EarlDoherty

To a few comments by Chris Weimer:

A comment like this makes me wonder if you have actually read anything in the field of Jesus mythicism. To claim that there is nothing in the way of “hard evidence” (note that no one is claiming conclusive proof) for the position is simply nonsense and a burying of one’s head in the sand. (To claim that the mere existence of the Gospels, which are all dependent on the first one written, and whose virtually entire content is not attested to in the rest of the early record, constitutes “hard evidence” on the other side, is a misuse of language, and sidesteps one of the cruxes of the mythicist case.) And neither Robert Price nor myself has “shrugged off” historical Jesus evidence; we have both dealt with it in great detail. (I’ll assume that the succeeding comment about “fools” was not directed at myself, or Price.)

If I have failed in my understanding of Paul, then I have not come even close. However, the failure to come close should be applied to those who think they have disproven my analysis of Paul and the Christianity of the early epistles. Certainly, it hasn’t been done by anyone who refers to a key phrase in the debate as “kata sarkon". The fact that you’ve repeated the mistake here (see below) even after I pointed it out, would seem to indicate that (along with not knowing Greek) you truly don’t read anything I say. Or perhaps it just makes your eyes glaze over, which seems to be a common response in some circles.

I guess you’ve missed all those discussions here and elsewhere about what exactly Paul says about the “born” idea, and how all of Jesus’ “humanity” seems to be derived from scripture, unrelated to time and place, and so on. I think my various discussions with GakuseiDon would indicate that the “struggle” is not so much on my side. And by the way, it was Don who recently wanted to make Paul the quintessential Middle Platonist. I have never portrayed him as such, simply influenced by and adopting some of its ideas (as do many of the early epistles, such as Hebrews), along with much else. That’s what syncretism is all about, and Christianity was a syncretistic religion.

Incidentally, I forgot to correct earlier that my response to Jeffrey Gibson on Romans 1 took place on the JesusMysteries list (in 2001, I think), not on Crosstalk. I guess my posting to Mahlon Smith missed being archived by a month. Maybe I'll type it out over the next few days just to satisfy the curiosity that some seem to feel.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Clivedurdle

Is there a dichotomy in the academic world that Aberdeen is an interesting example of?

Myth, anthropology, psychology, sociology and non xian religions are studied together without thinking about it, but there seems to be this assumption that xianity(and the other abrahamic religions?) are a special case, where the techniques and tools used for all other religions - what is the relationship to myth, to the society, the politics, the economics, the psychologies - somehow do not apply.

Xianity does look like a predictable outcome of the beliefs and fantasies and ways of thinking and communicating of the time and place.

Rick Sumner

Reflecting on the Davies post on XTalk mentioned by Earl, as well as recent comments by Loren Rosson III on his blog to the effect that he expects to see more Earl Dohertys, it occurs to me that not only the Jesus Myth, but Doherty's particular brand of the Jesus Myth is an inevitably. It is the only natural conclusion to be drawn from much--perhaps even most--contemporary scholarship. By applying their own criteria uniformly, instead of arbitrarily, it is the only natural result. It is the only logical conclusion reached by what has become normative criteria for inauthenticity. It pained me to reach this conclusion (thought I did so some time ago), having argued the contrary for some time, but that doesn't make it any less true. Earl uses the same negative criteria to reach his conclusion that Mark is 100% fiction that Crossan does to reach the conclusion that it's 80%.

Loren Rosson is right. We will see more Earl Dohertys. IMO it is inevitable--he will not be the only one to follow it through to that end. Though, of course, Schweitzer beat Loren to the punch by a century or so: thoroughgoing eschatology or thoroughgoing skepticism. A 1911 review of Schweitzer's masterpiece suggested that Wrede was the end result of that skepticism. He wasn't. Earl Doherty (or at least his paradigm) is. Whether or not the academy should engage the Jesus-Myth will (relatively) soon be a non-issue.

Regards,
Rick "Thoroughgoing Eschatology" Sumner

S.C.Carlson

Unfortunately, all I have of his from that era is Doherty's posting, "The Gospel about the Son" on 5/10/98. I also have a bunch from Feb 1999.

Stephen

EarlDoherty

You seem to be confusing Kilmon with Mahlon Smith. It was Smith that did not reply to my post. I was not expecting a reply from Kilmon when I sent him a copy of that post a couple of years later. He could only have replied to my 'treatment' of Smith's style of argument. The fact that he did not, or could not, defend Smith against my post indicates nothing about my overall arguments. (It looks like I'm going to have to post the whole thing here. I'll try to do it by the end of the week.)

I don't know where or in response to what that posting you offer from Kilmon came from, but isn't it always the case (or too often, at least), that condemnations like that always speak in generalities? I've seen that so many times. Could Kilmon not have taken the time and effort to offer me one example of all those "problems" and "sweeping statements" I am guilty of? Comments like that are basically a cop-out.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

spin

These are just dishonest tactics. You seem not to klnow much about scholarship and want to impute problems with others. Remove the log in your eye. You cannot hope to be taken seriously by citing opinions of people given centuries after what they are commenting on. You don't even have any way of showing that these Latin fathers were separate witnesses. You just believe that they are right. You have nothing beyond your beliefs and their opinions.

Clivedurdle

If you have two choices, take the third.

A religion grows out of its time, a Christ figure is the key motif. People try to explain these ideas to others, they use play techniques. Over time the lead character is assumed to represent someone who existed - a mythical christ becomes a lead character becomes a human in Palestine.

Schweitzer has only discused various model jesi starting from the assumption there was one!

jjramsey

I'm not so sure of that. The criterion for embarassment, for example, doesn't work in the mythicists' favor, nor does the criterion of accidental information. I see here a potential for a slippery-slope argument here: if 90% of the Gospels are false, why not go the whole hog and go for 100%? Yet there is no reason to presume the slope is slippery.

RUmike

Hmm. Well Mahlon Smith told me that the only vote that got all reds (or at least one of the few) was that Jesus was crucified. This would mean all fellows agreed that Jesus lived. However, I'm assuming you're talking about Robert Price when you say "not all". Perhaps he wasn't participating during that vote.

RUmike

Thanks for the response dog-on. The hyperbole is well understood, I do it myself sometimes. I hope also that I didn't come across as bitter for your remark.