First, James McGrath has pointed to Thompson’s recent essay, calling it rather odd. McGrath points out what many of us see in other academic mythicis that “Thompson seems to be trying to both defend mythicism and distance himself from it.”
That’s the problem, ain’t it. Mythicism is being redefined merely as a healthy dose of doubt. I would say that if we are redefining the word, then we should see that it is a healthy dose of the loss of reality, but…
Tom didn’t like that. He suggests that because McGrath doesn’t believe Thompson and then sees that Thompson is indeed a mythicist that somehow McGrath has failed to read his book.
I’m trying not to comment too much on Thompson’s article, finding some personal flaws in it, but it is rather clear that Thompson is a mythicist.
Again, read the article here.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
The question is about respect for ones own words, Joel. If you aren’t reading the arguments in the book, and you fabricate a strawman to attack instead of the actual arguments, you fail as a researcher, as a scholar. I’m not saying James is not competent, but when you make a claim like ‘what does this point have to do with historicity?’ when clearly Thompson is asking THAT SAME QUESTION about Ehrman’s misreading of his work, then there is a problem there. Whether or not Thompson considers himself a mythicist is irrelevant. If he writes a book against Q, is his book then a ‘mythicist book’? Or is it a book against the case for Q?! That is the point here. James seems to want to create this false umbrella over Thompson’s The Messiah Myth and label it mythicism. THAT is wrong. That is an example of someone not being true to the sources, not being accurate in their presentation of the data. And you just parrot the same mistake, you’re guilty of it too. It has nothing to do about disagreements; it is about being competent as a scholar. Let’s just be clear on that.
Wow… love the ad hom. So instead of responding, I’m to let this asinine comment stand on its own.
[...] Joel writes the following: Tom didn’t like that. He suggests that because McGrath doesn’t believe Thompson and then sees that Thompson is indeed a mythicist that somehow McGrath has failed to read his book. [...]
Hi Joel! I apologize for the comment, but I couldn’t find contact information on the blog to get in touch with you directly. Mike Morrell and I really appreciate your blog, and think you’d be an excellent candidate for our Speakeasy Blogger Network. Given your book review history, I think that either this will either be right up your alley or that you may be too busy for yet another network. If the former, this will be an opportunity to review off-the-beaten path faith, spirituality, and culture books at no charge to you. You only get books when you request them, and it’s free to join. Sign up here, if you’d like: http://thespeakeasy.info
No pressure; if you don’t respond, that’s it, and the invitation is open as long as you’re actively blogging. Hope you join us!