GakuseiDon

So, the Constantine/Eusebius apparatchiks constructed a series of letters by "Paul" about how Jesus was never on earth? Why?

Still, you are right that there is a lot in Doherty's book that you can use to support your ideas. Feel free to quote him as much as possible. Seriously though, Earl covers a LOT of material, and he writes very well, so I recommend anyone interested in issues around early Christianity to get his book, with of course the provisos listed in my review.

I'm not sure how to give a percentage, but I usually describe it as "the best explanation".

mountainman

Hey GDon,

I will respond to other issues separately in other active threads rather than move this discussion away from Earl's material and your review of it and Earl's reply to your review. We should be grateful that you have gone out of your way to independently assess various issues and present them. We should also be grateful that Earl defends his ideas in an open forum.

Best wishes,


Pete

GakuseiDon

Fair enough. I'll stop bugging you on peer-review, then.

EarlDoherty

As you know, Don, I am always loath to impute things to you without carefully quoting your specific words from past threads (OK, that was a bit of levity), but in this case I couldn't find it despite my search. Talking about percentages, didn't you say something about subscribing to 99% of what mythicists present, or rejecting 99% of the claimed evidence for an historical Jesus, or words to that effect? (Darn, I'm sure I'm getting it wrong.)

Wouldn't that make you a 99% mythicist?

Welcome to the club!

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Not that I can remember. I was using "99%" recently on the topic of genre confusion when people invoke "Ned Ludd", "William Tell" and "Ebion". That is, the number of times that people regard fictional characters as real appears quite small (whether it is 1%, 5% or 10%), so effectively those people are using a 1% (or whatever) option to trump a 99% option.

Still, you aren't wrong. I've said over the years that there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, and there is little extractable history from the Gospels. But I've always been more interested in how people thought back then than the history itself.

Thanks Earl! But I've been in the club a long time.

mountainman

The way I read it, your "very little" essentially equates to the vicinity of maybe 20 or 30% historicity depending on how generous you feel about the weight of the evidence itself. Someone who claims that there is an extremely great amount of evidence for the HJ for example might be equated to ascribing a 90 or perhaps 97% historicity to the HJ.

This is all that percentage historicity means.
It is not an absolute quantity but a relative measure.
It can change according to how you weigh and interpret elements within the bag of "all evidence".
And it can change as the evidence itself changes with new discoveries.
And it can change as science and technology offer more services such as C14 and multi-spectral imaging.
Richard Carrier recently uses Bayes equations to attempt formalisation of all this.


I think that it is important to be careful that we are dealing with the statements (and thus thoughts) attributed to real historical people and not authorial inventions that are not historical. For example the 1960's and 1970's widespread "hippy" publication of "Desiderata" asserted it was found in the 17th century in some old church, whereas it was actually authored in the 20th century by Max Ehrmann (1872-1945). How are we to differentiate between fact and fiction without researching history itself?

History is not to be accepted, it is to be questioned and researched.
Historicity will always be a percentage probability distribution - nothing is certain.
This is just one reason why Earl's works are very valuable today.

Camio

[Off Topic On]

This reminds me of a quote by French writer Paul Valéry : "The degree of precision of a quarrel increases its violence and fierceness. One fights all the more furiously for a distant decimal."

[Off Topic Off]

aa5874

Do you understand that your posts are recorded and that they show what you are really interested in?

You keep repeating the same mantra that you are "interested in how people thought back then than the history itself" but the records show that you are really INTERESTED IN HOW EARL DOHERTY THINKS TODAY.

The records will SHOW that virtually all your post are in response to Doherty, about the writings of Doherty or about your "reviews" of Doherty's books.

You have ONE single interest when you post and it has NOTHING to do with "how people thought back then". You are no closer to knowing anything about "how people thought back then" since you are NOT interested in HISTORY but ONLY DOHERTY.

It is MOST fascinating that you have continuously mis-represented yourself for so long and you don't even care that it has been documented.

The records of your post show that you are virtually and solely interested in how and what DOHERTY thinks and writes today.

Now, please say what books have you read that have helped you to understand how "people thought back then"?

Please identify the "people". Who are these "people"? When and Where do these "people" live? Do you think all "people" would think the same thing BACK then?

And please explain what you mean by "back then"? When is "back then"?

Now, you MUST know that some "people thought back then", you probably KNOW when, that Jesus was some kind of Ghost/man.

Look at what some "people thought back then".

Mt 1:20 - Ga 1:1 - When "Paul" talks about the resurrection of Jesus I immediately think of Ghost stories but what do you think "Paul thought back then" and "back then" when?

Oh shit!! I forgot you said you have little interest in history itself. I forgot you have little interest in "back then". You must have forgotten that "history is about "PEOPLE BACK THEN".

You have little interest in "PEOPLE BACK THEN"

You have little interest in HISTORY.

You are interested in DOHERTY

rlogan

I'm glad you took my post in charitable spirit Don because we can disagree without acrimony. So thanks.


I don't have any advice for Earl except maybe not to spend much time dealing with incoherent cricicism. Gosh, the man has done a lot to respect and admire, and I am more inclined to appreciate that than to undertake direction of his actions.

He's done well enough without my advice so far and I think he can handle himself in the future without me.

I have a publication vita in my own field but it is completely free of religious bias, and I understand how problemmatic it is for Earl. I think the criticism, which is essentially "If you are right it would be published by religious journals" is simply disengenuous piffle leveled in the absence of coherent argument against his positions.

I looked briefly at SBL and it seems to me you cannot make the case this is an example that parallels scientific or non-theist associations.

You just can't make this "peer review journal" argument with a straight face, as if it were physics or astronomy. This field is obviously dramatically different from nontheist science.


I don't know Earl and I am not a groupie. This argument about "where" things take place with mythological beings is not very important to me personally. The instant you embark on mythological discussion, "where" becomes very less relevant in my mind.

The one thing you have not addressed Don is my main point: the incessant claim that Doherty is not doing critical scholarship. The "proof" of that claim remains argumentum ad populum amongst primarily theists.

We can level that claim with equal validity against Galileo. Galileo was not doing critical scholarship because the church disagreed with him.

That is the quality of your argument, Don and I respectfully ask that you knock it off in the interests of civility and reason.

There are few amongst us that can take these personal insults, and I regard it as one, without reacting strongly to it. So then, after calling him a crank and an intellectually dishonest shyster, if he reacts then he is a paranoid.



Thanks again, in that it is difficult to tell sometimes the degree or lack of animosity in a post. I have none.

GakuseiDon

If the field is compromised to the extent that papers dealing with the pagan side of the equation -- i.e that pagans believed that the myths of their gods were carried out in a 'spiritual realm', an idea that isn't even on the radar of modern scholarship -- would not be addressed for fear of the ramifications on Christianity, then I understand Doherty's reluctance.

Well, if I have done this, then that is wrong. My apologies for the times that I have done this in the past, and I will endeavor not to do it in the future.

Perhaps let's all agree to stick with the evidence, and the interpretation of the evidence, rather than the interpretation of each other's motives? Right or wrong, I believe the interpretation of the evidence supports me, and since Doherty feels the same for his side, I think we are all eager to get back to that discussion.