Toto

Why would you expect these things to have survived? There is much about early Christianity that has not survived.

Start out by identifying the probable dates that Doherty assigns to this paradigm, and tell us what has survived from that time.

TedM

Doherty himself simply says that Pauls' readers understood his version of Jesus. That is, there was no need for him to expound or discuss that Jesus in detail. Funny view, since the same is claimed for the historical Jesus! In any case, you can argue all you want about what would have survived, would not have been changed, etc... If you want to take that view, then obviously the topic is not for you. For those that are willing to take Paul and the other early epistles as more authentic, the topic is for them.

ted

Jeffrey Gibson

<removed>

TedM

I have long felt that Doherty does not understand Paul mindset well at all, since he doesn't seem to acknowledge that Paul's gospel of salvation to ALL--with special emphasis on Gentiles--through Jesus is the mystery he speaks of, and not that of Jesus' appearance in the skies, as revealed to him via whatever.

Jeffrey Gibson

<removed as off topic>

Ted Hoffman

When did you start having this feeling?

Ted Hoffman

Have you read Doherty's book? Yes or No?

TedM

When he denied the traditional explanation of the mystery, substituting his own. I think Doherty started off with an agenda to show how little Christians had to support their historicist positions, usually argued well, and eventually tunnel vision set in, and he ended up believing his own theory, confusing quantity of analysis with quality of analysis.

It's irrelevant to the topic whether I have or haven't, because this topic doesn't exist for ME to give my list of silences one might expect wouldn't exist if Doherty was correct. Rather, I asked for input from OTHERS. Get it?

ted

Ted Hoffman

I know he [Doherty] understands it well because I have read his book, and I have read the books by other scholars like Price, Sanders, Brown and Mack just to mention a few, and I have compared them and judged that in fact, he does a better analysis than some of them. I have also noticed that while Doherty does make some honest mistakes, the rest of the others scholars do too, some are even irrational. Stevan Davies, who is a known NT scholar, unlike you, has engaged Doherty in discussions and said, "He [Doherty] advocates a position that is well argued based on the evidence and even shows substantial knowledge of Greek."

Next question.

TedM

I want to re-emphasize that I didn't start this thread to discuss my own opinions about Doherty or his theory. I started it to explore the question of silences that run against his theory, using his own assumptions regarding authorship intent that he uses FOR his theory. I asked in the original thread what OTHERS here can contribute to such a list. I don't recall ever seeing a thread on the subject before, so it seemed worthy of discussion.

Why the issues of how much I know about Doherty or how "well" Doherty knows Paul, or whether Paul was interpolated or not were even brought up here is beyond me. I simply asked for input. I think if we are going to be open-minded here we should be as willing to entertain a discussion of THOSE silences as the ones Doherty has come up with. Whether I have another agenda or not is really quite irrelevant too. The question is whether the topic is worthy of discussion or not. I think it is.

Is this really such an objectionable point of view?

ted