Toto

Is it a "scholarly consensus" or the "herd mentality" or the "conventional wisdom" or what? I think that "scholarly consensus" misstates the amount of research that has gone into the question, or the amount of analysis.

I gather that a lot of scholars are just convinced that the subject is a no-win one.

And I wish you would stop referring to Doherty and Carotta in the same sentence as if they are the same.

There are others who do not publish in the scholarly journals - Bishop Spong, Dan Brown, NT Wright (I think), Hershel Shanks, Mel Gibson, etc.

GakuseiDon

Just to be clear: I'm interested in how the mainstream views them and vice versa. Still, Carotta is crap. I don't think much of Doherty either, but they are worlds apart.

Vorkosigan

I don't know. I think for most scholars it is a settled question. The historical existence of Jesus is part of the package of assumptions that underlies historical Jesus studies. Farmer (Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81. A version is online here) names the assumptions undergirding HJ studies as:

• 1. Historical existence: Jesus actually existed, and is not a myth.
  2. Sanity of Jesus: historical studies assume Jesus was a sane individual.
  3. Integrity of Jesus: Jesus did not intentionally deceive his followers.
  4. individuals in the primitive Church remembered Jesus: Of this Farmer writes:
  
  That Jesus was remembered in the Church by those who had known him is intrinsically probable from virtually every point of view, but since it has never been demonstrated it needs to be listed as something assumed in any investigation of the "aims of Jesus."(p61-2)
  
  5. late date of gospels : written at least a generation after Jesus
  6. within the tradition preserved in the gospels, the memory of Jesus is preserved
  7. It is possible to distinguish between what was remembered about Jesus and what has been added.

There seems to be also a kind of anti-mythicist response that involves simply ignoring the issue, or castigating mythicists for writing for money, as Meier did in A Marginal Jew. I don't know why, and I am not going to speculate. But it is a fact that Doherty's book has been out there for years and not been reviewed.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

As Doherty said, if they think the case is so weak, why not confront it? Could it be that they secretly suspect that Carotta/Doherty are correct? I just don't see it.

This is similar to the claim that creationists make about evolution. I doubt very much that it is true with regards to evolution. But perhaps the Biblical research community may be more bound by ideology.

Is this a reasonable view, though? Would someone submitting an outside view like Doherty's or Carotta's to a peer-reviewed journal be ostracized, or even have their job threatened? Has Carrier's or Price's reputations been affected?

What would it take, then, to get the mainstream to accept ideas contra to the mainstream in Biblical research?

Peter Kirby

By the by, mythicists have published in mainstream journals. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga published in Oudchristelijke Brieven Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studien. Paul-Louis Couchoud published in the Hibbert Journal. Arthur Drews received reviews in the scholarly journals (see here). It just hasn't been happening lately.

The mythicists have some of the blame here. The majority of mythicist writers (especially these days) have not followed the protocol for publishing academically, nor even attempted:

1. Obtain a graduate degree.
2. Write a few book reviews or short articles.
3. Land a teaching job at a college.
4. Write a fantastic 30-page paper (or less) or publish your tome with an academic publishing house (or both).

It seems like mythicists have assumed that academic publishing is out of the question and so haven't even applied themselves properly.

best,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

The main problem, as I believe already mentioned, is that Doherty is far too broad to be submitted to an academic journal. Now, if he took apart the Pauline corpus and went through all the supposed "historical Jesus" quotes in Paul, then he could publish a paper.

Peter Kirby

Good observation Chris. For those who want the Jesus myth idea to succeed in academia, my best advice would be to publish articles that address subordinate arguments that undermine historicity but that don't right-out attempt a comprehensive argument against a HJ. Thus, for example, publish an article against the Testimonium, for the dependence of John on Mark, for the absence of a HJ in the original Q, or for Hebrews having no earthly Jesus in it. These are compatible with either position, but they tend towards supporting the Jesus myth idea and would make the reception of a Jesus myth book go over better if they were well-regarded subordinate points.

best,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

If Doherty wishes to interact with 'mainstream' scholarship he ought to attempt to publish a paper about his ideas on Middle Platonism in general and Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' in particular.

His ideas here are certainly controversial but would not IMO risk rejection due to specifically religious factors.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

There you go again. Doherty is not Carotta.

I think that they not-so-secretly know that they cannot prove the existence of a historical Jesus to a real skeptic. Any fair review of the evidence would have to lead to Jesus-agnosticism at the minimum. They would prefer to keep repeating the few scraps of evidence that they have that might show Jesus' existence.

Christians are defined by ideology.

Neither one is on a tenure track at a major university.

It is difficult enough in the hard sciences to get new ideas accepted, where an invalid premise can actually be disproven. It is nearly impossible to disprove something about ancient history, so it is much easier for people to cling to a fantasy.

GakuseiDon

I mean, from an outside-looking-in perspective.
Isn't that slightly paranoid? The scarcity of evidence for a historical Jesus are well established. Are you saying that scholars are pretending that they can prove that there was a historical Jesus, and refuse to admit that they can't?

What is the fantasy? That there is proof that there was a historical Jesus?