Malachi151

I disagree that this is a good route. Its much harder to prove, and frankly I find it unconvincing. Any passage that points to an earthly Jesus kills the whole argument. You have to explain away the natural conventional reading of dozens of passages, or offer them as interpolations, etc.

Because I don't find his arguments very persuasive. He seems to try and avoid addressing things and glance around them rather than take them head on.

For example, let's see from his website:

We also have more from here:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm

Go down to "Learning of a Sacred Meal".

What he fails to do in every case is explain why this passage by Paul is so similar to that of the gospels.

Yes, I fully agree that it can be read in the way that he asks us to read it, indeed I could see that before even reading Doherty's commentary on it, but that doesn't explain the similarity between Paul and gospels on this.

There are possible explanations, but I want to hear what people offer for them.

Possibilities are:

1) Mark read the letters of Paul, and thus got the idea from there
2) Paul started this rite himself with these letters, and it caught on, becoming an oral tradition that influenced Mark
3) The wording of Paul is a later modification (in which case Doherty is wasting his time trying to explain it away, and in which case Doherty's argument actually counters the claim that its a later modification)

My point is, we don't need to just come up with an ahistorical reading of this passage to fit it into JM, we also have to explain how this rite appears in both Paul and the gospels, and as far as I can see, Doherty hasn't done that.

Ben C Smith

I think (and I could well be wrong) that the term historicist is a reaction to the term mythicist. Most historicists do not stroll around thinking of themselves as historicists... until they run into a mythicist.

Ben.

Peter Kirby

I will stop visiting this forum if it has established a criterion by which "most scholars reject this theory" is a good thing for a theory.

Naturally, this forum has adopted no such criterion. Some people may do so (no credit to them), but that's it.

(Hint: this forum has, for itself, stepped up for very little indeed.)

regards,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I can state with some confidence that "the forum" has not adopted the position that mainstream rejection is a good thing for a theory.

Ben C Smith

I quite agree that it seems to be heading in that direction. And I think that it will hit a wall in that direction, and will never really enter the mainstream on those terms.

Ben.

aa5874

Do you alone determine what becomes 'mainstream'? Or are you just a wall in that direction?

It appears to me that you would have probably advised Galileo to burn and destroy his instruments of astronomy so that he could avoid hitting all the walls of mainstream.

Ben C Smith

To answer each inquiry in turn:

1. I have no power whatsoever to determine what is mainstream. My prediction should not be mistaken for a threat on my part to hold biblical studies hostage or such.

2. I am not a wall in that (or in any) direction, as far as I am aware.

3. While I cannot with very much certainty tell what I would have been like if I had been born several centuries ago, I can say that, judging by my current stances on contemporary scientific research, I seriously doubt I would have had anything to say against Galileo and his research.

Thank you for your questions.

Ben.

jgibson000

Ah, finally, the Galileo card! Can we soon expect the Nazi book burning charge?

Please tell me who it was, even amongst Galileo's opponents (all of whom, by the way, admitted Galileo was right), who advised Galileo to burn and destroy his astromomical instruments?

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Please stay on topic and do not wander off into Galileo, Christian atrocities, etc. We have had other threads on the significance of the mainstream consensus, but feel free to start a new one if you care.

Toto
mod, BCH

krosero

Doherty seems to hold that either #1 or #2 is possible: Mark either knew Paul or knew the Pauline traditions. I have found the following passage at this page on his website, and I recall this issue being addressed in his book (though I don't have his book at hand right now):

Edit: just keep in mind that for #2, if that is Doherty's view, he does not say AFAIK that Paul made up the rite himself; he holds simply that the Lord's Supper was a Pauline tradition that could have gotten to Mark by way of oral tradition.

Kevin Rosero