EarlDoherty

Well, I've gotten around to tackling GakuseiDon’s (hereafter, Don) review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. What I will do for now is deal with each of its web pages in succession (there are four) and make some comments and counters to each one before going on to reading and replying to the next one (perhaps a week apart). These comments are offered specifically to FRDB as my “first response”. Only after commenting on the whole series will I rework, and undoubtedly expand, my rebuttal for the purposes of my own website, since I don’t intend to counter-argue my case or rebut his review in an exhaustive fashion here. (Because of its length, I am posting the present instalment in two parts.)

Don’s writing and reasoning is a curious mixture of a certain degree of clarity on the one hand, and misunderstanding/misrepresentation on the other. I found this to be the case in our earlier debates which ended up on our respective websites, and which he occasionally quotes in the present review. In those earlier debates, I called him an “atomist,” since he sometimes takes terms or statements out of context and applies them in a fashion unsupported by that context and other accompanying argument. He also has an occasional habit of ignoring clarification and rebuttal argument by me made along the way (either in our past ongoing debates or between the earlier and later books) and virtually restating his original criticisms and objections. Since his review is about my later book, clinging to earlier criticisms of The Jesus Puzzle and ignoring any progression made on such subjects in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man I consider illegitimate and self-serving.

After an efficient capsule summary of the book and its case, Don begins his review proper by itemizing four of my case’s “disagreements with common consensus” which he considers particularly radical, and which he rightly suspects are “not even on the radar of modern scholarship.” The latter is hardly surprising, since a radical paradigm shift such as denying the historical existence of the Gospel Jesus is going to entail elements which traditional scholarship would hardly have thought of, let alone examined for possible validity. Then he says:

This makes it sound as though I make radical declarations (simply ‘matters of fact’) in an utter absence of supporting evidence or argument. Radical, yes, but argued thoroughly. And even if speculation can sometimes be involved, it is, shall we say, argued speculation. So Don has certainly overstated his objection here. He does admit that mine “is a cumulative case” and that, moreover, the reader needs to have a fair bit of knowledge about ancient documents and ideas (which the average layperson does not possess) in order to evaluate many of its elements. But this is inevitable. I can hardly limit myself to those things which the layperson knows of. The way around this is to present those ideas and the texts of those documents, with logical analysis and application to the case being made, accompanied (where possible) by supporting academic agreement. If the latter is sparse, and relates perhaps only to certain details, that too is inevitable given the radical nature of the new paradigm being presented. Knowledgeable critical scholars can respond and rebut in any way they see fit or are capable of. I certainly haven’t tried to keep the book out of their hands. Don has somehow managed to imply that these ‘problems’ spell some kind of dishonesty on my part, or at least a deceptive end run around the contrary ‘consensus.’

He focuses on one example (one that has always been a bit of a bugaboo for him):

As stated, this is quite misleading. An “incredible assertion”? Obviously, incredible to him and no doubt others, but it is hardly an anchorless “assertion.” Not only do I spend time arguing such a conclusion from Tatian’s own work, it is presented as part of a larger picture of most of the 2nd century Apologists who demonstrate that they too, for similar reasons based in their texts, show no sign of believing in an HJ. By the same token, that demonstration is not limited to being a simple argument from silence, a term usually employed by dissenters in a derogatory fashion. I guess we will see when I read and respond to later parts of his review whether Don actually addresses and rebuts my case for arguing Tatian’s non-belief in the extant “Address to the Greeks.”

This, too, is typical of Don:

I will assume that in later segments of his review he will actually demonstrate how my arguments are “adhoc” or offer the “complete analysis” which shows that the evidence is not only supportive but goes against me. Such bare remarks as the preceding quote are too often used by HJ supporters, whether professional or amateur, to dismiss rather than rebut the mythicist case.

Don briefly remarks on our past web debates regarding the second century apologists:

First of all, note the “either historical or mythical”. I have said, and make it clear in the new book, that Tatian’s (and the others’) Jesus (or rather Son/Logos, since they don’t use the name Jesus) was not mythical in the sense of Paul’s sacrificial Christ, but that the Logos idea itself was nevertheless a form of mythicism, since it related to heavenly mythology about the nature of God and his emanations and involved consequent salvation. So here, too, he has got it wrong. Moroever, his counter-example involves only a claim for an “historical” figure on some other apologist’s part.

