Ted Hoffman

So, anyone wants to post something substantive regarding Doherty's counter-arguments to the scholars who are listed by Chris Price?

Ben C Smith

Statement 1: We should not expect pitchers to hit home runs (understood that sometimes they do).
Statement 2: Only nonpitchers hit home runs (understood that they never do).

Statement 1: We should not expect nonscholars to shift entire paradigms (understood that sometimes they do).
Statement 2: Only scholars shift entire paradigms (understood that they never do).

Statement 1: We should not expect nonhistorical documents to contain historical references (understood that sometimes they do).
Statement 2: Only historical documents contain historical references (understood that they never do).

Van Voorst was saying #1, but you criticized him for saying #2.

The understood second category is documents written primarily for nonhistorical purposes. If you think he should have spelled the whole thing out more, recall that I already opined that most defenses of an historical Jesus are too surface-level for my tastes. I would be agreeing with you on that, I think.

Correct.

Correct. We have the right to expect historical statements only from documents written for historical purposes (but sometimes we get those statements as a gift from nonhistorical sources). Here the word only limits what we expect. In your rephrasing it limited the actual documents themselves, without nuance. The baseball team has no right to expect the pitcher to save the game with a home run, though occasionally that will happen. Your rephrasing of Van Voorst had him implying that it never happens, which is an easier statement to sink than what he really wrote.

That is your right, and that is the proper kind of argument against his position, not one which has him implying that X never happens when all he is saying is that we cannot expect X to happen.

Rather than leave open the possibility of vague accusations, let me just plead guilty and save the court a lot of money: I have (and had) no intention of arguing either for or against either you or Van Voorst on the main issue. What I brought up was self-consciously a peripheral point, one which I thought was fairly self-evident and easy to change. I did not harbor any illusions that mythicism would fall just because I found an inconsistency in your response to Van Voorst. It was a minor point from square one.

That was what the Ascension of Isaiah thread was about. You had hinted that you might get back to me on that; I did not wish to get embroiled in anything from your refutations page at the same time. It was a passing remark, and I expected no more from you than to say: Hmmm, I did word that a little differently than he intended, and then make a minor change, end of story.

I never intended so many postings.

Did you even read the PM I sent you? I apologized to you personally for creating an impression of dogpiling.

It was a minor issue to begin with, and I am sorry it has escalated to this point.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I believe the source of disagreement is that you are talking in general terms about the notion of Jesus as myth while Rick is specifically referring to Doherty's thesis which denies any earthly activity. The myth of Hercules' birth is certainly given as an earthly activity.

EarlDoherty

So that's it???

After years (literally) on this forum of defenders of the faith arguing that scholarship has long since and "time and again" demolished Jesus mythicism ("annihilated" as Michael Grant puts it)--actually, they don't argue it, they simply 'appeal to the authority' of this claim--and I post a 43,000 word article refuting this myth and addressing in often minute detail every major scholar one can identify as having taken part in this alleged definitive exercise....

And the response on this thread is limited to a discussion of a supposed minor misunderstanding of an irrelevant interpretation of one phrase??? (Other than Jeffrey's demand for the skinny on an obscure 1904 essay which even he hasn't read--and Jeffrey, to save you the time, I'll anticipate your answer to this: "And how can you know that I haven't read this essay, on what basis do you make such an irresponsible claim which only shows your own ignorance on the matter, etc., etc.....)

On this basis, I am going to suggest that the above-noted stance on the refutation of Jesus mythicism has been a lot of hot air, that those making the claim here do so on the same basis as everyone else, namely their own wishful thinking. I stand waiting to be corrected (and I look forward to any comments Kevin may make on reading the article later this summer).

All the best,
Earl Doherty

No Robots

Not quite. Why do you not mention Constantin Brunner's attack on mythicism? How about Conybeare, who is mentioned on Christopher Price's site? What do you have to say about the defection of G.A. Wells from the mythicist camp? What about your silence on the unanimous finding among scholars that the entire NT is of wholly Jewish origin?

Barrett Pashak

jgibson000

Um, why do you say it's obscure? Betz, whom you "quote", apparently didn't think so.

Did I ever say I have read it? And why shift the burden? The question was whether you had, given your claims about its relevance.. So may we have a clear answer? Have you read it, yes or no?

And when, Earl, am I going to receive your public apology to me for your charge that I not only would be the sort who would, but one who actually went ahead and, manufactured evidence to support a claim I was making?

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

I could pull a "Gibson" but I won't. No, I have not read Bousset's essay. Have you--as of this moment? (Or will you pull a Gibson?)

