Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 06-13-2006, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Would it be possible for you to reply to Professor Ehrman and ask for his permission to reproduce what he said here?

I'd be very interested to see what he says in his own words.

Quasimofo · 06-13-2006, 01:36 AM

Who invented the telephone?

Who invented the light bulb?

Who came up with the evolutionary theory?

Who came up with the theory of relativity?

My point is it only takes one person to make a new discovery, these discoveries are either based on the works of others from the past or completely contradictory. To this day there are still many who do not accept evolution and who knows, one day it might even be disproven but for now it is largely seen as the truth. I'm not saying whether or not Doherty's theory is true or not what I'm saying is that views of the past, which at one time were highly accepted, have constantly been disproven throughout history. If it is true it will still take a LONG time before it becomes widely accepted, the first step is getting it acknowledged as a possibility.

As for attacking a persons credentials and education, Einstein dropped out of school at 15. I doubt anything he said would have been taken seriously until he completed his higher education, doesn't mean things he said before this weren't true.

dog-on · 06-13-2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

We should encourage Jesus Mythers to address academia! And if the peer-reviewed publications are found to reject such articles just on the subject being addressed, this should be exposed. But if Jesus Mythers are doing nothing to try to publish in peer-reviewed publications, then this should be exposed also.

GDon, you are correct to a point. However, with the onslaught of the Internet, these discussions have been ripped from the world of academia (where I must say, any great advances in this field probably end up being discussed around the campus coffee shop and in such terms as to make them unintelligible to the masses). We are at a point in history where these questions and discussions need to be addressed in popular culture. The dis-service that the "pros" are providing to society is that, in their reticence to address this issue, they allow for a continued refuge, tenuous as it is, for the religious interests to cling to for support.

Mr. Doherty has presented a scholarly thesis and done so in a way that is understandable to the layman. With "scholarly" review, the next step should be a Discovery Channel series, or even better, how about a major motion picture (as this kind of stuff definitely sells... Da Vinci Code, anyone?...Mr. Doherty could simply add some good action sequences to the novel he wrote on this subject. Just think of the reaction... :devil: ).

Clivedurdle · 06-13-2006, 06:01 AM

Darwin did both - a paper with Wallace to the Royal Society giving the framework, then Origins with the detailed arguments and the popular format.

Quasimofo · 06-13-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Mr. Doherty has presented a scholarly thesis and done so in a way that is understandable to the layman. With "scholarly" review, the next step should be a Discovery Channel series, or even better, how about a major motion picture (as this kind of stuff definitely sells... Da Vinci Code, anyone?...Mr. Doherty could simply add some good action sequences to the novel he wrote on this subject. Just think of the reaction... :devil: ).

Lol, I'd agree with the movie idea but I think the only exciting thing about Jesus has already been covered...his death!

But I suppose you're suggesting he embellish his story to add excitement and when it comes to the Christian audience the concept of embellishing stories would not be foreign to them.

gnosis92 · 06-13-2006, 07:21 AM

Dear Earl Doherty,
did you try to get your work published in a peer reviewed journal respected by academic historians, say by Bart Ehrman, and if so what was the results of that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I'd like to see that also, though I doubt that scholars in any other field are expected to address the work of amateurs as a matter of course. After all, which of the following versions (ignoring the overlap) of the Jesus Myth should scholars address? Doherty's "World of Myth"? Carlotti's "Julius Caesar as Jesus Christ"? Harpur's "Osiris as Christ"? Acharya S's "Sun of God as Son of God"? I doubt any scholar has time to address them all. Why should they address the one that you, personally, support over the others? Because YOU think that it's the correct version? (But then have you yourself gone out and publicly reviewed the other versions in the way that you want scholars to publicly review the version you favour?)

To paraphrase an old saying: we are all "agnostics" regarding the Jesus Myth, it's just that I am "agnostic" to one more version than you.

I think faulting scholars for not addressing fringe ideas in ANY field is wrong. It is up to those pushing the ideas to make sure they come to the attention of the scholars, and to do that by pushing their case in peer-reviewed publications. After all, isn't that what we would expect a scholar convinced on the Jesus Myth to start doing anyway? Otherwise, why be concerned whether scholars are addressing the Jesus Myth or not?

We should encourage Jesus Mythers to address academia! And if the peer-reviewed publications are found to reject such articles just on the subject being addressed, this should be exposed. But if Jesus Mythers are doing nothing to try to publish in peer-reviewed publications, then this should be exposed also.

Doug Shaver · 06-13-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

The theories of those who disagree with him have been around for two millennia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

That is true of the apologists, but not of everyone.