And who is that apologist? He doesn’t name him, but those cognizant of our earlier debates may remember that it was Tertullian. Now, I argued until I was blue in the face that the comparison was hardly a legitimate one. The atomist in Don pointed to a couple of specific passages where Tertullian neglected to introduce the name of a founder figure for his faith despite the fact that Tertullian clearly believed in an historical founder Jesus. Yet how do we know that? Because Tertullian elsewhere does introduce such a figure. We know it from Tertullian’s own words, and the fact that he clearly subscribed to and called upon the Gospel story. Is any of this the case in Tatian’s “Address” or in the apologies of Athenagoras, Theophilus or Minucius Felix? No, since they nowhere enlighten us. We have to read Jesus and even the basic Gospel events into them, whereas no such exercise is necessary for Tertullian. Moreover, Tertullian is not offering a comprehensive picture of his faith which misleadingly leaves out any human founder (crucified anywhere) at all. Did this have any effect on Don’s appeal to Tertullian as ‘evidence’ against my stance on earlier apologists? Apparently not, for here again he is faulting me for not including Tertullian—someone who was not a ‘second century’ (up to 180, as I defined it) apologist and lay outside the case I was making (which was thus not “one-sided,” and I did include Justin who was an historicist).

By the way, I could ask, particularly since Don has admitted none of this, whether his readers (hardly critical scholars) would know enough about the documents and writers in question to be able to evaluate whether in fact my statements about Tatian et al were truly “bizarre” and whether his appeal to Tertullian (unnamed) was in any way a good support for such an opinion. He certainly does not go into (thus far) any discussion of the documents.

Now we reach my biggest bone of contention with Don in regard to debates we have had over the last few years. Yes, I have admitted that my statement in The Jesus Puzzle he never stops quoting, in regard to the placement of Hellenistic savior-god myths in the upper Platonic world, was too “matter-of-fact.” I subsequently, long before the new book, qualified and nuanced it in a way that was needed and missing earlier. And Don has admitted that I have admitted it. Yet he still has the tendency to treat the point as though nothing has changed, he continues to criticize my views as though I am still making that “stark” unqualified and unnuanced statement:

Well, I do not. First of all, this quote from Page 4 of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man is in an introduction in which I lay out the case I will make in the body of the book, I make no attempt to ‘evidence’ it at this point. That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters, something Don does not point out, let alone deal with here. Second, even in the above quote I introduce nuances which step away from the accusation that I state that every pagan in every context placed the savior god myths in the heavens (something I didn’t even do in The Jesus Puzzle, though I’ve admitted that it was too easy an impression). Above, I place my statement entirely in the realm of the mystery cults themselves, in the effects their beliefs had on the devotees; and the final statement is indeed accurate. We have reasonable grounds to think that within the cults and their interpretations of the myths such mythology was affected by Platonism and migrated to a great extent to the heavenly world, and this is argued extensively in JNGNM, something Don does not address. Even if he does later (which remains to be seen), he still leaves his usual misleading impression here.

He appeals to Bart Ehrman:

Well, either Ehrman is overstating the case, or Don is misleadingly presenting him. I have done no more than what scholars of the mystery cults have themselves concluded. We all know that most even critical scholars are very reluctant on principle to see Christianity as in any way a mystery cult. And taken literally, Ehrman’s comment on sacred meals is nonsense. On p.139 I quote Helmut Koester: “On the cult of Sabazius…There apparently were common cultic meals which—judging from the painting on the Vincentius tomb in Rome—seemed to symbolize one’s acquittal before the judge of the dead and reception into the everlasting meal of the blessed.” I quote Martin Nilsson noting that the Dionysos mysteries had a cultic practice of “eating the flesh from a living animal and drinking wine (which) could be understood as incorporating the god and his power within.” Mithraic reliefs clearly depict a mythical meal shared by Mithras and the Sun god Helios, something which automatically points to an imitative sacred meal within the cult itself. All these things are scholarly deductions based on evidence of one sort or another. That’s how Doherty “knows.” And do Don’s readers know enough to realize that his implication that I have simply made this stuff up out of the blue is inaccurate?

