Metacrock

I really have trouble telling what issues Hoffman is talking about, and what the arguments are. So I'm posting the actual pages themselves. This is page 2.




Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS



He tries to pin the whole of the whole of the Jesus story upon Mark alone as the single source, as though having a single original unified source is somehow invalidating. Of course if there were several different versions than you know darn well he would be saying "why are there so many different versions? That's a contradiction!" But clearly there are different versions in terms of the small details, and they come form different sources. First, he makes a major contradiction when he says Mark was written first than copied by Matt and Luke with different teaching material. He has no way of proving that Q didn't' come first. Moreover, Helmut Koester in Ancient Christian Gospels Identifies a Pre-Markan source that is not Q and which is very early. The four canonical Gospels and The Gospel of Peter all share in it. This very early proto Gospel source ends with the Empty tomb, and the various epiphanies come from many different sources. What all of this spells out is several different sources. Koester also finds that the Gospel of Thomas and Egatron 2 have some authentic early material. So we have a variety of sources all offering the same material (Q, proto-Mark, Mark, Thomas, Egetron 2 and the epiphanies sources, however many there might have been). They all agree on the general events but offer different details to flesh out the picture. All of this spells an authentic evidential support for the events of the Gospels. Furthermore, the Johonine Gospel, even though it too draws upon the Proto-Markan material, has its own independent source none of the others share, which is clear since the material can be seen not to be found anywhere else. This material represents the ferment of a separate community, the Johonine community and their collective memory of the events. See Ernst Kasemann The Johonnie Circle. Doherty could not be more off the beam when he makes his ignorant remarks about Acts. Here his amateurish nature truly shows. First of all, the vast majority of scholarship no longer assigns any of the NT books to the second century. Secondly, many liberals and all conversatives assign Acts to roughly the same period as Luke, which was part of the same account, around A.D. 80. See Luke Timothy Johnson, (The Writings of the New Testament) F.F. Bruce (The New testament Documents: Are They Reliable). The New Oxford Annotated Bible and Cornfeld (Archaeology of The Bible) both assign the work to Luke (these are two very liberal sources). Johnson and Bruce do as well, and Johnson especially is the more liberal of the two. Luke is the most trusted historian of any biblical writer, and his historical details is proven right down to the name of minor Roman officials which would not have been known in the Second century (see Resurrection page). My own theory is that the Gospels were produced by the communities, each following their own witnesses, and perhaps basing it on works by Peter and Matthew. The Witnesses to the Resurrection lived in those committees and fanned out among them after the original events. This is why the epiphanies seem to come from many different sources.



Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"



My Reaction: yea, so? That is basically what I believe. I fail to see how that prevents Jesus from being a real historical figure or how it means the events didn't' happen. Yes, the Gospelers tried to write Midrash. Yes they "pitch" the story to portray Jesus as the New Moses and so on. That is in no way to suggest that they are not based firmly upon real events. Midrash is not lie. Midrash does not mean that the story is "made up." Luke Timothy Johnson also supports the notion that many passages are Midrash in The writings of the New Testament, and he doesn't believe that this negates in any way their reality in history. This really shows what I've always said about these Internet skeptics, they are merely the negative of the fundamentalists. Take a picture of a "fundi" and look at the negative and you have a picture of Doherty or Wells or Farrell Till. They can't understand the liberal framework, they think it's just like the Evangelical framework but with no faith. They are totally wrong, it's just a different set of assumptions, but 9 times out of 10 it also includes a strong faith in God!



Piece No. 10: THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"



First see my Canon and Revelation page for details on the alternative to Q (all the way at the bottom of the page).The leading proponent of that view is William Farmer, and the view is called the Greiesbach Hypothesis. This is still a live option. There are no textual fragments of Q. Everything they have done on Q is total guess work as to what they expect to find there. So if one finds "no Jesus in Q" it is probably because one was trying to find no Jesus in Q. And since no serious historian has ever taken the "No Jesus" theory seriously, it is highly doubtful that any Textual critics do (Other than Mack). There is good reason to assume that Q came from another community and was put together in Syria, with Markan material to make Matthew. But from there Doherty just goes wild and leaps the grand canyon in Logic to the astounding conclusion that therefore there was no real historical basis in events. This is all coming from the Fundamentalist mind set which cannot grasp the liberal view and so imagines it to be a Testimony of doubt rather than real scholarship.



