mountainman

Blogging through Doherty's book - Interlude I

Toto

This whole exercise is appalling, although not quite as bad as I feared.

When I read McGrath's incoherent attempts to compare mythicism to creationism, I know that I made the right decision to ban the use of the term here.

McGrath has only read a few chapters, and doesn't seem to understand Doherty's argument, but is quite satisfied to pass judgment and declare that Doherty does not have a good explanation of the "evidence" JUST LIKE CREATIONISTS - as if a few possibly interpolated phrases in Paul's letters have the same status as the fossil record.

Toto

Vridar: Why is McGrath reviewing Doherty's book?

aeebee50

It seems like the book is more about the failure of man.

Steven Carr

Shouldn't a review include at least a few quotes from the book being reviewed?

McGrath has very few actual quotes.

jgoodguy

Between McGrath and Viridar I am reminded of a dispute between a pompous professor and a very immature student.

It'd be nice if someone addressed the arguments made.

"If one draws the conclusion that a historical Jesus likely existed and that Paul had reason to believe this was the case, then one interprets the epistles as a whole in light of this. If one draws a different conclusion, one interprets the epistles as a whole in light of those different premises. But this issue clearly should not be decided on the basis of whether it is possible to read texts both ways. The existence of mainstream scholarship and of mythicism indicates that there are people who find themselves able to read passages through both lenses and find them to make sense. The only way to avoid a deadlock is to actually take seriously those passages that Doherty dismisses with hand-waving and references to symbolism: mentions of birth, Davidic descent. taking bread, bleeding, dying, and being buried. It is certainly the case that puzzles remain in the early Christian literature even when one does so. But if anyone thinks that Doherty's view is not creating puzzles of its own, and leaving some evidence in the epistles unsatisfactorily accounted for, then they haven't been paying close attention."

In short, the JM produces no better solution than the HJ.

"Doherty suggests that Paul's claim to have seen Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), offered as a defense of his authority viz-a-viz the other apostles, requires us to conclude that other apostles had only seen Jesus in the same way that Paul had - as a vision (p.42). It is not at all obvious why this must be the case, and Doherty seems at times to expect Paul to offer an impartial assessment of his own qualifications, rather than a polemical one that emphasizes what was in his favor and downplays or omits what could be counted against him."

In short, Paul may not have a cosmic spiritual Jesus in mind when he wrote the Epistles, but played apologist to give himself credibility.

Chapter 4 of Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man

Toto

I don't know how long you have been following the McGrath-Vridar exchange. McGrath has been not so much pompous as patronizing and insulting. Neil Godfrey (Vridar) allowed himself to get riled by the insults.

Doherty does much more than dismiss with hand-waving the few references that historicists cling to in the Pauline epistles, and McGrath does not address Doherty's actual arguments.

I do not know what puzzles Doherty's view creates or why McGrath has not listed them, but it should be noted that Doherty hews very closely to mainstream scholarship and does not rely on the possibilities of interpolation. One can easily solve a lot of problems by recognizing that a catholic redactor has worked over the letters and forced them to conform to items of orthodox dogma, including the humanity of Jesus.

"[I]t is not at all obvious why this must be the case" - except that Paul uses the same verb for the appearances, and cedes nothing to the pillars who McGrath thinks must have known the real historical Jesus. It is not that Paul downplays what could be counted against him. If others knew Jesus in the flesh, one might expect Paul to have to address this rather than ignore what must have been a large elephant in the room.

This is a very lame excuse.

jgoodguy

I disagree, If Paul was trying to differentiate his brand of preaching from the Jerusalem cult, then it appears to be possible. If one is advertising a knockoff product, does one compare it extensively to the original. I don't think so, why buy the knockoff Pauline when Paul tells you about the original being peddled by the folks that actual touched and heard Jesus.

Toto

It's just that there is no evidence from Paul's letters that he thought that the Pillars knew Jesus. To invent the excuse that he didn't mention this because it would have been embarrassing to him sound like -- well, like a lame invented excuse.

He could have said that the Pillars didn't understand what Jesus meant, and this was why Jesus had to visit Paul in spirit, or something along those lines. But there's nothing.

Steven Carr

He could have rubbed Peter's (sorry, Cephas) nose in the fact that he had denied Jesus and that all these 'Pillars' had failed Jesus miserably.

Instead, he removes all idea that these Pillars had been appointed by Jesus by claiming that a different authority had appointed them - God.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

How is telling people that God had appointed these Pillars the words of a man who allegedly is trying to downgrade the authority of these Pillars?