Once again Don has recourse to quoting my “stark” statement from The Jesus Puzzle, and again quotes from JNGNM a statement also made in advance of my providing the discussion and justification for it. He states: “Once again, there is no source for this,” making no reference to the later chapters where I provide all sorts of indicators justifying the feasibility of such a conclusion—within the circle of the mystery cults themselves, as I have stated, and which his next quote from me acknowledges: “We have virtually no writings of the period on the subject to reflect those conceptions.” I have admitted this from the beginning, while at the same time pointing out why, and that we cannot expect to have the same kind of documentary evidence from the cults to peruse as we do with Christianity. But the near lack of source writings doesn’t mean we have no evidence at all on which to base some deductions. I have just referred to some of it. And in the book there is a lot of careful examination of that evidence. (Don says he will address Plutarch later, and we’ll see what that amounts to.) We may indeed be “groping in the dark,” as Don quotes me, but a lot of information can be gleaned even in the dark, since we do have other senses if we are willing to give them credence.

But now Don gives us something so confused that one must question his ability to formulate a logical presentation.

That is a complete misrepresentation. This part is particularly egregious: “whenever I questioned Doherty on Paul's beliefs, he pointed me to the mystery cults. And whenever I questioned him on the beliefs of mystery cults, he pointed me to Paul.” Not to mention nonsense, and his quote from me shows that, since it categorically denies this. First of all, I don’t think I have ever “explained” the mystery cults by pointing to Paul, certainly not in the sense of arguing that the pagan cults thought such-and-such because Paul thought something similar. And in that quote I categorically state that I arrived at my interpretation of Paul through the Christian texts themselves, not by interpreting the epistle writers on the basis of an interpretation of the mysteries. At the same time, I arrived at an interpretation of the mysteries along Platonic lines, something arrived at internally, not by imposing an interpretation of the Christian epistles on the mysteries. If Don wants to claim that I have actually done so, whether consciously or unconsciously, he has to demonstrate that, not twist passages from me which actually declare the opposite.

Naturally, one arrives at an interpretation of texts such as the epistles by investigating the entire range of the thought of the time (since, like anything else, Christianity was a product of its time), something which traditional scholarship has to a great extent been unwilling to do, or simply denied. And if the internal evidence of the Christian texts bears indication that it conforms or owes a debt to the broader thought of the time, then yes, there is a certain amount of crossover influence in interpretation. There is a mutual corroboration. But to call that circular is not only ridiculous, it is fallacious, because crossover influences due to ‘in the air’ concepts of the period do not mean that there is no evidence on either side. Circular argumentation comes into play when one side has no evidence but relies on a conclusion from the other side which equally has no evidence but has in turn relied on the conclusion of the first side which has no evidence but has relied on the conclusion from the second side….

But both sides do have evidence indicating the salvation theory common (which is not to say that everything is exactly common) to both the pagan mystery cults and Christianity insofar as it can be styled a mystery cult. In that way they become mutually supportive, mutually providing insight into the ideas behind them and how to interpret the texts and artefacts. There is nothing illegitimate or circular in such a system. The way and extent and detail in which I have followed that methodology is, of course, arguable and debatable, which means that such things in my mythicist case have to be taken apart and addressed. In the process, Don would leave himself open (as do I) to having his analysis of my procedure questioned. I guess we’ll see how that goes.

We certainly can’t rely (as Don does to such a great extent) on the opinions of traditional scholarship as to whether Christianity has similarities to the mysteries, whether they can be said to have borrowed from the mysteries, or whether it can legitimately be styled a mystery cult in a specifically Jewish-type setting. And I repeatedly point out in both books, and certainly in the latest, how scholars bend over backwards, with fallacy and special pleading, to avoid having to acknowledge even the possibility that Christianity bears any such relationship. As it is, I am willing to suggest that it was rarely a case of conscious borrowing rather than simply being influenced by the going concepts of the day.

