jbernier

Apparently I missed the chance for a free copy of Doherty's book. No worries. He lies out the bases of his argument quite nicely on his website. I must say up front that I appreciate the clarity with which he presents his case. It also makes the job of critique much easier - one can go through and respond point by point. This is a definite strength of his argumentation, as this method of presentation more easily opens up his position to critique and rebuttal (this being a hallmark of good scholarship, imho).

So, here is my response in a nutshell.

On the surface this may seem like a strong case. However, we must ask "What is the evidentiary assumption here?" Doherty assumes that, in this case, absence of evidence equals evidence of absence. However absence of evidence is evidence of absence if and only if one would reasonably expect there to be evidence. So the question becomes "Would one, prior to the writing of the gospels, expect to find evidence of the gospel story as found in the gospels?"

I would argue "Not necessarily." Let us assume that there was a Jesus who lived and died sometime around 30 CE. Some sort of movement grew up around him. The primary carriers of this movement either knew him or knew of him. Stories about his life are transmitted orally. A later generation, however, now more distance from the original events, feels a need to record these oral stories. Under this scenario one would not necessarily expect to find references to a historical Jesus within the epistles as the epistolary writings would assume that people already knew th story.

Further, we must remember that the documentary evidence from the first century is spotty. Those writings that are extant are those which are later held as canonical by the church. Thus it might be fair to say that Mark is the earliest extant document which refers to a historical Jesus but I do not think that one can with great confidence say that it was the first one written.

Finally, I am not sure that it is accurate to say that there is no reference to the a historical Jesus. Paul's discussion about Jesus' death, burial and resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 could quite easily be read as a reference to traditions about the actual life of Jesus. No, it does not contain much of the elaboration we see in Mark et. al. but it does suggest that there was a historical Jesus tradition by at least the 50s.

Again, absence of evidence is evidence of absence if and only if one would reasonably expect the presence of the absent evidence. So one must ask "Would one expect non-Christian references to Jesus in the first century?" I would argue that one would probably not. Would non-Christians (Jewish or Roman) be that interested in a political and religious malcontent put to death in a backwater province of the empire? Probably not. This a run of the mill sort of thing. Beyond that, how much did non-Christians in the first century know or care about Christianity? Was this really an issue that many would have thought important enough to write about? Not certain. Or, to put it otherwise, we really do not know.

Further, as with my response to the first point, we must always remember the fragmentary nature of our records from the first century. Given that fragmentation I think it dangerous to put much stock in the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

Is the only explanation for Paul's emphasize upon what we might call a "spiritual" Christ that Jesus of Nazareth never existed? Assuming that the gospel tradition is essentially correct Christianity started in Galilee and Jerusalem and was centred upon associates of Jesus during his life. Now Paul, by his own autobiographical statements, happens upon the scene a few years later having seen a vision of Christ. Now, we know from his writings that he has conflicts with Peter and James, who traditionally were associates of Jesus during his lifetime. It is quite reasonable that he would want to downplay the importance of Jesus' historical life as that would be a significant basis for Peter and James' authorities.

There are also hints that Paul does identify Christ Jesus as someone who lived in recent history. I have already mentioned 1 Cor. 15; there is also, for instance, the reference in Gal. 1 to "James, the Lord's brother." Interestingly this is exactly the same passage where Paul is trying to establish that his authority comes not from Peter and James (those whom traditionally knew Jesus is his historical life) but from a revelation of Christ Jesus directly. This passage, I think, makes more sense against a backdrop in which Peter and James are saying "We knew Jesus during his life and this is what he said." Paul is countering by saying, "Yeah, well, Jesus appeared to me and this is what he said."

I have to disagree with Doherty's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2:8. At the beginning of the chapter Paul describes how he did not come to the Corinthians speaking with great eloquence but rather with weakness and fear. He did not speak with wise of persuasive words. Then he says that he speaks a word of wisdom (2:6), but not the wisdom of this world or the rulers of this age. Rather he speaks God's secret wisdom (2:7), which the rulers of this age did not understand for if they did they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

To me it seems clear that Paul is contrasting rhetoric with wisdom. Yes, well-educated Greco-Romans (and such are the rulers of this age) can use rhetoric with great skill. However the mere fact that they can persuade does not mean that they have the secret wisdom of God. Indeed, they obviously do not (he argues) or else they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. That he is talking about rhetoric, I think, is even more likely if one considers 1 Cor. 7:20ff. In 7:20 he asks "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" This discourse about wisdom continues into the next chapter. I think it strange that he would be talking about human wisdom and human philsophy throughout this and the beginning of the next passage than suddenly turn to talking about demonic forces who put Jesus to death. In fact the whole thing makes no sense if one interprets 2:8 in this sense as Paul's entire point is that those wise and powerful according to the standards of this world are actually without wisdom because they could not understand that Jesus was the Lord of Glory, thus putting him to death.

Now, both the Ascension of Isaiah and Hebrews most likely post-date G of Mark so I think that the evidence cited from them is weak. Further I do not feel sufficiently competent with either text to give an adequate response.

I think that one can (and many do) make a very good case to say that earliest Christians (including Paul) drew upon both Hellenistic (particularly Middle Platonic) and traditional Hebrew cosmologies and imagery to articulate their understandings of who Christ Jesus was. I think it almost a given, since these are the cultural contexts in which men and women such as Paul would have functioned and lived. However I am unsure why that would speak to the historical existence of Jesus one way or the other. It says a whole lot about Paul but I am not sure that it says much about Jesus.

