Who's Rook Hawkins?

[Adonael]

Hello,

A while ago, I bumped into this link:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/

I scrolled down and found a video. In this video, there was a gentleman named Rook Hawkins giving a speech on jesus mythicism. Hawkins was introduced as a "historian" and that his work is undergoing peer review. He also speaks as if he is part of "scholarship". Yet, I searched and found no information on him as a historian or even as an author with any academic credentials. Who's Hawkins?

[Toto]

Rook Hawkins is an atheist activist. He has not yet established his credentials as a professional historian qualified to teach in a university AFAIK.

I don't keep up the the RRS but there is an entry here which might explain more:

Jesus Mythicism Revised (http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008)
About a year and a half ago, I started a campaign to educate people about Jesus mythicism. When I had first started working on the campaign I was not as well prepared as I am now. I have to chalk that up to inexperience. When somebody says “a lot can happen in a year”, I will consider what they have to say, because they aren’t kidding. A lot has happened in a year and a half that I felt a revision of this article was a necessity.

Among the new avenues I have taken is a complete refocusing of my book, a project that has been a very huge learning experience, and I owe a large debt of gratitude to my mentor, colleague and friend, Thomas L. Thompson, who has been in no small way an influence on me personally and my research. Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have also stepped in to give me some really important advice and critiques that have also shaped how I see the past. My debts also include Joseph B. Tyson, who has offered some criticisms as well as kindness and friendship, and to minimalists everywhere who have said in a loud voice, “We will not submit to assumption and speculation.” It is their mighty tombs and impressively large shadows that I walk behind. Without their unending sacrifice to keep scholarship in check, the world would still be shrouded in an age of darkness and death that ended with the success of the redaction schools of Germany and the glorious Enlightenment that help shaped western culture....

There is a long thread on the Richard Dawkins forum (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38435&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) on Rook's credentials, in which he participates. No need to replicate that here, thank you.

Do you want to discuss Rook Hawkins or his particular theories of Jesus Mythicism? If the former, this is the wrong forum. If you just want to discuss Jesus Mythicism, we already have many threads on that.

[Adonael]

Rook Hawkins is an atheist activist. He has not yet established his credentials as a professional historian qualified to teach in a university AFAIK.

I don't keep up the the RRS but there is an entry here which might explain more:

Jesus Mythicism Revised (http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008)
About a year and a half ago, I started a campaign to educate people about Jesus mythicism. When I had first started working on the campaign I was not as well prepared as I am now. I have to chalk that up to inexperience. When somebody says “a lot can happen in a year”, I will consider what they have to say, because they aren’t kidding. A lot has happened in a year and a half that I felt a revision of this article was a necessity.

Among the new avenues I have taken is a complete refocusing of my book, a project that has been a very huge learning experience, and I owe a large debt of gratitude to my mentor, colleague and friend, Thomas L. Thompson, who has been in no small way an influence on me personally and my research. Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have also stepped in to give me some really important advice and critiques that have also shaped how I see the past. My debts also include Joseph B. Tyson, who has offered some criticisms as well as kindness and friendship, and to minimalists everywhere who have said in a loud voice, “We will not submit to assumption and speculation.” It is their mighty tombs and impressively large shadows that I walk behind. Without their unending sacrifice to keep scholarship in check, the world would still be shrouded in an age of darkness and death that ended with the success of the redaction schools of Germany and the glorious Enlightenment that help shaped western culture....

There is a long thread on the Richard Dawkins forum (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=38435&st=0&sk=t&sd=a) on Rook's credentials, in which he participates. No need to replicate that here, thank you.

Do you want to discuss Rook Hawkins or his particular theories of Jesus Mythicism? If the former, this is the wrong forum. If you just want to discuss Jesus Mythicism, we already have many threads on that.

Can I discuss rook's credentials or arguments as they relate to jesus mythicism?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You can discuss any arguments which are unique to Rook or especially well made by him (credentials aren't so important. An argument either holds up or it doesn't).

[Solitary Man]

Under his “Research” category, he lists the need to be proficient at “several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. (sic!)” I don’t know many scholars who hold so many proficiency certificates in all of those languages. With the exception of Bart Ehrman, who is a textual critic (so his job is to specifically deal with all these languages), I can not think of many scholars who would fit this criteria.

Wow. Just wow. I can name a dozen without blinking. And how many Semitic languages does Bart Ehrman know? While I think the qualification is a bit skewed, if this "Rook Hawkins" fellow doesn't know anyone but Bart Ehrman who has those qualifications, then he doesn't know any scholars at all! More importantly, what scholars don't know the original languages of the culture they're dealing with?

I wander what degree he holds in what fields? I don't know much about him, and frankly, that he already professes so much ignorance and associates himself with the laughable "Rational Response Squad" (the most irrational of any atheist group I've seen thus far), then I seriously doubt his competence in any sort of field.