So Don’s “extraordinary admission” on my part, with his accompanying accusation in italics (above), is completely unfounded and false. He further suggests that “clear-cut evidence on the Christian side…is missing,” but he seems to have set the bar so high that in his mind it is unattainable. In any case, he dismisses whatever evidence I have provided. Even styled as “indicators,” as I did to soften things for him, he labels them “ad hoc rationalisations.” All of this is debatable, yet he states it much more ‘matter of fact’ than anything I may have been guilty of. Perhaps we’ll be able to cast more light on all this as we proceed through the pages of his review.

(rest follows)

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

(following on the first half of this installment)

But now comes a notable failure of interpretative logic on Don’s part:

Well, that’s not quite what I said, at least not in the way that Don goes on to apply it. I talked about imposing on the ancient mindset our modern concepts, our tendencies to believe or not believe in certain things. In the relevant chapters of the book, I clearly spoke of whether the ancients could believe that crucifixion, for example, could happen in the heavens, as opposed to our pretty definite belief that it could not. I spoke of ancient concepts like paradigmatic parallelism in which a heavenly event by a heavenly entity could have automatic effects and guarantees on earthly entities, something we would hardly envision today. I spoke of the concept of blood sacrifice as not having any acceptability in any system of modern thought (except, of course, in regard to the Christian dinosaur) whereas in the ancient world blood sacrifice of animals, and occasionally humans, to gods was a natural and acceptable part of the universe’s scheme of things. And so on.

I think most people would agree that my caution against transporting such modern negative viewpoints to the ancient world for the purpose of ‘disallowing’ such viewpoints as native to early Christianity is valid. But Don took that cautionary stance on my part as not only being the same as, but contradicted by, the following, involving a rather glaring category error:
Here the two semantic similarities are hardly to be regarded as equivalent. The expectations quoted just above are things we have no reason to think would not be timeless and universal; they would be part of human nature, and Don has not suggested how the ancients would not be susceptible to such tendencies, justifying our expectation of them. My previous argument against a different kind of expectation, on the other hand, related to modern concepts resulting from advances in science and critical thinking and our understanding of the world, which the ancients had not achieved yet. Moreover, in the face of evidence that would lead us to conclude that the ancients did indeed believe in such things as heavenly cities and activities going on in the spiritual world by heavenly entities, etc., we should be very cautious about trying to overrule that evidence by imposing what we would believe could and could not go on in the spiritual world they envisioned or how the universe functioned. The one category has nothing to do with the other.

Finally, I confess to some perplexity about the fuss that is being made regarding my addressing of ‘apologetic’ viewpoints vs. those of critical scholarship. First of all, the former encompasses traditional Christian beliefs held not only by the Church but by the average believer. These are hardly topics that should be shunned or considered unnecessary to address by someone arguing the mythicist case, especially someone who is not directing his work solely at the field of academia. Nor should the critical scholar be shocked if in reading the book he or she finds me seeking to discredit something which he or she has already rejected, much less feel justified (as Don apparently does) in dismissing on that account the whole book as somehow an illegitimate or unworthy exercise.

Don brings up a couple of examples of how critical scholarship holds different views to mine about certain interpretations of Paul and other epistles, and my alleged failure to deal with them. Of course, he fails to note that beside these few stand dozens of other differing interpretations which I do address, often in great detail, such as the nature of the sacrifice in Hebrews, or the dating of the Gospels, or the pattern of the evolution of Jesus in the Q document.

But let’s consider the ones Don brings up. He rightly points out that a good segment of critical scholarship questions the early Christian (as represented in the epistles) view of the nature of its Jesus and the meaning of his designation as “son of God.” He quotes scholars like Dunn who point out that the term itself could be used of persons that are clearly not held to be divine, let alone literal sons of the Jewish God. Those scholars often point out how the phrase is used in the Hebrew bible, as though this automatically determines its meaning in the New Testament—which is hardly being “critical.” Don is equally guilty in quoting certain usages of the phrase in Paul, since every one of these is clearly applied to a human being and not Jesus himself. Moreover, and most important, these human “sons of God” are nowhere given the attributes that are given to Jesus, the Son of God: creative agency and sustaining power of the universe, a sharing in God’s very nature, his direct image. Contrary to Don’s implication, I do indeed address in a few places (if not in an exhaustive fashion) today’s tendency in NT scholarship to downplay the view of Jesus in the epistolary corpus as a divine being, a divine emanation of God Himself. This is a tendency which, as far as I am concerned, is clearly falsified in many passages of the epistles (such as 1 Cor. 8:6 or Hebrews 1:3 or the Philippians and especially the Colossians hymn), and all of this disagreement with critical scholarship’s view can be found in my books.

