Wow. And which shows he knows my 2014 study exists—yet still didn’t cite or quote or reference it or address its contents! And this is in 2020—yet he still doesn’t cite or quote or reference even Lataster’s peer-reviewed study of 2019! And, of course, nothing in that article is even relevant to either (it’s mostly about the bogus conspiracy theory charge which I dispel in OHJ, index, “conspiracy theories”).

That pretty much dispels any chance of his honesty or competence.

Cooke, B. (2020). The myth theory of Jesus is rubbish. The Open Society: Official Journal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists & Humanists (Inc.), 93(1), 17-19.

There is a free copy here:

https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.T2024061700004700244463335

Primarily, because he is famous and biblical studies operates as a prestige economy, not an empirical one.

Secondarily, for the convoluted historically contingent reason that Ehrman popularized biblical studies to the masses, becoming a direct threat to Christian congregations (who are not supposed to know about mainstream biblical studies—exactly as Ehrman himself explains in the introduction to Jesus, Interrupted). In result he became the most recognized “atheist historian of Jesus.”

Since Christians are fond of tu quoque fallacies, they like quote-mining famous atheists who agree with them on something (“See, even Ehrman agrees with us!” which is to be read as “See, even atheist experts agree with us”). This led to a popular practice of quoting Ehrman this way.

He thus became “the most important expert in Jesus studies.” Christians need him to be, so they can keep this fallacy running; and atheists who hate mythicists need him to be, for the same reason (because everyone with a false belief resorts to the same illogical rhetoric, it’s part of the standard toolbox of all human beings who emotionally feel the need to defend something that they actually can’t). And this all stems from him simply being the most recognizable name in the field, who just happens to support Christians on certain things, which they will exploit.

This in turn gave Ehrman power. And since power corrupts, he uses that power to threaten and browbeat anyone who disagrees with him, to the cheers of adoring fans.

Because, circling back to point one, biblical studies is a prestige economy, not an empirical one.

Can someone tell me why Ehrman, and not JDC, Burton L. Mack, Shelby Sponge, or Vermes became the “main face” of historicism? Why don’t evangelicals have conferences critiquing any of those other folks, rather than just Ehrman (I know the guy who set up the Ehrman conference in Chicago from a few years back)? I have seen, over the past twelve years that I’ve been doing serious research in this area, Muslims and Evangelicals (when debating Mythicists) quoting Ehrman constantly, but never Vermes, et al. Also, I know this has been covered for over a decade, but has anyone pinned down the reason why Ehrman engages (in his writings and debates) in so much gatekeeping, even going so far as to call Tanakh scholars in his own department “unqualified” to write a book on the New Testament? He seems to think Biblical Studies operates under the parampara system (or the Sith rule of two) where there can only be so many “true” teachers out there.

Indeed. That argument is contextually ignorant in a number of ways.

I list it as one of the failure modes of historicity in Historicity Big and Small (it’s P11) and addressed it ten years ago when Ehrman ineptly attempted it (see Ehrman on Historicity Recap, §7). I have since demonstrated that in fact dozens of experts conclude the opposite (see The Idea That Some Jews Were Already Expecting a Dying Messiah).

In my original study I provided abundant evidence and cited some of that scholarship too (Ehrman has never read my book; or if he has, he has never published anything about it since; e.g. his book on historicity was published before mine, and so isn’t a response to its contents). For example, I cover the
“revolution cult” phenomenon in the sociological literature (Element 29, Chapter 5); and I cover the Jewish evidence relating to this (Elements 5 and 7, Chapter 4), which has grown since (see links above). Ehrman has since passed a dissertation by a student making my point openly, so it would seem Ehrman has also quietly dropped that argument.

Just so readers know, that article is available to subscribers only. But so is Cooke’s article that time. Whatever you wrote in response, he evidently ignored it for his 2024 article. Which looks more deliberate than incompetent.

Tom Flynn published my article. It’s available through the Free Inquiry website. “Jesus is a Myth: A Rebuttal to Bill Cooke.” June/July 2017.

Dawkins was sympathetic to mythicism at least at one point, but was never very well informed about it.

FYI my ministry years were 1972 – 1986. My deconversion was an agonizing process taking place in the early 1990s. Aside from comments on Bill Cooke, what I wrote was written about 2002 – 2003 so as you point out there are numerous points to improve.

Though endorsed by Robert Price I’d be very surprised if Free Inquiry publishes my comments.

Do you know if Richard Dawkins has ever expressed any thoughts on a mythical Jesus?

Thanks for all your work. Best regards, Lee