Deadtroopers

Hello,

This is my first post here. I treated myself to 2 books this Christmas, Jesus Interrupted and Jesus neither god nor man. I found the latter the most scholarly. I have had a layman's eye on this topic for 35years and I found the latter the most complete presentation and argument I have encountered. I hadn't realised just how contradictory the arguments of the majority of scholars had become. It makes much more sense to historicise a mythology than to mythologise a man. It is a funny old discipline that claims historical/scientific methodology where even most of the atheist/agnostic scholars are doing apologetics in drag.

Steve Watson

Kapyong

Gday Steve,

Welcome :-)

"Jesus neither god nor man. I found the latter the most scholarly."

Earl Doherty, the author, posts here from time to time.
He has a web site too:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

These issues are oft-discussed here, you may also like to see the review by another poster GakuseiDon :
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review1.html


Kapyong

Deadtroopers

Thanks for that Kapyong. GakuseiDon's review is interesting. I have Mack on Q,
Christianity arose from a number of separate strands, including a “Son of God” movement and a separate itinerant “Christ” movement who invented a symbolic founder for themselves. (See “The Q Document”)

Deadtroopers

Thanks for that Kapyong. GakuseiDon's review is interesting.

"1. Christianity arose from a number of separate strands, including a “Son of God” movement and a separate itinerant “Christ” movement who invented a symbolic founder for themselves. (See “The Q Document”)...As far as I know, the above concepts are not even on the radar of modern scholarship."

I have Mack on Q, The Q part of this statement seems to have been on his radar for a good number of years, and until I read Doherty I could never square that Jesus interpretation with Paul's crucified saviour. As I have said, this only made sense to me when you historicised a mythical, visionary concept.

I will have to read the rest of the review and comment another time. I do note two of the three first page references are to Ehrman, who underwhelms me and who, others have pointed out, ignores work that contradicts his own apocalyptic prophet concept.

Cheers and Good Night,
Steve Watson

GakuseiDon

I haven't read Mack, but according to Wiki, he has gone down a similar road to Arnal: Jesus as a member of a Q community. Probably a prominent member, but not the Son of God of later Christianity. According to Wiki:

The earliest layer, called Q1, is composed of sayings attributed to Jesus and addressing the audience directly.These are mostly instructions on how to behave. The main teachings are to live in poverty, to lend without expecting anything in return, to love your enemies, not to judge, and not to worry, since God will provide what you need... Mack suggests that at this time Jesus was seen simply as a teacher by the community which produced the text, with many similarities to a sage in the Cynic tradition.

The part that is "not on the radar" is the idea that the Q community created a figure to be the symbol of that community. According to Doherty, the Q community was a group of miracle-wielding repentance preaching itinerant prophets. From my review:

So, instead of just one miracle-wielding prophet teaching about the coming "kingdom of God" and preaching repentence, Doherty proposes there was a whole community of them. And for some reason, Jesus was created to a symbolic figure for them, rather than a teacher emerging from within that group.

Do we have evidence for such a community?

angelo

G'day Deadtrooper. [interesting name] Welcome to the forum. I've read Jesus Interrupted, but not the other. I'll take your word and good review of the other and order it. I would imagine you bought it through Amazon?
Can I suggest another book you should try and get: Jesus A Very Jewish Myth by R.G. Price. Not to be confused to Robert Price who also has a few books in print. I think R.G's book may be available through
www.lulu.com

angelo

I found this for anyone who's interested.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#1

EarlDoherty

Alas, ‘tis not I who have avoided peer review, it is the “peers” themselves. “Peers” in what, I don’t know; it certainly isn’t in the application of open-minded analysis and deductive logic—NT scholarship is rife with fallacy and special pleading, and I’ve been pointing that out for years. (My thanks to newcomer Steve Watson for his kind remarks on Jesus: Neither God Nor Man and for recognizing how deficient the workings of mainstream scholarship in regard to the HJ.)

The Jesus Puzzle lay in the ‘invitation to review’ bin at SBL for a few years, and no one had the temerity to pick it up. The Fourth R (the magazine of The Jesus Seminar/Westar Institute) refused an offer a few years ago by someone to donate $5000 to it if they would run an article by me explaining the Christ Myth theory plus a rebuttal article by any scholar of their own choosing. The reason? According to the editor (paraphrasing): “I’ve found that anyone who believes Jesus didn’t exist cannot be persuaded otherwise.” Talk about black pots and kettles.