Yes, I suppose I could have spent more time discrediting critical scholarship’s recent preference for the adoptionist interpretation. (There are bound to be a few things even a 800-page book will be short on.) But I happen to disagree with Ehrman’s representation of it, quoted by Don. I find it self-serving and a good case of special pleading:

There is an ambiguity here. Is the appointing meant by the writer that of being Son of God per se, or is it an appointment to the position of being “in power”? Considering that this element in Romans 1:4 is clearly derived from Psalm 2:8 (“And I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession.”), we can legitimately postulate that it is the “power” element that is in view here. Besides, if this is the appointment of a man as the Son of God, why would that not be made clear, made a part—as important and as dramatic as this would be—of this statement? Why is the source of this information, including verse 3’s “from the seed of David kata sarka,” declared to be derived from God’s gospel of the Son in scripture (verse 2)? What “man” supposedly foretold in scripture itself would not be placed in the forefront and identified, with some appeal to history? Why would God be said to announce beforehand this gospel about the Son, rather than the appointed son—the historical man—himself? Why at so many other points in Paul’s epistles, let alone those of several other writers, is the Son spoken of as something revealed, rather than as an historical man who had been appointed and transformed? (I suppose Don will claim that these 'expectations' are an imposition of ours on the ancients who would not at all have expected such things!)

In short, nothing in the immediate and wider context of that Romans passage justifies preferring Ehrman’s interpretation of the Pauline son over that of a pre-existent divine entity. The same goes for the Philippians hymn, which tells us that the name of “Jesus” at which every knee bows (another example, by the way, of the “power” motif being bestowed on the Son upon his resurrection to heaven) did not belong to a human man prior to that death and resurrection. Nor is a human Adam christology to be derived or supported by the “spiritual vs. physical” argument by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:35-49, another extended discussion in my new book which Don seems to have taken no notice of. I am happy with “orthodox views” to the extent when they are often more logically to be derived from the intention of the writers, not because they are more advantageous for me.

Again, I see no problem and no fault in addressing both conservative/orthodox Christian views as well as those of critical scholarship, and there is plenty of the latter in the book, though that extends to general mainstream scholarship as well, not always focusing specifically on the most “critical” end of that spectrum. Nor, as I said, should this provide an excuse for critical scholars to turn up their noses at the work as a whole, as their critical acumen surely extends to recognizing what I am doing. Besides, I am hardly going to occupy a position of confining myself to the world of critical academia, when it has traditionally failed to give the time of day to any case of mythicism, usually with every sign of ignorance of that case, a refusal to investigate it seriously, and with the weakest of counters accompanied by virtual derision at the very thought of it. With the rarest of exceptions, and with the example of The Jesus Project before us, even critical scholarship has abdicated its responsibility to engage in full and impartial historical research and any assumed right to be accorded some kind of preferential, let alone exclusive, treatment.

It’s not surprising that Don saw fit to quote Jeffrey Gibson, whose rabid diatribes against me suffered from everything but any familiarity with the actual arguments of my case, let alone included substantive counter-arguments against them. And since receiving a complimentary copy of my new book a year ago, there has been nothing but silence from him. Gibson may be an example of the worst elements in critical scholarship in its visceral animosity toward mythicism and mythicists, but his silence on any substantive rebuttal is equalled across the whole range of scholarship.

Don also quotes G. A. Wells, who has regrettably garbled my presentation of certain Platonic principles (something which Don himself recently did on another thread). From my principle that Platonism envisions that “things on Earth have their ‘counterparts’ in the heavens,” both he and Don have taken it that this is saying that a crucifixion of Christ in the heavens had to have an exact replica on earth: “But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded.” This is carrying the Platonic principle to unwarranted (and unclaimed by me) extremes. One is hardly saying (nor did Plato or Platonists) that every detail and event on earth had a corresponding detail and event in heaven. In regard to crucifixion, I was stating that as crucifixion in general could take place on earth, it could also take place in the heavens (a principle stated in the Ascension of Isaiah 7), not that every individual crucifixion did. Unfortunately, Wells has been unable to support my ‘celestial Christ’ conclusion apparently because he has been led to interpret the few ‘human-sounding’ phrases in the epistles (Rom. 1:3, Gal. 4:4, etc.) as capable only of referring to earthly things, a short-sightedness many on this board are equally guilty of. I’ll be interested to see how effectively, if at all, Don deals with my chapters on the language of the epistles in this area.