See comments to piece 5. Additionally, this is perhaps one of Doherty's better arguments. Basically it says that "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck its probably a duck." A point, though. Let us assume that the earliest Christians understood their Christ myth as just another example of a mystery cult and Christ as another mystery cult saviour god. Let us assume that those they spoke with about their beliefs would understand this and that everyone would be fine with it. Why, then, do Christians, probably by the end of the first century, start saying that Jesus was a real person? What accounts for what must have been a significant change, especially given that in the sort of Greek thought talked about here the spiritual realm was superior to the material realm. Why would they take a story that existed entirely in the superior spiritual realm and relocate it in the inferior material realm? That is what I really see missing in Doherty's argument: Positive evidence of what amounts to an absolutely huge discursive shift in early Christian thought.

This reinforces a point made in my response to piece 6: Why would early Christians take a belief in a Son of or an emanation from God (identified as Christ) which had no direct contact with the material and shift this into a story in which said Son not only did have contact with matter but (at least for a period of time) had a material body?

I think it important to point out a few things. The idea that John is based upon the Markan account is a minority view in NT scholarship. Either way I think that Doherty overstates the probability that all the other gospels are based upon a single account, Mark.

These are my responses to the first few points. More to follow in the next few little while...

Steven Carr

And why must stories about his life have to have been transmitted orally? Was there a rule which banned Paul (or James) from writing about an episode in the life of Jesus?

Does Paul assume people knew the Old Testament? Why then does he quote from it?

GakuseiDon

I think it is one of Doherty's weakest arguments, not his strongest, for two reasons:
(1) As you point out, why would Paul's successors get Paul so wrong? If Christianity became more pagan as time went on, why would they suddenly start believing that Christ was historical? Did the other pagans start believing that their mystery religion god was historical?
(2) There is little evidence that shows that the pagans thought of their gods in the way that Doherty suggests they did anyway. All there is are a couple of sentences in Plutarch.

Toto

Only two comments on the OP.

Doherty is careful to state that he is looking for the absense of evidence where it would otherwise be expected. He does not assume that mere absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

The second century was a period of conflict between various heresies and the Christians who emerged as the orthodox church. The orthodox church shored up their authority by inventing a human founder and inventing his apostles who got their commission directly from him and passed it to the leadership of the church. This narrative provided a basis of authority that the competing heretics lacked. It also provided justification for a hierarchical church, which was a more successful organizational strategy than the gnostics who thought that everyone should look within for their own truth.

Steven Carr

If you read Elaine Pagel's 'The Gnostic Paul' , you will see that Paul was used more by Gnostics than by orthodox Christians. Only later was Paul reclaimed by the orthodox.

jbernier

He quotes from the OT text for the same reason that Philo, the Rabbis in the 2nd century on, etc., quote from it: It is an authoritative text that is commonly accepted as authoritative (although not necessarily "canonical" at this point in Jewish history).

Now, about "why must stories about [Jesus'] life have to have been transmitted orally?" The immediate point to make is that Doherty's argument is predicated upon the assumption that, if there was an early tradition about the historical Jesus it would be written and we should have a copy. So to flip around this question, "Why must stories about [Jesus'] life have to have been transmitted in writing?" Beyond that I think that the form of much of the synoptics suggest that much of the material started as spoken sayings and stories that were later compiled.

Beyond that, as I pointed out before there are texts within the Pauline corpus that one can very easily read as referring to Jesus' historical crucifixion. Indeed the text in 1. Cor. 2:8, imho, makes no sense in light of 1. Cor. 1:20ff if one reads it as something that happened in a purely spiritual realm (errata: In the OP I twice referred to 1. Cor. 1:20 as 1. Cor. 7:20. My bad). Only by giving this passage what I would consider a highly questionable reading can Doherty argue that Paul makes no reference to a particular event in the life of Jesus.

jbernier

This leaves a significant number of questions unanswered (in fact, it begs more than one). Now, I will admit up front that, as I have not read The Jesus Puzzle that Doherty may deal with them in that book; if so I would be delighted if someone would let me know what his response would be.

First question: Why, exactly,Why would it have been seen as a "lack" that the "heretics" did not have a human founder to which they could point? Would not inventing a human founder shore up their authority, particularly given Doherty's own argument that the spiritual would be seen as superior to the material? By his own argument would this not have likely reduced their authority as the origin of Christian belief would now have some sort of association with matter which it did not previously have whereas previously it was "untainted" by association with matter?

Further, there is evidence that many "Gnostics" claimed that their knowledge ultimately came from the disciples - that the disciples transmitted special, esoteric, knowledge of which the particular "Gnostic" group is the inheritor. This seems to be much more complicated than an "orthodox versus heretic" discourse, assuming that we can even speak about orthodoxy and heresy in the 2nd century at all.

jbernier

Regardless does not answer why the "orthodox" would read a historical Jesus where there was not one in the text. Indeed, we know that many "orthodox" writers (Origen comes to mind immediately) figured "spiritual" (specifically allegorical) readings over "literal" (specifically historical) ones. Indeed, his hermeneutics are very similar to those of Paul. Yet he does not seem to deny the existence of Jesus.

Either way, I am not sure whether or not 2nd century debates are that relevant to the question of whether or not a first century figure existed.

Peter Kirby

Hi Jbernier,

I would be happy to send you a copy of Doherty's book also, if you would write a review of the book for my web site. Send your mailing address to kirby@earthlink.net if you want to take up this offer. I will order your book along with the one for GakuseiDon (if he cares to have a go at it).

best,
Peter Kirby

jbernier

Fair enough. I am not surprised that he is careful about this; he generally seems to be pretty conscientious in his argumentation. I appreciate that conscientiousness: the fact that he makes that qualification makes it much easier to discuss the real issues, which one hand is whether or not "it would otherwise be expected" and on the other is whether or not there is an absence of evidence at all. It is useful when there seems to be consensus about which questions are important.

That being said I think that he often overplays both the expectation of evidence and the absence of evidence.