Piece No. 11: A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY



Now this is the most ill-conceived cacophony of disinformation I've ever seen. First of all, most of this alleged diversity is the brain child of modern scholarly (and un scholarly) speculation. Skeptics and Textual critics alike love gaps to fill in and can't resist the allure of speculation. Most of this is the unbridled speculation of would be critics running rampant. There was a lot of diversity, but there is no basic reason to assume that the 12 Apostles were not real people or that the central historical events didn't' happen. This statement totally belies his earlier point about it all coming from one source and all of it being alike! Which is it?Moreover, his statement that the diversity is no where attested to in the evidence is silly and absurd. First there is the passage in Mark where the Apostles find a man casting out demons in the name of Jesus, but they don't know who he is. That in itself speaks to the proliferation of the faith even before Jesus died. Than in Acts we find Pricilla and Aquilia preaching about Jesus but as decibels of John the Baptist, and Apollos who is coming from yet another group, the differences between the Jerusalem church and the Pauline group, the "Judaizing" enemies of Paul (the "super apostles" of 1 Cor.) and the totally Jewish-Chrsitian flavor of Jude (right down to quoting the Apocrypha not once but three times--and the pseudepigrapha) the Johonnie community which is as separate and distinct form the others as is the Pauline circle--the claim is belied by ever book in the NT! There is great diversity in ACTS even in spite of it's gloss on differences. So the diversity of the situation is certainly hinted at by the evidence. But the question is, where else are they getting all of this? It is primarily the assumption of critics. The statement itself is absurd. If there is no hint of it in the evidence maybe it is the fancy of textual critics! But of course there is reason to assume a great diversity, but mot of the total differences were the split between Eboionties and Elkasites and other Jewish-Chrsitian factions vs. The Pauline circle. The real diversity would come in the second century when a full blown Gnosticism gets into the act.



Piece No. 12: JESUS BECOMES HISTORY



Here we have a very peculiar phenomenon. In order to dismiss Jesus as an historical figure, Doherty has to do mythology backwards. Most anthropologists and historians accept the notion that mythology is created around some core event that is "historical" in nature. But over time the mythical qualities build. But here we have a myth starting out as mythological and than coming to be assumed as historical! This is totally illogical. It makes far more sense, forma skeptical view point, to say that the grandiose cosmic doctrine was added latter to the basic factual story of a man who rebelled against Rome, had some nice religious ideas, and was excited because he was misunderstood. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. But to do it the other way is nonsensical and absurd.Doherty totally misrepresents the nature of Midrash, portraying it as some sort of fiction writing. Midrash employs figurative speech, and often the Talmud employs legend to make points, but that in no way means that Midrashic writing was just fiction writing. Of course when he says that in Ignatious do we have for the first time the notion that Jesus lived and died under Pilate, he is totally ignoring what Joseph's and every other commentator and historian form that era says. Josephus, Thallas, Tacitus all write before Ignatious, although not long before, and 1 Clement also speaks of Christ's' Crucifixion under Pilate, of Peter and Paul being among the Roman Church community which therefore grounds them in historical connection to Jesus himself. Doherty totally dismisses clear and obvious statements which descievely debunk his theory found in alsmost every NT work! He is completely oblivious to the works of Heggesipus and Papias who speak of disciples of the Lord's whom they themselves heard speak with their own ears! (see Bible and Canon page).


Page 3

Intelligitimate

deleted for consistency
What, that you haven’t read his book and that you aren’t very familiar with his website? Because it’s blatantly obvious, that’s why.

Maybe this comment would make sense if I had said anything about what Paul believes about Jesus. As it stands, it seems as if you’re responding to something someone else said.

deleted for consistency

Metacrock

THE ASSEMBLED PUZZLE

Doherty

Again, we have a total misrepresentation as to what theologians and textual critics in the "revisionary tradition" are about. The assumption is, well they are examining the redaction so they must be dismantling it. They do dismantle but not for the purpose of destroying as Doherty seems to imply. they want to "de mythologize" so they dont' believe! While it is true that some dont, a good many do, and it is absurd to define the whole of liberal scholarship in this vein. But that is the way the fundamentalists see it, so it is not surprising that the antifundamentalist sees it this way as well. He just thinks it's to his advantage. He thinks they are letting go the sacrificial savior and yet it is the sacrificial savior he wants to pin on the early church at the expense of Jesus the man. But than he concludes with a thought that reveals a basic contradiction in his whole senerio.

After totally ignoring the evidence, misrepresenting doctrine, and reinterpreting the facts to suit his theory, he finds that the pieces of the puzzle don't hold together for the scholar! If that be the case then his evidence doesn't hold together either. The existence of Q is still the total fantasy of scholarship. Not that I dont' believe there is a Q source, but there is not one shred of textual evidence and we have no idea of what any sort of Q document (s) might have contained. We have no right to make the bold pronouncement that it lacked a man Jesus! But Doherty wants us to think that as the scholarly efface collapses his cloud castle holds together anyway, never mind that most of it's foundation is built upon the day dreams of textual critics.