If Chris Zeichman, as quoted by Don, is of the opinion that my case can only succeed among the ignorant, then it follows that among the educated and knowledgeable its discrediting ought to be a piece of cake. In the other thread Don refers to those who “question” my theories. But where are those who will undertake to rebut them? (And hardly with only “Josephus and Tacitus”—whom I have thoroughly discredited in JNGNM.) So far, it would seem that among all those who would deem themselves qualified to rebut The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, the only one to undertake any extensive rebuttal (or even any rebuttal at all) is Don himself, even though he has said, and I quote him from the “The overwhelming case for an historical Jesus” thread (posting #352):

Earl Doherty

avi

Hi Earl,

Thanks for these two posts. Here are two banal, utterly insignificant, bookkeeping points to make, which in no way affect the substance of your lengthly review, which, I acknowledge, having not yet read in toto.

1. Allow me please to show you the proper way to attribute a quote: this will require no more than ten seconds of your time, I promise. Here's what you wrote, Earl:

I know this is nit-picking Earl, and undoubtedly not worthy of mention in the face of such lofty arguments, as you have introduced, but, it is more than a little annoying to see a scholar ignore the fundamental requirement to provide proper attribution.

So, really, why is this important?

Let's look more closely at that last paragraph. Here's what you wrote, Earl:

As I scanned your post, not really reading EVERY word, just quickly trying to get an overview of your sentiment, my eye caught that first sentence, and then, the quote:

But, Earl, this is NOT a quote by Chris Zeichman, is it? No, this is a quote by Gakusei Don.

(And, Earl, does this chap or gal Chris Zeichman figure in the dialogue which you subsequently quote? I don't think so....)

To insert the person's name, Earl, simply type ="the person's name" in quotes, without spaces, just after the word quote. If you have any difficulty, send me a pm.

2. Again, Earl, this is truly a TINY point, but one I make only because of respect for your accomplishments. Your posts educate many of us, especially me, and I congratulate you on a job well done. However, this one tiny nit picking point is another irritation, like the tiny grain of sand in one's sock, as we set forth on a ten kilometer hike.

You offer a critique, here, in these two (verbose) posts, of GakuseiDon's review of your book, but fail to provide what is for me, the single most important information necessary to evaluate the strength or weakness of either Don's review, or your critique of that review: namely, a LINK to his website:

left to my own devices, here's what I could find:
So, what am I to imagine, Earl:
Gakusei Don has failed to update his web site, since 2007?

or

Gakusei Don has some other web site?

But, guess what, Earl, surprise, surprise, I don't have time to go looking......

You need to GIVE the reader of your ponderous tomes a little aide.

I must have tried reading your book 20 times, during the past year. I need a synopsis. Since I am even less intelligent than those described by Chris, I need an "abrege". I sure don't have time to go running around hunting down GakuseiDon's web site(s). It is the FOCUS of your post, for heaven's sake, Earl. How can you NOT provide the reader with a link to Don's web site? Holy Cow, Earl, these are the abc's of scholarship.

yes, well, everyone on the forum understands Jeffrey's occasional prickly disposition, but, he is both very bright, and well educated, hence, those of us with less facility need to grant him a bit of slack, I think.

More importantly, with regard to point 2 above, Earl, you need to offer a LINK to Jeffrey's critique, if it is salient. If it is not relevant, then, why are you mentioning it, in connection with Don's review?

You need to trust the reader, Earl. If Don writes XYZ, (and I wouldn't know, for I have not read anything about your book by Don), and XYZ is irrelevant, why bother to refute it? Give some credit to your readers, Earl, they can figure out the distinction between criticism of a book written ten years ago, and one written last year, which has no connection with this criticism.....

