it will make your head spin….but that’s just because it’s such a biased society, right? …..Ego-maniacs never see their own faults and studies have shown that those with a subject IQ lower than required routinely believe that they are more intelligent than they acutally are because they cannot understand that they are wrong.

If Hawkins actually has the desire to become a “real Historian” rather than merely a biased detractor of Christianity, then he’d better get real credentials and a more humble attitude which is the only attitude through which true learning can take place. He’s “high on the hog” and full of himself right now because he’s young and a few big names are actually giving him the time of day because he has an interest in what they have to say.

If I could sum this all up in one phase? Grow up and get a clue, Hawkins.

1) In any debate, regardless of the accuracy of facts presented, the winner is going to be the person with the better stated case. If I argued that the moon was made of green cheese, and did it well, I would win. Be brief, be bright, be gone, the keys to convincing others to my point of view. Rook, your arguments, whether they are right or wrong, are badly presented. You circle, double-back, misspell, and your grammar is atrocious. If you truly want to convince anyone that your point of view has merit, you need to polish your delivery. For instance, it’s not “strawmans”, it’s “strawmen”.

2) The next person that uses the word “strawman” is going to get my shoe thrown at their head!

That being said, I fear that we cannot have any real discussion on the topic. You are so convinced that you are correct, that any argument I have with your evidence instantly becomes a “strawman” that I am trying to setup for my own means. I was simply trying to point out that I felt some of your statements in regards to Tacitus were contradictory. Almost immediately any discussion about primary sources becomes a juvenile “my scholar is better than your scholar” contest. Anyone that you cite is instantly credible and anyone that I attempt to cite as authoritative is a part of some international Christian conspiracy. This is no way to have a healthy intellectual debate.

I do wish to apologize, however, if you felt personally offended by my post. I did not intend to make you feel belittled, or harmed in any fashion. I will not apologize, however, for any of my statements in regards to the parts of your website I quoted. I do not feel that they were taken out of context, or inappropriate.

Again, I am very sorry that we cannot have an honest academic conversation. I pray for the day when that is a real possibility.

Perhaps that is because you are strawmaning my argument?

“You are trying to get the reader to infer that all modern scholars agree with your position.”

Please point out where I said “all scholars agree with my position.” I never made that claim, and had you done your research on me you would know I never would claim that.

“This is simply not the case.”

I agree.

“In fact, scholars who support your position that Jesus never really existed are in an underwhelming minority.”

You’re overstating your case. You don’t know all of scholarship, I know you can’t name them all, how can you claim that we are in the “overwhelming” minority?

I would say we’re a minority, but that isn’t because the information isn’t there, it’s because most of scholarship is unfortunately not secular enough. Many of the scholarly journals like the JBL (which I am a member of) have become synonymous with Bible College – the doors were opened an d a streamline of theologians and bible scholars flooded the building.

I’m not the only Historian who feels this way either. I can tell you that many scholars are agnostic on the existence of Jesus, not because they feel the evidence is compelling, but rather because in our line of work, people lose their jobs when they dissent against the historicity of Jesus because board members at universities are generally not secular, nor open minded. Instead there tends to be a large amount of religious oppression. There are great articles on ‘minimalism’ which is exactly what this is. Dissent against the church and you can be banned from teaching.

Don’t act like you understand the situation, you don’t.

“I could give you names like Bruce Metzger,”

Metzger, meet Dennis R. McDonald and Charles H. Talbert who have refuted your position ad nauseum.

“F.F. Bruce, Edwin Yamauchi,”

Yamauchi wrote a fallacious book on early Christian gnosticism which is horrendous. As with most Christian scholars he uses many outdated sources like John A.T. Robinson or William Albright, among whom have been refuted by modern scholars. (Note, don’t strawman me here too)

“Bart Ehrman,”

Bart Ehrman is agnostic on Jesus’ existence. He has not swayed either way. I converse quite frequently with him.

“Heck, even people that I totally disagree with like Elaine Pagels and her camp believe that Jesus existed.”

What do you base this claim on?

“So please, do not try to make it seem like every scholar worth their mortarboard ardently denies any evidence that Christ was alive.”

Please, don’t strawman me, by creating new arguments instead of dealing with the main argument.

“That is just sensationalism.”

You’re not using this term correctly.

“You are trying to convince people that a majority of the academic community believes something that it does not. Shame on you.”

That is a false claim, and I expect an apology for you putting words in my mouth. Are you honest enough to apologize for your mistake?

“Moving on, the problems that I have with your “extensiveâ€? thread debunking all of my “evidenceâ€? stem mostly from illogical conclusions and suppositions that you make.”

Oh really? Prove it.

“For instance, in the passing”

Passing? Tacitus is a whole section.

“in which you talk about Tacitus and his writings about the fire of Nero, you have multiple, seemingly contradicting pieces of “evidenceâ€? that Tacitus’ writing has been forged or altered. Here are some examples:

[snip the quotes]

This is correct. For those who understand anything about history this statement is accurate. This is also far from speculation. Peter Kirby, a Christian scholar, gives six reasons to support this

(1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly.
(2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect.
(3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as ‘Christus’, while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus.
(4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE).
(5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero’s cruelty.
(6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstitio.

A full discussion of this can be found at Kirby’s website: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

“So, what’s your point with these two pieces of evidence?”

Did you read them?

“If it’s logical for there to be no record of Jesus’ death, how is that evidence it didn’t happen?”

Strawman. Thanks again for making up a completely different argument then the one I posted.

“If it is logical for there to be a record, and there isn’t one, how does that support the fact that Tacitus’ passage has been altered or forged?”

There are other scholars who agree that there is a possibility that it has been interpolated. Van Voorst and Jeffery Jay Lowder are a few scholars who agree with me.

“Unfortunately, when it comes to this section of your “siteâ€?, this isn’t the only example.”

Can you engage in any more hyperbole? Just curious.

“So, what you’re telling me is that the Christians weren’t numerous enough for the Romans to take notice.”

I never said that. Do you like making up new arguments because you deal with the present ones? Or do you simply have a problem with reading comprehension? This is your fourth strawman.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too!”

If you’d read the actual argument and not infer things from them, perhaps you’d be more than sophomoric in your response.

“Sadly, these are only two examples of the shoddy “historyâ€? given on Mr. Hawkin’s site. His entire work is riddled with undisclosed bias.”

Classical case of projection.

“He seems to approach the subject with this end-goal in mind: “Proving the Jesus never existedâ€?”

You can’t prove a negative, you can only show how it is less then probable for it to have been. Perhaps if you knew more concerning the methodologies of History you may understand that.

“and, with that as his final verdict, works backwards to prove his case.”

That would be something to prove. Can you do that without adding to my text and taking it out of context and creating strawmans?

“In other words, he does not let the evidence speak to him, but imposes his predetermined conclusion upon it. Again, this is not how an actual historian operates.”

So aside from strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, is this the best you can do? Why not come onto my message board and refute the claims? Perhaps you’ll bring more than logical fallacies? We’ll see.