[Solitary Man]

You can discuss any arguments which are unique to Rook or especially well made by him (credentials aren't so important. An argument either holds up or it doesn't).

I disagree. If you are incompetent in understanding the argument, who would you rather believe, the person with the most credentials or the person with no credentials?

[Manwe]

You can discuss any arguments which are unique to Rook or especially well made by him (credentials aren't so important. An argument either holds up or it doesn't).

I disagree. If you are incompetent in understanding the argument, who would you rather believe, the person with the most credentials or the person with no credentials?

If you do not understand the argument maybe you should not take sides in it.

[Toto]

The Jesus Myth Theory does not depend on Rook Hawkins' credentials, so his credentials are not especially relevant here.

[Antipope Innocent II]

The Jesus Myth Theory does not depend on Rook Hawkins' credentials, so his credentials are not especially relevant here.

The topic was who Hawkins was, considering he's presenting himself on the net, his radio show and anywhere else he can get an audience as an "Ancient Texts Expert" who has things to say about how Jesus never existed. His qualifications are pretty relevant to that issue.

And to answer the question - he has none. He's an amateur hobbyist with a High School diploma. He'd do himself and his fervent cause a great deal of good if he stopped pretending to be something he isn't and simply admitted that he's a keen amateur when it comes to history and a committed polemicist when it comes to atheism, rationalism and the JM hypothesis.

[GakuseiDon]

There is a good thread on the RRS board where Rook discusses his credentials. It's 3 pages long, and raises questions on what the term "historian" means, and when does it apply? Rook argues that he qualifies as a "historian":
http://www.rationalresponders.com/reply_troll

[Toto]

But there is no one on this board who invokes his alleged expertise, so I don't see any point in discussing it here.

[Antipope Innocent II]

There is a good thread on the RRS board where Rook discusses his credentials. It's 3 pages long, and raises questions on what the term "historian" means, and when does it apply? Rook argues that he qualifies as a "historian":
http://www.rationalresponders.com/reply_troll

And there are several good critiques of his line of argument on this matter in the Dawkins Forum thread (BT Employer Number 6991503 – Investor Number 6000013755197) Toto already linked to. In the broadest sense of the word he's a "historian", as is anyone at all who does a bit of reading or perhaps writes some essays on historical topics. In the sense of someone with solid training, genuine expertise and who is worthy of any attention when it comes to the academic study of history, he's a "historian" as much as I'm a brain surgeon or astronaut.

And as for "Ancient Texts Expert"; all of the genuine experts I've ever come across would blush at the mere thought of declaring themselves as much. Yet this kid has that self-declared title emblazoned across his My Space page.

That says it all really.

But there is no one on this board who invokes his alleged expertise, so I don't see any point in discussing it here.

The original poster seemed to think we'd know who this hobbyist was. He was right. We've told him and answered his question about his (total lack of) credentials, expertise and credibility. And that's probably the end of the discussion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You can discuss any arguments which are unique to Rook or especially well made by him (credentials aren't so important. An argument either holds up or it doesn't).

I disagree. If you are incompetent in understanding the argument, who would you rather believe, the person with the most credentials or the person with no credentials?
If I am incompetent in understanding the argument, then I will endeavor to become competent. Arguments from pure authority do not hold much water with me. I would give a credentialled person the benefit of the doubt, but I don't assume that an uncredentialled person can't make a reasonable point (or else what would most of us be doing here?).

[Zeichman]

Under his “Research” category, he lists the need to be proficient at “several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. (sic!)” I don’t know many scholars who hold so many proficiency certificates in all of those languages. With the exception of Bart Ehrman, who is a textual critic (so his job is to specifically deal with all these languages), I can not think of many scholars who would fit this criteria.

Wow. Just wow. I can name a dozen without blinking. And how many Semitic languages does Bart Ehrman know? While I think the qualification is a bit skewed, if this "Rook Hawkins" fellow doesn't know anyone but Bart Ehrman who has those qualifications, then he doesn't know any scholars at all! More importantly, what scholars don't know the original languages of the culture they're dealing with?

I wander what degree he holds in what fields? I don't know much about him, and frankly, that he already professes so much ignorance and associates himself with the laughable "Rational Response Squad" (the most irrational of any atheist group I've seen thus far), then I seriously doubt his competence in any sort of field.

Indeed. Isn't that the BARE MINIMUM for almost every credible NT or HB PhD program in the world? Many schools require either Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic, too. Not to mention at least two modern, non-English, research languages.

[Solitary Man]

Wow. Just wow. I can name a dozen without blinking. And how many Semitic languages does Bart Ehrman know? While I think the qualification is a bit skewed, if this "Rook Hawkins" fellow doesn't know anyone but Bart Ehrman who has those qualifications, then he doesn't know any scholars at all! More importantly, what scholars don't know the original languages of the culture they're dealing with?