What are we left to believe with Doherty's view? Out of the blue there is a religion based upon some ethereal figure called "Christ Jesus" (which he tries to reduce wholly to a title, ignoring the fact that Jesus was a proper name), but out of the blue this figure suddenly gains popularity. How? Why? The only logical conclusion is that it must have been a conspiracy. They sat down and thought it up based upon different mythologies. But how could they sell it? Wouldn't someone in Jerusalem notice that no one around them remembered anything like that ever happening?

Doherty I suppose wants us to think that so much time passed before the cloud figure of Jesus became a solid flesh and blood person that no one left would remember it. But does real life work that way? Could I just start asserting that my city was overrun by Elephants in 1916 and somehow get everyone to believe me? Why would anyone take the notion seriously when there was no memory of it?Be that as it may, Doherty forges ahead from one bold assertion to another, reversing the normal flow of mytholoigzing and ignoring Rheims of evidence. He finally concludes that since the senerios of scholarship have fallen down there must be nothing left of th case but to conclude that Jesus was not a real flesh and blood person. Is this a logical conclusion? Isn't the better conclusion that scholars are confused? That we don't know enough yet? That we are merely still stuck in the same boat of having to rely upon the four Gospels as primary sources? That would be the logical conclusion.

As amazing as this is, an even bolder theory might be proposed. We might account for Joseph's' mention of Jesus by the fact that there was a guy called Jesus. Amazing, how could anyone credit such a wild hypothesis. Of course we all know it is natural when an historian tells us something to doubt what he says and give it no credibility, especially when he is one of our primary historians for a certain period and we have little information apart form his account. That in itself is a sure sing that he's wrong! Doherty speaks as though we have so much evidence the fact that it is silent really proves something. We have, apart from the NT, one guy! Only Josephus outside of the NT gives us clear reliable information about Jesus, directly form the first century. So how many sources are there to remain silent? Which one's do? Logically, what is the best reason for doubting the existence of Jesus? Is it this massive conspiracy of silence. No! There is no silence. All the evidence from the first century is loudly proclaiming Jesus existed, and the vast majority of it is proclaiming him to be Lord of the universe! Truly God and truly man. But that's exactly why we must not accept it. Contrary to the way historians think about history, we must dismiss even the possibility of a guy called Jesus of Nazareth just because most of the primary sources about him are religious and we dont' like them.In conclusion than all Doherty has is an argument from silence, but it's not a conspiracy of silence, except on his part! It is Doherty's conspiracy of silence, the silence of ignoring the evidence, the argument from gaps in knowledge.



CONCLUDING OBSERATIONS


1) Doherty misunderstands the nature of religion in the first place.

The point of all religions is to mediate between an ultimate transformative experience and human problematic. All religions do this, they may define their problematics differently, and they may offer different notions of mediation but they all aim at doing this same thing. That world religion had evolved by the time of Christ to the point where many religions framed the world in terms of a cold cruel place in which the soul is not at home, and trasncendent reality as a transcendence of the alien world to a ture and better home, is no proof that Christianity barrowed from these other religions. We can and should assume that God was leading people to this realization in preperatoin for Christ's mission. The framework of Palestine in the first century was a melting pot of several cultures cross fertilizing each other. "It must be remembered that Jewish and Hellenistic thought both grew up together in the Eastern end of the Mediterranian, both owed a little bit to Egypt and a great deal to the civilization of the Trigris-Euphrates valley. Both alike derived something form Agean culture." [D.E.H.Whiteley, The Theology of ST Paul. Philadelphia: fortress press, 1964, p.5]

It is not surprizing then that some concepts and expressesion, modes of thought would be cross fertilized and "barrowed." This is a far cry form the "copy cat" savior theory that sketpics such as Dohrety often go in for.As for the notion that Christianity was a mystery cult, D.E.H. Whiteley one of the greatest Pauline scholars tells us, "the subject need be considered only at the level of popular misconceptions. Most of our evidence for the extant mystery cults comes from after the time of ST. Paul. For example Apuleius whose Golden Ass is one of our sources for these cults wrote in the third quarter of the second century...St. Paul does not seem t have been the sort of man to barrow from pagan sources. He was brought up as a strict Jew...Col. 2:8 'do not let your minds be captured by hollow and deceptive philosphies' is a warning against the kind of thinking we find in the mystery religions." (p. 2). Moroever Whiteley points out had Paul barrowed from the mystery religions we should expect to find his "Judaizing opponents" attacking him for that.


