Having considered the latest, of a never ending, round of pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism, namely Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster, I posted the following statement on Facebook:
I found Paulkovich’s claims fascinating as a few years ago I personally conducted research on documents written 70 AD to 200-250 AD and chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus. The number refers to the texts themselves and not to the number of times that Jesus is referenced in each text. Counting each reference would take us well beyond the 205 total. Furthermore, the number refers to the texts and not to each manuscript behind each text. Counting each manuscript would also take us well beyond the 205 total.
My evidence is here: Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations
I received a reply which read, in full:
This is trash.
Well, this generally denotes a throw away comment with which one does not waste any time yet, I thought to give it a go and wrote back:
Friend, I personally conducted research on documents written 70 AD to 200-250 AD and chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus. The number refers to the texts themselves and not to the number of times that Jesus is referenced in each text. Counting each reference would take us well beyond the 205 total. Furthermore, the number refers to the texts and not to each manuscript behind each text. Counting each manuscript would also take us well beyond the 205 total. Now, your reply is “This is trash.” Please attempt to engage in reasoned discourse and propose a scholarly reply.
Well, this time, the reply was more substantive:
I interview scholars. You are not a scholar. you have entirely ignored mainstream scholarship and its methods and made amateur posts with lists of ludicrous sources. Mainstream methods have even been found invalid by every scholar that’s examined them, and, they’re way ahead of you. You haven’t a clue what you’re doing and no clear method save taking texts at face value.
I replied thusly:
Friend, that you generically claim to interview generic scholars and that I am not one is not an issue and hints of an argument to authority.
Let us review the problems:
1) I have entirely ignored mainstream generic scholarship and its generic methods.
2) I made amateur posts (by definition I am an amateur so yes, and it was only one post) with lists of generically ludicrous sources—it is fascinating that you simply wave your hand and declare all 205 references to be ludicrous.
3) “Mainstream” generic “methods have even been found invalid by every scholar that’s examined them,” so if “Mainstream methods have even been found invalid” why fault me for supposedly “entirely” ignoring “mainstream scholarship”?
4) “they’re” apparently a reference to the invalid mainstream scholarship “way ahead of you,” whatever that means—ahead of me in being invalidate?
5) I may not know what I am doing but rely on primary source material and historians, academics and various scholars who research such subjects.
The reply was basically a reference to historian, Atheist and polyamorous dog Richard Carrier and, since the commentator interviews scholars, a URL to a video wherein he interviewed Raphael Lataster. Well, it is not really an interview but merely a platform for Lataster to say whatever he wants, unchallenged and having the interviewers merely, uncritically and un-skeptically agreeing with everything Lataster sated.
Well, I decided to take this matter seriously and within the following segments I will elucidate the issues of miracles and Josephus, Paul and the celestial Jesus and Raphael Lataster’s modus operandi which is literal conspiracy theorizing.