I wander what degree he holds in what fields? I don't know much about him, and frankly, that he already professes so much ignorance and associates himself with the laughable "Rational Response Squad" (the most irrational of any atheist group I've seen thus far), then I seriously doubt his competence in any sort of field.

Indeed. Isn't that the BARE MINIMUM for almost every credible NT or HB PhD program in the world? Many schools require either Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic, too. Not to mention at least two modern, non-English, research languages.

The research languages are usually German and French, although some places, like Princeton, Italian can be substituted. It's helpful to know all three at the research level (i.e., you should be able to read all three by the time you have a Ph.D. in hand, and at least one by the time you have a M.A. in hand). April DeConick argues that Coptic ought to be mandatory, and I'm of the opinion (and I'm not alone) that Classics should be fully integrated with the New Testament program, i.e. one should competently read Latin and Greek works unrelated to the New Testament. For Old Testament, knowing languages like Ugaritic, Akkadian (and it's later spin-off's), Hittite, Egyptian (in any of its pre-Coptic forms), Greek, and Sumerian are desired as well. Not saying one ought to be competent in all of them, but depending on where your field is, they are helpful.

For NT programs, minimal necessary should be Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Depending on where you go with that, add Coptic, Aramaic (and its relatives like Reichsaramaisch, Syriac, Biblical Aramaic, Palestinian Christian, etc.), Armenian, Old Church Slavonic, or Arabic.

[Solitary Man]

I disagree. If you are incompetent in understanding the argument, who would you rather believe, the person with the most credentials or the person with no credentials?
If I am incompetent in understanding the argument, then I will endeavor to become competent. Arguments from pure authority do not hold much water with me. I would give a credentialled person the benefit of the doubt, but I don't assume that an uncredentialled person can't make a reasonable point (or else what would most of us be doing here?).

I never said an uncredentialed person couldn't make a reasonable point, but if you were unable to understand the argument, who would you rather believe? On a point of Latin grammar, ask the guy who has no credentials but read Cicero or ask a guy who's done all the major research and received his degree in the topic? Are you an expert on Latin grammar? Would you be able to distinguish?

I wish everyone had 10000 lifetimes to learn everything, but we come to a point where we have to just give up (usually at death). One lifetime is not enough to learn everything.

[youngalexander]

There is a good thread on the RRS board where Rook discusses his credentials. It's 3 pages long, and raises questions on what the term "historian" means, and when does it apply? Rook argues that he qualifies as a "historian":
http://www.rationalresponders.com/reply_troll
I'll say one thing for young Rook, he certainly does not lack confidence!
If you are really interested in my work, and want to know more about my project, wait for my book and reserve judgment. If you don't want to wait for my book, and want to continue to make assumptions about my character and level of knowledge, then by all means go ahead. It only makes you look trollish to people on this board who are aware of my quality (http://www.magic-friends.de/popup_image.php/pID/27501imgID/0).

[PhilVaz]

Let Rook go back to college, get his 4-year, then his Masters, then his Ph.D. in something historical or philosophical or both. Just as J.J. Lowder, and Richard Carrier are doing. Publish a few articles in scholarly journals, maybe a book or two. We'll see you in 2015 at the earliest Rook. Good luck.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I'm an apologist, I don't need a degree for that. :wave:

Phil P

[Roger Pearse]

The research languages are usually German and French, although some places, like Princeton, Italian can be substituted. It's helpful to know all three at the research level (i.e., you should be able to read all three by the time you have a Ph.D. in hand, and at least one by the time you have a M.A. in hand). April DeConick argues that Coptic ought to be mandatory, and I'm of the opinion (and I'm not alone) that Classics should be fully integrated with the New Testament program, i.e. one should competently read Latin and Greek works unrelated to the New Testament. For Old Testament, knowing languages like Ugaritic, Akkadian (and it's later spin-off's), Hittite, Egyptian (in any of its pre-Coptic forms), Greek, and Sumerian are desired as well. Not saying one ought to be competent in all of them, but depending on where your field is, they are helpful.

For NT programs, minimal necessary should be Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Depending on where you go with that, add Coptic, Aramaic (and its relatives like Reichsaramaisch, Syriac, Biblical Aramaic, Palestinian Christian, etc.), Armenian, Old Church Slavonic, or Arabic.

I may be a cynic, but I wonder if we detect this level of linguistic knowledge in even very eminent NT scholars? A patristics scholar once told me that he didn't know of a single scholar who could read Latin like English. I wonder if there is rather a lot of bluffing and dictionary-hacking going on?

Not that I decry languages, far from it. But I do decry creating bogus barriers to learning. Not the point of this thread, I know, but... let's not disappear into the stratosphere, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Toto]

I think the question in the OP has been answered. If anyone wishes to discuss anything that Rook Hawkes has written or the substance of his work, without relying on his expert or non-expert status, feel free to start a new thread.