i) I’m a bit surprised that Carrier has taken so much friendly fire from his fellow infidels (pardon the alliteration). His critics include Joseph Hoffmann, James McGrath, Thom Stark, and Chris Hallquist. Why is he so unpopular among his natural allies? Do they think he’s harming the cause by attacking Ehrman? Do they find his vanity insufferable? Do they bridle at his pretensions to be a Renaissance man?
Whatever the case, Carrier badly miscalculated. It must come as a shock to him to realize how friendless he is. And he’s damaged himself in the process, as his secular critics turn on him and proceed to expose his gaffes.
ii) To my knowledge, Carrier wasn’t always a mythicist. As such, it’s self-incriminating for him to be so condescending when he attacks those who still reject the very same position he himself used to reject. But Carrier was one of those blinkered individuals who is both dogmatic and double-minded. He’s changed his views on various issues over the years, yet he’s equally dogmatic about whatever position he currently champions. Having been on both sides of this and other issues, the question naturally arises: was he foolish then, or is he foolish now? On second thought, that’s a false dichotomy.
iii) Like other crackpot causes (e.g. 9/11 Truthers), mythism has the lunatic fringe benefit of distinguishing its little coterie from the rest of the rabble.. If Carrier wasn’t a mythicist, he’d be yet another justly neglected, third-tier militant apostate screaming for attention. But by wearing the Cuban heels of a brave iconoclast, he hopes to stand an inch or two above his fellow munchkins.
No comments:
Post a Comment