Ted Hoffman

For quite a long time, the Jesus Myth hypothesis has been discredited on various grounds. And whereas the various refuters have been challenged by different people at various arenas, there has never been a comprehensive refutation of all the refuters, particularly those in the mainstream that have dared to dip their toes in MJ waters.

Christopher Price compiled A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth which Doherty has now responded to thoroughly and comprehensively in three parts.

Whereas Chris Price claims in his article that the "Jesus Myth is effectively dead as a theory in critical historical studies", what emerges as one reads Doherty's debunking effort is the shallow and smug approach scholars have adopted whilst approaching the Jesus Myth Hypothesis over the years. In fact it is clear that presuming a HJ in their exegesis has had extensive deleterious effects on past historicist scholarship, so much so that readers are likely to be filled with sympathy for them. For in spite of their confidence and reassurance, one is able to see that their overstated critiques were bloated and and all that one needed to do was step outside the historicist box and stick a pin in them. The rest, as they say, is smithereens.

Indeed, reading Doherty's refutation, one feels the same way one would if one were to be transported back in time, to be amongst the ancients who regularly responding to disease outbreaks with huge sacrifices to unseen gods, who they saw as the dispatcher of the disease, and thereby requiring pacification.

The treatment that Goguel and other Historical Jesus scholars gave to the JM thesis, was hopelessly hamstrung by their own assumptions about the existence of a HJ. One is able to see that they actually needed help.

More than two years ago, Rick Sumner, one of the erudite and sharply critical opponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, promised to set up a site dedicated to debunking the Jesus Myth Hypothesis as presented by Earl Doherty. In fact, that was how I came to be acquainted with Rick. Mythicists are still waiting.

The JM hypothesis has recently attracted the attention of Jeffrey Gibson, who in recent months has actively participated in IIDB discussions, abandoning historicist research and publication that is expected of every upcoming scholar. It is hoped that Jeffrey too will prepare a refutation of the MJ hypothesis because it is these refutations that a neutral observer can discern the better argument between the HJ and MJ sides, and that will help burnish the MJ hypothesis by forcing MJ proponents to examine all the weak points of the hypothesis.

At any rate, Doherty's recent work is a landmark work in the evolution of the MJ hypothesis and stands as a definitive source that all MJ opponents will have to confront and deal with before making the erroneous and misguided claims we find in Christopher Price's article above.

Doherty ends his refutation with the following quote from Robert Funk, which has puzzled Jeffrey so much that he felt compelled to go to BiblicalStudies list to ask for the context under which Funk made the statement.

The Fourth R, January-February 1995, p.9

Hopefully, someone will confirm to Jeffrey that Funk was on drugs when he wrote those words. Recent history indicates that the MJ hypothesis is quickly gaining support both from amateurs and scholars alike. Perhaps it is time for the HJ opponents to start closing their ranks and rallying together to mount a collective and focused hard-hitting response to the JM hypothesis.

jjramsey

In one of the posts that got deleted before the upgrade, Gibson had said that he was on summer break. Did you not read that post?

Ted Hoffman

And what period of time have I referred to above?

jgibson000

:huh: I have abandoned research and publication in recent months??:huh:

How, pray tell, do you know this actually to be the case? Do you have a spy cam in my study? Have you been in touch with my editors and publishers? How do you know this?

And in the light of your call for non MJ scholars to take the time and make the effort to mount a scholarly critique of the MJ hypothesis, isn't it the case that by your own logic my paticipating here in just such a critique has to be viewed as the engagement on my part in the very thing you claim I have abandoned?

It does? Could we have some hard evidence for this please?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

You haven't? Gosh! What have you published recently? We need to correct this misconception.
Thomas L. Thompson and hisThe Messiah Myth is one example. Even Carrier just became a mythicist last year.
You want more?

No Robots

Shurely shome mishtake. Do you mean HJ proponents must rally together? If so, it must certainly be behind he whom Doherty will not name, Constantin Brunner.

No Robots

In other words, please go away, Jeffrey. Return to your cloister and leave our clubhouse in peace. These guys whine about not getting any scholarly attention, and then try to get rid of the first scholar to take them on.:down:

jgibson000

I'll be happy to tell you --even though this might bring a further charge from Earl about how I like to trot out my credentials -- once you answer the two questions I put to you in the message to which you are now responding. To wit:

1. How you actually know, as you claim you do, that I have abandoned research and publication in recent months.

2. Whether and why, in the light of what you claim non MJ scholars should be taking the time and making the effort to do -- namely, mounting and getting out to the public a critique of the MJ hypothesis, my paticipating here in just such a critique should be not be seem as the engagement on my part in the very thing you claim I have abandoned.

We? Who is "we"?

Thompson does not believe what Earl believes about Jesus. So he is not an MJer, let alone one who has come over to the MJ position..

Yes. Pointing to one person (and is he scholar or amateur? and if scholar, what's his publication record on matters NT?) who purportedly came over to the view that Paul and other early Christian writers believed that there was a Jesus who was crucified in a heavenly realm is hardly evidence that "the MJ hypothesis is gaining support both from amateurS and scholarS alike, let alone that it is "quickly" gaining such support.

Jeffrey Gibson.

Ted Hoffman

"We" is me and you and anyone reading the thread. Correct me if I am wrong.
It is good you are engaging us but your effort is fragmented and because of the nature of discussion boards, the discussion is not as focused as it would be if you took some time to write an article. Of course, you can always use what you and others have posted as inputs into that article.

Thompson does not need to believe in what Earl believes. He believes that Jesus was not a historical person. The rest are details.

Crossan does not believe what Meier believes, yet they are both HJers. I am using broad categorizations whilst acutely aware that splitting hairs is your hobby.

Do you want more or not?

Ted Hoffman

Please read carefully. You have things backwards.