We saw the sorry fate of The Jesus Project, which collapsed almost before getting off the ground, in large part because too many of the “critical scholars” enlisted in it were unwilling to tackle the very question which the sponsors (Council for Secular Humanism) had declared would be one of the pillar investigations of the Project. When it came down to it, they ran scared.

And isn’t it strange (and to be taken as anything but a good omen) that the majority over the years, on both this list and elsewhere, who have cried for me to seek peer review and criticized me for (allegedly) avoiding such a thing have been the very ones who have dumped all over my own case and mythicism in general, most of whom had never read any of my books and betrayed the most abysmal ignorance of mythicism’s arguments, let alone had any ability to answer them. Anyone see the anomaly there and why I have long since regarded seeking ‘peer review’ as a lost cause?

I notice someone in answer to judge quoted the link to the Wiki article on me. Of course, it had that wretched (and very undeserved, most in the know would agree) put-down of my work by R. Joseph Hoffman. A kind editor added a brief rebutting sentence after it, with a footnote containing a link to my website article on the demise of The Jesus Project, in which I appended some remarks in answer to Hoffman’s little nasty, including why it was pretty clear he hadn’t even read my book. I hope anyone who noted Hoffman’s comment also followed the link and read that as well (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/JesusProject.htm).

I find it ironic that, to date, the only scholars willing to address my work in a publication and actually grapple with some of my arguments were none other than Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy—who, as we all know, are regarded as full-fledged apologists. This was the main reason why I returned them the favor in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. It certainly justified me doing so (and made GDon’s derision of me for it particularly asinine). I haven’t yet looked at Don’s review, and probably won’t until sometime next week, although perhaps his criticism would give me sufficient justification to ignore it, considering that even Don himself has admitted in the past that he would accept being styled as an “apologist.” (And no, I’m not going to dig out that quote from a years-old thread either.)

Earl Doherty

angelo

Earl, what is your opinion on R.G.Price's work? Different approaches, but the same conclusions. I find it fascinating.

GakuseiDon

It reminds me of a joke: The husband says to his wife, "Honey, what's wrong?" She replies, "Well, if you don't know, there is no point in telling you." I quote Zeichman on his comments about TJP in my review of Doherty's "Jesus Neither God Nor Man":
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review1.html

If he instead submitted works to scholarly journals, it would both improve the quality of his work by undergoing close examination, and result in more attention for his hypothesis. Thus, if Doherty believes he has anything to add to the field of New Testament studies, this approach would be emphatically preferable. However, because he has not subjected his work to critical scrutiny, he bases large amounts of his work on avoidable mistakes that would be caught under nearly any peer-review system. By repeating the same significant blunders, it is difficult to take seriously the whole of his hypothesis, as The Jesus Puzzle quickly appears to be a tangled web of mistaken interpretations.

Peer-review isn't about 'bragging rights'. It isn't about getting a gold star to be added to the resume. It's about having knowledgeable people closely examining your work. It is part of the process for how new ideas become mainstream. It's considered part of the scientific method.

And, what is the alternative? At some point, the ideas need to enter the review system. Earl is hoping that someone ELSE picks up the slack. But aren't they going to encounter the same issues anyway?

Let me highlight a statement by Earl that I consider is a pile of crap:

For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14).

Maybe critical scholars are too 'scared' to tackle the Christ side of that equation, but on the pagan side is there no-one who could validate the statements about pagan beliefs with regards to Attis and Mithras? Wouldn't that provide massive support for Doherty's theories? Or are critical scholars too scared to even address the pagan side as well?

Let's bring this paranoia out into the open. Who here think that critical scholars 'ran scared' from The Jesus Project? Or who thinks they 'run scared' when the question of a non-historical Jesus is raised? Do you think that those critical scholars secretly suspect that the mythicists may be right, so don't want to address the question? Is there some kind of implicit conspiracy going on here?

I suspect most Doherty sympathizers would say "no" to the question of conspiracy, but then why let Earl get away with this crap? Critical scholars both "betray the most abysmal ignorance of mythicism’s arguments" AND "run scared" from the question? But if they are ignorant, why run from the question? Something doesn't mesh here. And anyway, BOTH points would be addressed by peer-review. Does anyone disagree on that? Does anyone see any downside for Earl attempting this? Doesn't it sound too bizarre that both Earl's supporters and critics are urging this course of action on Earl, and he isn't doing it?

Let me float an alternate possibility: Is it possible that Earl's theories are a pile of crap that sound good to people who don't know much about the topics raised, but sound like a pile of crap to those who do? And Earl knows this ('runs scared' from peer-review, in fact)?

What should Earl's next step be? What would his supporters on this board like to see him do?