Intelligitimate

[off topic digression deleted]

Vorkosigan

Why must you announce your presence with rants? Why don't you write something like "Doherty's case, however, depends critically on the dating of the documents he uses, and that dating is not solid enough to support the claim he is making." Also, a claim of dishonesty is extremely strong -- probable unsupportable.

Instead, why not just write a comprehensive and scholarly review? Kirby wants one for his website. And think of the service you'd do for humanity by putting away this theory once and for all.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

I feel that I have to make noise, so you wont make another argument from silence.



Hmmm, that's pretty good, I think I'll use that next time.





I write scholarship when I critique scholarship. I wite schlock when I critique comic books. I take this Doherty stuff as seriously as I take Crisis on Infinite Earths, or the death of Berry Allan the Flash of Earth of Earth 1.

Metacrock

I felt that way when I was an atheist. That was long before there was an intenet. Long before I ever heard of Doherty. I first heard of Jesus mythers from a guy who was very well read, and intelligent, but he also thought white bread caused cancer, that all the gold had been moved from Fort Knox to buy coke so Nixon could rich on a drug empire, and that through yoga he could tansmigrate into other people's bodies. He didn't make any less sense than Doherty on the Jesus myth subject. Same lame arguments from silence, same exaggerated claims about dying rising savior gods, same lack of attention to real myth.

My committee chiar is about as skeptical of Christainity as you can get and he says Jesus Myther's are "idiots" (his word, not mine) and castigates me for even wasting my time on message boards. I don't think it's a waste of time,and I don't Doherty is an idiot. I think he's very intellegent, but he clearly has a soap box and he's a big fish in a little pond and that gives him something. So fine, he can have it. But it ant going to change Biblical scholarship and it ant gonna kick off a new phase in the quest of the histroical Jesus.

the evidence that Jesus existed is too solid, and most of the Jesus mythers will actually agree that some guy names "Jesus" was the inspiration for the Jesus of the NT. Maybe one of many, but the point is, I don't believe that many actually believe the full theory. I think it's a way to blow off steam at the church. Fine, keep blowing.

Peter Kirby

Then don't even critique an individual writer if you don't want to do so. Simply lay out the solid evidence. It would not be a waste of time, for any defense of the existence of Jesus must perforce say something about that Jesus which existed (which means that it is established that "Jesus existed" and not someone whom nobody would recognize as Jesus of Nazareth), which would then be a contribution to the enterprise of historical Jesus research. There is a large audience for such a presentation.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Ok Peter. let me put it this way. I may consider it if you really want it and no one else will do it. But what about this:

Suppose someone began wirtting books to argue that Elendor Rosevelt was actually none other than Joan of Arc, litterally. She survived and has lived all these years,and is still alive, because she's a vampire. How much effort would you go to to debunck it?

You give credence to it by spending time on it, because why are you spending time on it if it is just crap? Well, that would be crap, don't you think? So would you give a lot of time to the topic? Now if somehow it became a popular theory would you spend a lot of time on it?

One theory which I think is pure crap and has gotten a lot of attention is the idea that the witch trials were a "holocaust against women." The figures are exaggerated upwards of 2 million, and so forth. I think that doesn't deserve a lot of time because its non sense. But we should spend a little time on it, and I have. I looked up the archival figures on witch trails and found that in 500 years only about 50,000 died for all of Europe. But I'm not writting a book about it. Why? Bigger fish to fry. Dissertation to write.

Peter Kirby

No, because I know a bit about human physiology and the vampire myth. And because it's not my field.

Now, I didn't say "write a review of crackpot X." I said, "write a presentation of the 'solid evidence' that is the cornerstone of the field," in this case that Jesus did exist. For example, someone who is working in the field of primate paleontology could, if he desired to do so, write a summary exposition of the evidence showing hominids to be related to other great apes, with a common ancestor within a certain number of millions of years. And he could do so without mentioning unscientific ideas such as are found in Hindu myth and YEC.

What would be quite useful, in the field of Jesus study, would be to have a document that lays out the evidence for the barebones outline of what is commonly accepted to be true of the historical figure. One that analyzes not only a few classical texts but also the New Testament and related documents, with some discussion of the historical method by which fact is isolated. If it were done in a way that nearly all scholars would think commendable, I have little doubt it could be published in an academic journal; and even if it were just a decent piece for the layman, I would put it up on my site.

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

How much effort is needed to refute Doherty's arguments?

There are millions of commentaries written on the New Testament.

Take http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/siltop20.htm

For example,
'James 5:10

Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. [NIV]
The little epistle of James probably has more silences per square inch than any other New Testament document, but none of them are as striking as this one. How could the writer not draw on Jesus himself as the best and most compelling example when urging his readers to show patience in the face of suffering?'

and
'Galatians 2:8
. . . [the Jerusalem apostles] acknowledged that I had been entrusted with the gospel for gentiles as surely as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for Jews. 8For God ["he"] whose actions made Peter an apostle to the Jews, also made me an apostle to the gentiles.'

How could Paul be unaware that it was Jesus who had issued the Great Commission to Peter?

'1 Corinthians 1:7-8

There is no gift you lack, while you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you till the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

Had not Jesus Christ just been revealed to the world only a few years earlier?

Surely to refute this , all one would have to do is look at a couple of commentaries, and they would surely have discussed these questions.

Vorkosigan

So we can take it as a given you think Doherty is crap but you are unwilling to discuss the issue? Why exactly did you drop by?

I am glad your skepticial professor thinks JM is for idiots. Can you post his arguments here? I am sure that Ted Hoffman can cut them to pieces for us.

LOL. :notworthy :notworthy

The Evil One

No, he's willing to "discuss" the issue - he said he wanted to debate:

So Metacrock is willing to take the time to engage in a (presumably oral) debate over / with Doherty, but not to write an article - which is the proper venue for academic discussion.

Seriously, if it is as easy as Metacrock thinks to show that Doherty is full of crap, he really should do the world of Bible scholarship a favour by demonstrating it once and for all, in an article accessible to all...