2) Paul is not Gnostic

But it would be a grave mistake to spin Paul as a mere Gnostic mystery cultist with a Cosmic Christ.Even though Paul does get a bit more transcendent than do his contemporary Apostle counterparts he is no Gnostic. The epistle to the Hebrews might have been written by Paul, or it might not have been, but it is clearly a Pauline circle production. Hebrews states explicitly that Jesus lived on earth in the flesh as a man, suffered, was tempted, (the Gnostic redeemer would not be tempted because he was not flesh and blood) and strongly implies that he died on earth.

3) Epistels Anti-Cosmic Christ.

As has been demonstrated, Paul alludes to the crucifiction and resurrection several times. Of course he never says "and by the way these were events on earth in history." Why should he? That would have been a natural assumption. Dohrety is merely capitalizing on a semilarity in language without analyzing the full significanc. Paul speaks directly of Jesus human decent and his life on earth, and he demonstrates a practicality and down to earth approach which belies the mystery cult notions. Such cults tended to be oriented toward magic and the use of nature worship, elemental spirits and so forth, all of which Paul condemns (Galations 5:19) and toward an ascetism which Paul also condmens. 4) Doherty tries to narrow the authorotative sources to just Mark, and to force everyting else to spin off of a synthesis of Mark and Q in Matt. and Luke. This is itself a contradiction because he does say it all comes form Mark. But in reality he merely refussing to the multiplicity of sources that abound within the redactoin of the Gospels.

a) Q

b) PreMarkan material identified by Koester

c) Thomas Sayings source

d) Egatron 2 sayings source

e) Mark

f) epiphony sources

f) l (independent material in Luke)

g) Johannine sources idenpendent of synoptics

(he tries to deny this by labeling John as "within the framework of Mark" but of course that is based upon the assumption of none historical narrative, and the idendence of certain portions of John is merely self-evident--such as the Mary Magdalene resurrection scenes).

h) Pauline material.

i) Josephus' sources.

That is at least 9 independent sources all of which agree upon the basic facts of flesh and blood historical Jesus, who died on the cross and was claimed risen form the dead. Most of these sources come together in the four Gospels and agree in general upon the basic facts.

spin

Mine was a generic complaint given what you've done here in this thread and what I have seen in the past.

I'd recommend that you don't do this posting in parts procedure. It only invites response. Hold on and post it all, well, if it's less than 6000 characters.

I think you could do better with a more tactical approach. You know that if you respond quickly you'll make it harder to read. And bite less.


spin

(You can wait.)

Metacrock

Not insulted.




show me where I go wrong.




because someone attacked my pages. Ooo see why I'm sick of this stuff?





I've read the site. Not the book. I'm fairly familiar with his stuff. Everyting I've seen by him is dumb.

Instead of just tyring to look smart, could you actually give me an example which illustrate why you say I don't know anything about it?

Metacrock

Hoffman continues to say: "Metacrock writes:" then he doens't quote me. This makes it hard to tell what the argument is being addressed. Like this issue for example. I have no idea. But that last comment:

Theology is critical scholarship! genius.


There are still two things I'm waiting for:

(1) any kind of historical proof that Jesus didn't exist;

(2) show me an example which indicates how I don't get the drift on Doherty!

spin

[Much better. ]

Intelligitimate

Did I say you were wrong? No. Not having read Doherty in full doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong in what you say.

Perhaps you should take it up with that someone.

Not really. Perhaps you’ve just been doing this for such a long time that it is beginning to lose its entertainment value.

Take, for instance:

“But of course he's assuming that Mark was written very late. Skeptics on the Net usually date the Gospels in accord with 19th century scholarship which put them into the second century or at the very take end of the fist.�

Nowhere does Doherty depend on or assume a late dating of Mark. He argues in his book for only a slightly later date of 85-90. In any case, it doesn’t have much to do with Doherty’s overall thesis. Another example would be Hegessipus, as Hoffman points out. You said he is oblivious to it, but he writes about him in his book.

Again, I ask you take Kirby's offer. It would certainly be more interesting than reading your critique of 12 introductory paragraphs.

Metacrock

that's right. So let's focuss on Doherty and why he's wrong. Take the little aura of the sacred away from the guy. He's not a star,he's not a scholar, he's not right. You just want to believe he is because so sure fire as weapon against Christianity.




I did. That's what this thread is. It's a defense of my page against Hoffman.




Duh!




But he has to. He says that Jesus became historical in the second century. If mark was written in 70, there goes that idea. I believe I quoted him saying so too.



Then D has disproven his own argument. Because given time for Q and pre Markan redaction and travel time and so forth, the the Jesus story would be clealry historically oriented in the time of Paul. It would place the idea of Jesus as flesh and blood in the late 50s early 60s. So why then would Paul deny it? worse not know about it?



I didn't put the link up. That was someone elses idea. Shit! I'll try to get around to it.

Amaleq13

Could you specifically describe what you would consider to qualify?