gnosis92

I contacted Bart Ehrman, a professioanl historian, and he pointed out that Doherty's Jesus myth theory is not accepted by any professional historian, and has not been published in respected peer review journals, and that his own books explains why serious academic historians accept that Jesus existed as a matter of fact, and the synoptic gospels remain the best source of information for the historic Jesus.

dog-on

This is my first post on this forum. I have read varied sources regarding the subject of Jesus of Nazareth. I recently came across Doherty's 'Jesus Puzzle'. At this point, he (Doherty) has, in my opinion, provided the most logical argument I have so far seen. Whether or not "professional" scholars have even looked at this, to me at least, is irrelevant. There are probably many reasons why they would avoid this argument, most of those probably not for scholarly reasons. One should not discount the fact that there could be significant repercussions, not only to the scholars but, to the institutions they may represent especially in view of the religious/political climate of modern day America.

In my opinion Doherty's argument is devastating to the popular view of a person known as Jesus of Nazareth as the catalyst for Christianity.

I would probably take Mr. Doherty one step further and question the source of Paul's letters, themselves. The hypothesis proposed by Detering is definitely worth further exploration.

jjramsey

For the scholars who are committed Christians, yes, that would be an issue, especially for those scholars whose Christian beliefs are not so heretical as to deny things like the resurrection. Ehrman, though, is an agnostic.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the professional scholars, especially since they have been treating the Bible critically for quite some time now.

dog-on

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html

I would not be so quick to dismiss the donating alumni at Chapel Hill...

It is one thing to do critical scholarship, it is another thing entirely to proscribe to a position which would regard the most important figure in the western world as nothing more then a pious myth.

Clarice O'C

Here's a crumb but a large one. The topic made its entrance on CNN TV a while back in the US starting with Luigi Cascioli's lawsuit against the Catholic church. And then on 5/26/06. The beginning of the following transcript discusses Cascioli. Robert Price is also a Jesus Seminar fellow.

* * * *

COOPER: Robert, you identify as a Christian. You don't believe that Christ ever really lived. Why?

PROF. ROBERT PRICE, JOHNNIE COLEMAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Well, he might have. It's impossible to know one way or the other, but I think from the little I hear of this man's case, I agree with most of it in that the gospel story of Jesus does agree in all major respects with the stories of mythic gods who are at the heart of other ancient religions, like Syrus, Mythrus, Adonis, and so forth. Those religions flourished for a long time without any historical founder.

And Jesus seems very similar. I mean, you'd have to go into a time machine and go into the past to find out for sure. But I would agree with him insofar as saying the burden of proof is on the one who would affirm a historical Jesus.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...26/acd.02.html

GakuseiDon

"Best source" doesn't mean "good source" though, I suspect. I have to wonder how much reliable historical information can be gotten from the Gospels.

dog-on

Don, here is what Price says later in the interview:

PRICE: Well, I think that line is important to draw between the transformative, inspiring character of the gospel material which I certainly experience and the issue of historically what actually happened.

My only contention is that you can't make the one do service for the other. The profound meaning that Christ in the New Testament have for me does not, however, allow me to say what probably happened in the past.

And so that's something that ought not to be confused. I would just make one slight note of dissent from what Jason says in that the only good thing about this otherwise preposterous case is it would be very good if it got these neglected issues more widely discussed.


It seems that he was being very careful to distance his ideas from those of the preposterous Italian.

Clarice O'C

Seems like Price must distance himself while on International TV. Underneath he is glad for what Cascioli is doing. As he said,

"the only good thing about this otherwise preposterous case is it would be very good if it got these neglected issues more widely discussed."

Cascioli broke the MJ silence in the TV media internationally, at least from the US, and now from a reputable Jesus Seminar scholar.

Best,
Clarice
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

dog-on

Cascioli broke the MJ silence in the TV media internationally, at least from the US, and now from a reputable Jesus Seminar scholar.

I guess sometimes you just need to stick your toes in to make sure the water is not too cold...

The question now is, will there be any serious follow-up from the Seminar? How about inviting Mr. Doherty to present his case?

I am just a rank amateur but, I would very much like to see an attempted rebuttal of Doherty's arguments by the "pros". Somehow, I think they will come up short and will be forced to nit-pick items which, in the end, will not seriously damage Doherty's overall case.

We'll just have to wait and see...

gstafleu

One problem with this discussion is its black-and-white nature: either a (any) Jesus existed, or no Jesus existed. What gets lost here is the issue of exactly who or what a possible Jesus was.

For example, look at the conclusions of the Jeus Seminar, who, on the whole, I would say are seen as respectable in the field:
Now notice what is not there: no son of god, no resurrection, no atonement. That means that even in the view of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus cannot carry the weight of Christianity. In that light HJ vs MJ becomes a debate about a historical side issue. The question whether there is any historical validity to (standard) Christianity is in fact answered by the Jesus Seminar: No. But I think they leave this answer implicit.

To put it in other words, the Jesus Seminar claims, perhaps implicitly, that the "standard" Jesus, the one referred to by signs in front of churches at easter saying "Jesus died for us" or "Only a Risen Savior can save the world," that this Jesus is mythical.

Now the seminar claims there was some other Jesus who was at the base of the myth and who was actually historical. Maybe, maybe not. Both Doherty and Price would, I think, argue that any such historical person is so far removed from the "standard" Jesus that he hardly matters, if you can find him at all.

So in a sense "professional" historians like the ones from the Jesus Seminar do agree that Jesus, the "standard" Jesus, was a myth. The question is just how far removed the historical figure, if any, at the base of the myth is from the myth as we know it.