Your argument, I guess, maybe I am too stupid to comprehend, is that Don was wrong to have cited Jeffrey's criticism, for Jeffrey's critique is now obsolete. But, from my perspective, at least, you would then need to explain what it is about that former publication (that portion of text that was criticised by Jeffrey, and hence, by implication, by Don as well) that has been repudiated by your new book, for the reader would assume, having not yet read either book, that the new book built upon the first essay, rather than repudiating your message from the first tome.

Here again, Earl, an ordinary bloke like me, isn't going to be able to follow some of your more arcane arguments, so, a synopsis would be very instructive.

You site Ehrman (again, without a link) (pm me if you need instruction on how to create links), but I think you ought to understand, whatever criticisms you or others on this forum may have of Ehrman's writings, Professor Ehrman knows how to communicate. His books are eminently READABLE, from start to finish. I urge you, Earl, to have a gander at them, not to repudiate, nor to emulate, but simply to observe how masterfully he moves the uneducated reader from profound ignorance, to having at least a tiny grasp of the weighty subject matter involved. Alas, with your book, I have trouble getting past chapter one.

However, now that you have this review up, and Don, must also have finished his review by now, maybe I can gain the motivation to struggle through it, once more.....

Cheers,

avi

Toto

avi:

GDon's review of Doherty is here, dated 2011. His review of Brian Flemming's movie, the God Who Wasn't There, is dated 2007.

GakuseiDon

Avi, my home page is here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/

My Reviews page is here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/reviews.html

My review of Earl Doherty's book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" is done over four parts:
1. Review Summary (where I give my overall impression of the book)
2. Early Christian Writings (including the strange silence on a historical Jesus)
3. Paul and Paul's Jesus
4. World of Myth (Doherty's controversial views on pagan mythology)

The first page is the 'review proper'. The other three pages delve into specific issues raised by Doherty.

avi

Thank you both, for this helpful information....

avi

avi

I have quickly read section 1 of Don's review. I find it very well written.

I will focus, now, having read Don's review, as I struggle to comprehend Earl's book, on the issue of greatest significance to me, personally, i.e. whether or not Don has accurately described Earl's supposed reliance on the writings of "Paul" to identify pagan beliefs, rather than citing pagan sources, themselves. To me, this is an issue of great significance, primarily because I know so little of Paul!!!!(i.e. just the contrary of Dr. Gibson's critque).

I found Don's writing to be balanced and fair minded, and thoroughly documented, so right now, at least, based on that initial reading of part 1, I am leaning towards accepting Don's interpretation. Next week, I hope to get back to reading the real McCoy, but that is going to be an arduous task, without a study guide to assist me!!!

haha. what a toad....

Now I realize just how dependant I have become, on DCHindley's excellent submissions to this forum!!!

avi

mountainman

From here


What sort of "Platonism" is found in Emperor Julian?

We should not forget that Emperor Julian represents a source in this debate, since he wrote before the new testament was canonized if we accept this date to be around c.367 CE with the letter of Athanasius. Julian was a philosopher and an academic and he himself represent a source for the mystery religions which were branded as "pagan" after Nicaea. When e wrote, the major pagan temples had been destroyed and the smaller ones in a state of disrepair -- due to imperial prohibitions.

Julian composed the following



This text appears to be evidence of Emperor Julian's "World of Myth". I am not sure whether Earl addresses this in his books, since many people assume everything was all over and done with by the time the 4th century dawned. However, IMO completeness necessitates the "New Testament Researcher" to examine all events up until the epoch when the books of the new testament canon underwent closure. This is after Julian. Julian has something to tell us. He was not a christian. Will we listen? I think Earl is correct in continuing to question whether the HJ is not in fact an MJ dressed up. This opinion will always attract flack from the HJ proponents.

EarlDoherty

Holy Cow, avi! Your lengthy, verbose, ponderously snide and sarcasm-laden objection to what was a serious oversight on my part was a bit over the top, don’t you think?

