If you’re one of those rare people who are intelligent, curious and openminded, then you should find of interest the following.
Newly Updated “The Origins of Christianity”
The link is to a discussion on the forum run by D.M. Murdock (AKA Acharya S). She is a scholar in comparative religion/mythology (her emphasis being Christianity from an astrotheological viewpoint).
I don’t agree with her scholarly views entirely (I don’t know about her personal views so much) because I tend to look at mythology less from a single viewpoint. She is a great scholar in her field, but my difference in opinion is based on that I prefer to look at the underlying patterns (archetypes or whatever). Archetypes (according to Jung and Hillman) are multivalent and so open to many interpretations. So, despite my love of Murdock’s scholarship, I’ve at times found her conclusions more limited (not that I disagree with her conclusions that often).
I guess it’s that she seems to be in a position to defend a particular viewpoint which her scholarship is a part of. I, on the other hand, don’t have a dog in the fight… and I just get tired of the fighting in the field of biblical scholarship (it mostly seems like nonsense, nitpicking over details — missing the forest for the trees)… which isn’t to say that I don’t get as irritated as Murdock when someone (such as an apologist) spreads lies and misinformation. Murdock is very learned and she has strong convictions in what she knows (I respect that). She suffers no fools, but sometimes she seems too over-confident or something (which causes me to hold her scholarship at arms length).
I’m not sure exactly what it is. I just sense a difference of attitude between her and similar scholars I enjoy. Two of my favorite are Jung and Campbell, and both of them seemed primarily curious with little interest in arguing about who is absolutely right. I think it’s a personality thing. I prefer people who endlessly consider possibilities and who hold conclusions very lightly (such as Charles Fort or Philip K. Dick).
My point being is that she is one of my favorite scholars even though her personality/attitude conflicts a bit with my own. It’s important to try to separate out a sholar’s personality from their actual scholarship. She may be a bit too confrontational for my tastes, but I’m glad there are people like her to aggressively defend a field of knowledge that has for too long been unfairly dismissed.