Roger Pearse

I am mildly flattered.

The French philologists seem pretty certain that it is. It will be interesting to see Earl engage with the mighty erudition of continental scholars, presuming that he possesses the necessary language skills to read their comments.

But whether or not they are correct hardly matters. It matters nothing whether Minucius is certainly third century, or probably third century, or possibly third century. Earl's argument requires Minucius to be second century, only second century, certainly second century.

It would be interesting to see a man of Earl's abilities demonstrating this against the current of modern scholarship.

I have indeed ignored other considerations, for I was writing only a few lines.

Not me; I know my limits. But surely Earl actually knows the scholarship to which I refer? If so, why does he ask me?

Such comments seem a little strange.

If Earl believes that there is no certainty on the subjects about which he writes, why should anyone pay attention to his book? Conversely, if Earl believes his conclusions are indeed certain and secure, why on earth does he not believe the same about those who have dedicated their lives to the subject and are considerably better educated than anyone in this forum?

After all, Earl has to demonstrate his thesis to us. He has to create certainty. Arguing that his thesis is true because no-one can know the truth -- in his opinion -- seems strange.

Does anyone on this subject HAVE a preferred authority? I prefer reasoned argument myself. But I do defer to the technical arguments of philologists on a matter of no conceivable religious or political importance to anyone except a certain Earl Doherty. The alternative involves some serious work to master the literature and understand the arguments. Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but in view of the disdain that he has expressed, I will be a little surprised to discover that Mr. Doherty has undertaken such a piece of work. If so, all this is merely an excuse to ignore educated opinion in order to make an argument for other reasons.

Good to hear it. The last time Earl attempted this argument it collapsed.

I certainly hope not to! Were I an atheist, I hope I could find better things to do with my limited time on earth, before endless darkness fell, than reading an 800 page polemic asserting something that no sensible educated person believes and of no possible interest or importance to me and my life. There are girls to kiss, flowers to see, lands to travel, sunshine to enjoy, research to conduct and the jests and wisdom of forgotten souls from ancient times to bring back into the light, to share with all around the fireside of life. And Earl expects us to sit indoors reading him moan about how a Jesus in whom we don't believe never existed? Is he mad?

Let us read Juvenal and laugh at the follies of Domitian's flatterers, read Martial and see the grossness of that flattery, and the wit of it, let us read Austen and smile at the idiosyncracies of the Regency period; but let us feed our souls with knowledge and light and wit and sunshine. The silly books that we intentionally read only to refute should be few indeed. Soon we will all be dead. Why waste time on such nonsense?

Some halfwit will drearily moan that this is not logically a reply. Indeed it isn't. It is the amused response of every sane man who has a sense of proportion and remembers that he will die and must cherish every sunny day. Let a fool wear his self-inflicted irons if he must, but the rest of us need not do the same.

In other words; no, I won't buy his rotten book, nor will I read it unless I must. And he can't make me, unless he manages to delude enough fools that the clamour reaches into my quiet garret and disturbs my repose. And then, I suspect, he will be sorry he did.

Instead here is a snippet from what I am reading.

From Lucian, Life of Demonax, book 2, p. 385; apud "Greek Wit" ed. F.A.Paley first series, p.74. Slightly paraphrased.

More wit, please.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I don't know about links. But look up all the reviews of Minucius Felix in the Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea series published in the Revue des Études Augustiniennes since 1974. This reviews all publications on ante-Nicene Latin patristics, which of course includes every article published anywhere in the world on Minucius Felix. There is a single volume of reviews from 1974-1994, which may be more accessible. It's all in French, of course.

I know that some contemptible people online consider it clever to refer others to scholarly sources which they themselves in fact have never read. I myself am merely an interested amateur. So I feel obliged to mention, as some may recall, that I edit the Tertullian project, and I get an annual free copy of the CTC, thanks to the kindness of one of the editors. My rather dog-eared copy of the single volume I got at the Oxford Patristics Conference some years ago. It is, of course, very well indexed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Oh Roger! You wish that all the skeptics would go and do something else, and leave Christianity to the Christians, who could avoid thinking about these difficulties.

One might as well advise internet Christian debaters to stop the apologetics nonsense and go feed the poor and tend to the sick as their Lord wants them to.

DCHindley

Yes, I guess you don't understand the Mythicist mindset. To them, Christians believe a myth that has been fabricated, and which is more important than any real Jesus there might have been. Doesn't Wordy say "It is the Jesus in the heart of the believers that motivates them to act and that is why the myth is alive and kicking. So it is the Mythic Jesus that is alive and not the HJ guy"?

Is it any wonder he has understood a misattributed quote about seeing one's own reflection rather than Jesus as he might have been, to refer to the myths believed by the critic? You are what you believe.

As for Schweitzer's motivations for believing in Jesus' messianic secret, that has nothing to do with Wordy's post, true. I was commenting that Schweitzer, who had no difficulty detecting advocacy scholarship when practiced by others, seemed to me to have been doing the same thing when he proposed that Jesus was living out his own understanding of the messianic secret. It is the difference between proposing what MUST be, in order to make the figure of Jesus meaningful to the critic, and what LIKELY occurred in view of the historical context.

Jesus' impulse to follow the lead of his understanding of the messianic secret is the model for what drove Schweitzer as a Christian, moving him from musical prodigy to inspired biblical critic to physician to missionary in far-off Africa.

DCH

spamandham

Well, I might consider reading the latest edition, since I've wasted my time on several books of tenuous garbage anyway and find Doherty's work (the summary of it that is) better than average among "radical" perspectives, but I will say this.

My own present perception is that Paul's Christ is not myth. Paul's Christ is mystical/allegorical/spiritual (they are the same thing in the Paul's mind), and Paul is the result of multiple authors. We do not need to waste time trying to explain 1 Cor. 15 in mystical terms, because it's probably inauthentic anyway.

I think it best to just state outright that we have no idea what is or isn't authentic, and so we're not going to give too much credence to any particular passage, but are instead looking for inexculpable patterns.

Doug Shaver

So, I am either uneducated or insensible. I resent that implication.

Roger Pearse

I do. And if you realised how futile it all was, you would too.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

To take personal offence at a generality would seem risky, if you wished to avoid fufilling those qualifications.



All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ktotwf

No, you're right. Atheists shouldn't have intellectual hobbies. We should travel the world doing the dainty, precious, pretentious things you suggest so that you don't have to hear the sound of people questioning your religious beliefs.

To MAKE such a ridiculous generality is hardly indicative of any positive personality traits. But hey, the old, "No serious intelligent person believes this," canard is ESSENTIAL to any good old fashioned historicist argument.

Steven Carr

Before that, Christians could spend 5 minutes producing evidence of the existence of the vast cast of characters in Mark's Gospel who disappear from the face of the earth the second there is a public church with the possibility of public records of these people.

But Christians don't do that. Even though Judas never appears in any Christian document for 30 year after his alleged death, Christians pour scorn on anybody who even asks if these people existed.