However, your point is certainly valid, and I can only mutter feebly that it was entirely unintentional, and I would correct the matter on the posting if I still could. As you may know if you have read my responses to other “Critiques” on my website, I always make it a point to quote links to what I am responding to, and will certainly do so when I create the website file on Don’s piece. I can only suggest that here, being on a board where Don’s review has been referred to more than once, with links provided, I may have subconsciously regarded it as being known where to go. No excuse, of course (except maybe a Senior Moment).

However, I must refuse a mea culpa on the other major point you wax so enthusiastically about. You say you only scanned my postings “not reading EVERY word,” and no doubt that is why you failed to realize (even when quoting the passage) that there could have been no mistaking who was being attributed with the final Quote. It could not have been Chris Zeichman. After all, it was introduced by this very clear statement:

Every quote in my postings is by Don himself (with occasionally a quote by him within it from some other scholar), and if you had actually read every word, you would have realized that. But on the other hand I need to take into account that some readers will not read every word and may fall prey to misinterpretation (especially those who have to essay my book 20 times to glean any understanding), and so perhaps I should not adopt such short-cuts.

Nor do I agree with your thoughts on Jeffrey Gibson:

Since I would regard myself as at least as bright as Jeffrey (and possibly as well educated in a combination which includes a self-education evidenced by my books which you praise so much), I cannot think you mean to include me in “those with less facility (than him)” and so therefore I feel justified in not “cutting him a bit of slack.” Especially since it is I, and not you, who have been on the receiving end of his prickly disposition.

What critique??? I’d have been very happy to have received any kind of formal critique from Jeffrey Gibson showing that he had even read any of my books, let alone could offer substantive rebuttal to them. Good grief, we couldn’t even get him to offer any of the latter here on FRDB! That bright and educated prick(ly individual) could only spew out the most hateful vitriol and biased personal attacks against me, resisting all attempts to get him to offer anything of substance against the mythicist case (other than appeals to authority and his own superior knowledge of just about everything). And I mentioned this in response to Don’s review because Don had the gall to appeal to Gibson in condemnation of me with a quote which included nothing that actually rebutted any of my arguments. Such an empty quote (like many of Don’s statements I called attention to) served not to elucidate how my presentation of Middle Platonism was deficient, but only a pompous declaration that it was. Not because it is obsolete, but because it didn’t offer anything but Gibson’s opinion. That is precisely what made it relevant to my critique of Don’s review.

As I just said, Jeffrey never criticized any portion of my text of TJP. How could he, since he never read it? Clearly, avi, you haven’t been around long enough to actually be familiar with my history with Jeffrey Gibson on the IIDB/FRDB. And not having read every word of my postings, you clearly missed my references to him which should have made things clear:

As for Ehrman, I do not cite him. I cite Don citing him. And it is Don who has failed to provide a link to what he quotes from him. Aside from it not being my responsibility, I can hardly know where to link to if I am not told by the one citing him. Complain to Don, especially since this is one of his bad habits (not to mention of others on this board as well).

Avi, when you go out on a limb laden with pretentious and sarcastic criticism, whether good-naturedly tongue-in-cheek or not (I couldn’t be sure), it is really best to have read EVERY word so that you know what it is you are criticizing, and don’t end up with yolk all over your face.

As for this:

Well, I have read two of Ehrman’s books. The one he aimed at the “uneducated reader” (Misquoting Jesus) was admittedly pretty Dick and Jane (perhaps that’s the one you read, avi), but The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was pretty heavy going, though still understandable (at least I had little trouble with it). Perhaps Jesus: Neither God Nor Man was a bit beyond you. Yes, it’s a solid, in-depth book covering a detailed and complex subject. But I could point you to several Amazon reviews as well as my last Reader Feedback file on my website (Reader Feedback 29) in which I quote positive comments I have received from many readers of the book who seemingly had no trouble understanding it, let alone getting past the first chapter]. And on my advertisement page for The Jesus Puzzle I quote what is for me perhaps the most valued and pleasing type of comment I have received:

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Unbelievable…

Well, perhaps it’s a case of avi, as he did with me, not having read Don’s EVERY word.

I would suggest to him, now that he has read Don, he really needs to re-read (or rather, read) my OP’s and see just how accurate Don’s description of my alleged reliance on Paul to interpret the mysteries really is. And just what is it that is “thoroughly documented”?

Earl Doherty