There were a number of minor authors and works I did not read, and I made that clear in my article. The only "relevance" I claimed about the essay was in regard to Betz's use of it, his claim that no one since Bousset had dared to mount a denial of the HJ, a patently ridiculous and unfounded claim. I made no claim as to the worth of Bousset's article itself. As usual, you have deliberately misrepresented what I say, since it is quite clear in the article:

As for getting Betz's first name wrong, unlike you I am willing to overlook making irrelevant mistakes (such as misnaming a Soviet WWII tank) rather than take the time to double-check everything. In any case, I thought I was remembering it right when I wrote that passage, but apparently not, and I will (eventually) correct it in the article. Also unlike you, I don't lay claim to infallibility, nor do I lay eternal-salvation importance on every word and punctuation mark.

Do you really want an answer to your second paragraph? OK, how about this? Your claim that the professor at Columbia (don't remember the name and I'm not going to take the time to search it out) thought negatively about Carrier's competence in Greek based on "manufactured evidence", namely the simple fact that he did not respond to your second e-mail. (Talk about an Argument from Silence!) The evidence was "manufactured" because you did not clarify that your claim was based on his silence but rather you implied that it was based on an actual response from him to you. That's not only manufactured, it is disreputable, and a lot of other things I could say which the moderators would probably take exception to. As for my follow-up suggestion that your quoted comment from some other, unnamed, source was also manufactured, this came after we all became aware of that disreputable behavior, and after you refused to identify the source despite repeated urgings by many, leading to a quite natural assumption of the possibility that the later quote, too, was a fraud. (We only belatedly learned, and not through your admission, that it was not.) On that basis, I owe you no apology on that count.

And I promise that this is all I will say on that matter, regardless of what you may protest in response.

Earl Doherty

jakejonesiv

Earl,

Yep, that's it. Some good points have been raised, which you have countered. No annihilation or refutation.

Jake Jones IV

No Robots

Why don't you try out some of your own reasons for doubting the mythicist position?

Rick Sumner

I'll take you down a walk through most of our exchanges (one stands out as being excluded--your argument for interpolation).

In the first exchange, an email correspondence from many moons ago, I challenged your assertions regarding the absence of venerated artefacts. It soon became "another piece of the puzzle" accompanied by phrasing that indicated you were really only describing it "not inconsistent with" the Jesus Myth, though if you thought it more than that, I'll allow for a poor inference on my part. I wasn't (and am not) prepared to grant it even "another piece" status, but since it was such a step down from "perhaps the single strongest argument," I acquiesced.

In the second, carried out by proxy through Ted Hoffman, you suggested I was an apologist, and attempted to dismiss me as presenting standard apologist fare. A suggestion that would be laughable if you weren't dead serious. An example of this fare? The "smoke and mirrors" of the term "semantic range." Of course, had you asked, I'd have told you what it meant--as it is, I can only refer you to, well, any of Mounce's Greek Grammars. Unless you would suggest that the most used Greek textbooks on the planet are more "smoke and mirrors." You followed this up with a tirade because I had missed a response you'd made to a post in the Jesus-Mysteries archives. Courtesy and convention, of course, should preclude such ranting. You, of course, thoroughly lacked both.

In the third, another concession was elicited, again for overstating your case. Much like the "single strongest" above, here it was delow placing things "without much doubt," a point you conceded after some reluctance. This was, interestingly, the only time you engaged me without resorting to rhetoric and ad hominems, thinly guised (like spiffy scare quotes) or otherwise.

In the fourth, you responded to my articles on 2Peter and the gospels. You promptly missed the point of an argument that was nearly a verbatim copy of the one you conceded above, and began issuing some preconceived ad hocs against your strawman. You followed this up by missing the next lexical argument as well, and then missing the thrust of my argument. Showing the courtesy and convention you lacked above, I didn't call you on the obvious, except for a tongue-in-cheek application of your "scare quotes" but instead gave a response that pointed right back to what I'd said previously. When you continued to exhibit ignorance for what was being contended, I called you on it (for the record, yes, I know that commentators disagree about the relationship of 2Pet. to the gospels. I'm aware of none who either take or refute my tact, which is ironic since Markan commentators who see the transfiguration as a Markan creation are not at all anomalous. A case of failing to make connections, I suppose.).

The next interaction was but a fleeting notice, you had directed a little rant against me, despite the fact that I had nothing to do with any of the discussions you were addressing. When I pointed this out, you paid me not even the simple courtesy of acknowledging your mistake.

In all of these interactions (indeed, with near uniformity in all of our interactions, save one) you have either a) conceded the point or b) clouded it with rhetoric and ad hominems. That is, on the occasions when you think you have a point to score, you offer the least for it, opting instead to attempt to persuade by style rather than offer the substance you claim to have in abundance.

We can pair your tendency up with Ted Hoffman, which I think needs no further explanation--you don't even feel obligated to defend your most vociferous defender when people point out that he makes you look bad. To be quite candid, I highly doubt Ted could tell Bultmann's Jesus and the Word from Sanders' Jesus and Judaism without looking at the titles.

And you find your opponents underwhelming? How much more so do I?

Regards,
Rick Sumner