Uh, yes and no. Today's mainstream scholars might not be claiming that the New Testament represents eyewitness testimony, but the bottom line of their arguments still seems (to me) to be: Well, golly gee, there must be some truth in it. Apologists historically have differed only in insisting that there is nothing but truth in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

What I don't know, maybe you do, is how representative the Jesus Seminar is of modern NT studies or what is sometimes I think called "higher criticism."

I'm not clear on that, either. However, I remember when the Jesus Seminar made headlines with their first publications in the early 90s. I thought at the time, "So what else is new?" I didn't think their findings were all that revolutionary to anyone even as meagerly familiar as I was with modern scholarship -- and by modern I was thinking of any reputable scholarship going back to the 19th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Are most NT studies still stuck with the idea that Jesus was the son of god and died for our sins, or is that just the apologists?

I haven't actually seen any hard data on that, but I'm under the strong impression that only evangelical scholars still believe in Jesus' divinity and the notion of substitutionary atonement.

Clivedurdle · 06-13-2006, 08:16 AM

It might be inertia.

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/prospectus/ug...&prog=divinity

Aberdeen has two degree courses, the second more general religious sudies course has significant parts discussing myth, the first classic xian divinity does not.

Quote:

Why Choose Aberdeen?

Whilst Divinity and Religious Studies both study religious traditions, they do so from very different perspectives.

Divinity concentrates on the study of Christian faith, life and doctrine in a historical, cross-cultural and contemporary context. Emerging principally from within the Christian tradition, its principal means of study is theological, exegetical and historical, incorporating research and teaching in the following areas: Church History, Old Testament, New Testament, Practical Theology and Systematic Theology.

Religious Studies is concerned with the general empirical study of religious traditions, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. It uses historical, interpretive and anthropological approaches to the study of religion, and asks why it is that historically humans have always tended to organize their social life and communities around religious ideas.

post tenebras lux · 06-13-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

It might be inertia.

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/prospectus/ug...&prog=divinity

Aberdeen has two degree courses, the second more general religious sudies course has significant parts discussing myth, the first classic xian divinity does not.

But does the second course (religious studies) actually cover christianity? If they do, they don't seem to mention it:

Quote:

Religious Studies Degree Programme (MA)
These are the courses currently running, however they may be subject to change:
Level 1
Basics of World Religions: A study of the principal traditions, doctrines and practices of three major world religions (presently Judaism, Islam and Buddhism), their foundations and schools of thought.

Level 2
Tibetan and Himalayan Buddhism: Examines the history, literature and ritual of Buddhist thought as a living tradition within Tibetan communities. Understanding Islam: Examines the cultural history of Islam, and the social and religious life of contemporary Muslim communities.

Levels 3 & 4 (Honours)
Social Anthropology of Religions: An examination of the importance of ritual, symbolism and myth in modern and ancient religious communities, using modern anthropological theory and method to understand the nature of religious thought and practice.

Religion, Politics and History in South Asia: An historical examination of the social and political thought of the Buddhist and Hindu traditions of South Asia and Tibet, and their impact on modern Asian history.

Religion, Politics and History in the Middle East: An historical examination of the social and political thought of Judaism and Islam, and its impact on the modern Middle East. Modern Religious Fundamentalism.

Myth: Students will become familiar with theories of myth from the social sciences, from philosophy, and from religious studies. They will be able to compare theories, to evaluate theories, and to apply theories to actual myths.

It's a bit weird that they mention lots of other religions but not christianity. :huh:

jjramsey · 06-13-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Mr. Doherty has presented a scholarly thesis and done so in a way that is understandable to the layman.

A layman can certainly understand what Doherty is saying, yes. However, to check if Doherty is accurately representing the facts, it takes either training that most laymen do not have, or a willingness to hit the books and do some research. This is where experts can be useful, either as vetters of matters or as sources for the layman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2006, 01:36 AM	#32
Quasimofo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Brisbane Australia Posts: 78	Who invented the telephone? Who invented the light bulb? Who came up with the evolutionary theory? Who came up with the theory of relativity? My point is it only takes one person to make a new discovery, these discoveries are either based on the works of others from the past or completely contradictory. To this day there are still many who do not accept evolution and who knows, one day it might even be disproven but for now it is largely seen as the truth. I'm not saying whether or not Doherty's theory is true or not what I'm saying is that views of the past, which at one time were highly accepted, have constantly been disproven throughout history. If it is true it will still take a LONG time before it becomes widely accepted, the first step is getting it acknowledged as a possibility. As for attacking a persons credentials and education, Einstein dropped out of school at 15. I doubt anything he said would have been taken seriously until he completed his higher education, doesn't mean things he said before this weren't true.

06-13-2006, 06:01 AM	#34
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Darwin did both - a paper with Wallace to the Royal Society giving the framework, then Origins with the detailed arguments and the popular format.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.