David Deas

A lot of times scholarly books by academics end up being essentially collections of journal publications that they've written in the past. Perhaps Earl should start out by publishing a journal article on the Josephus controversy of something of that nature. You're right that he has little hope of publishing an entire book at once, even though that is what is necessary to discuss his ideas sufficiently.

GakuseiDon

Probably that there is so little solid evidence available, that one's person interpretation on the actual life of a historical Jesus is as good as another's.

Right, but IYO do THEY know that their conclusions, though not totally illogical, are on a basis of insufficient evidence and insufficient investigation? I'm trying to knock out the idea of an "implicit" conspiracy, where historicists suspect that the mythicist position is more valid than they let on, so they 'run scared' from the question (when all the while they know there may be something to it).

I'm trying to see if anyone wants to claim an implicit conspiracy for why historicists don't engage with mythicism, i.e. "they secretly know, so they don't want to engage".

Because there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus.

Because it is a fringe position. No-one is 'running scared'.

Is there evidence that they are 'running scared' from such a position? That's my focus here.

I don't think any would, at least not at first. Few people probably realise how many controversial pillars prop up his "no historical Jesus" conclusion. Those pillars could be addressed separately in peer-review publications. Examples:
1. Tatian didn't believe in a historical Jesus when he wrote "Address to the Greeks"
2. The Q community created a symbolic figure for themselves to reflect their own sayings and narratives
3. The word "sarx" and "kata sarka" could be applied to non-earthly beings that existed under the Moon.
4. The early versions of Ascension of Isaiah describes the Beloved Son of God being crucified by Satan above the air.
5. The pagans believed that Attis' myth of castration was played out in a spiritual "World of Myth".

IIRC someone who had gone through peer-review recommended this 'piece-meal' process on this board. Once a sufficient body of work had gone through peer-review, the rest will follow. OTOH, if (as I suspect) Doherty can't get even one of those pillars established, it will leave him with an 800 page paper weight.

maryhelena

Methinks any doubts that NT scholars might have, re the historicity of JC issue, are easy to put on the back burner, especially when the pay check is involved. What would an academic have to gain from stepping outside the consensus box? There is no Nobel Prize at stake here. If any advancement is to be made re early Christian history it would probably come from the archaeological and history departments not NT studies. In the meantime - taking pot shots at mythicism, at the non-historicists position re JC - is far easier to do than support their own historicists position. At least this way the historicists are seen to be publicly doing something to 'support' their own position. And those sitting quietly in their Sunday pew can take illusionary comfort from such shallow 'protection' of their cherished historicity of JC.



Thomas L. Thompson

angelo

The two can be falsified. But that's where the similarity ends.

angelo

What Josephus controversy? The TF is either completely interpolated/forgery or Josephus was writing hearsay. It's either one or the other. There's no controversy.

Toto

I think you've lost the train of thought, if there ever was one.

If the NT guild collectively realizes that they can't prove that there was a historical Jesus, but that their paychecks all depend on the shared belief that there was such a person, you don't need an active conspiracy.

You've admitted that there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus. Isn't that enough to create at least a little insecurity in an academic whose livelihood depends on the search for this guy?

You are focusing on whether a figure of speech should be interpreted literally? Maybe that's the problem.


I think that Doherty's case is cumulative, and the separate issues that you label would not make much sense carved out from his main thesis.

Doug Shaver

Maybe because they really don't believe in them?

I have seen no such implication, at least not from anyone whose opinions I actually respect. There are, of course, some ahistoricists for whose opinions I have not the slightest respect.

GakuseiDon

That's why I'm calling it "an implicit conspiracy".

Do you want to state then, that you suspect the reason why critical scholarship hasn't addressed modern mythicist theories -- 'ran scared' from them, in fact -- is because they are aware of them AND somehow fear that they might be true, and thus are afraid that they will affect their livelihood?

No. I think the cumulative case is overwhelmingly strong as the best explanation. There is no insecurity about the existence of Jesus. The rest is the fun stuff: Jesus as Cynic Sage, Jesus as hippie, Jesus as political radical, etc.

Doherty's comment of historicists running scared is not his first. The implication is that critical scholarship is aware of the strength of mythicist arguments, so try to avoid them. But does anyone believe this on this board? I just want this to be clearly stated.

Do people here think that critical scholarship ignores mythicist theories because:
(A) they are ignorant of them and so dismiss them without consideration?
(B) they are aware of them and are afraid of their strength?

I suppose that there might be an option C, where critical scholarship is mostly ignorant of them but still afraid of their strength, but I would put this under (B).

Showing that there was a Second Century Christianity that didn't have a historical Jesus at its core doesn't make much sense carved out from his main thesis? You must be kidding. Mythicists would be all over it like a pit bull on a poodle (to quote Detective Bookman from Seinfeld).

Let's say any one of the following five were settled in Doherty's favour:

1. Tatian didn't believe in a historical Jesus when he wrote "Address to the Greeks"
2. The Q community created a symbolic figure for themselves to reflect their own sayings and narratives
3. The word "sarx" and "kata sarka" could be applied to non-earthly beings that existed under the Moon.
4. The early versions of Ascension of Isaiah describes the Beloved Son of God being crucified by Satan above the air.
5. The pagans believed that Attis' myth of castration was played out in a spiritual "World of Myth".

Are you saying none of these would add support to Doherty's thesis? That none of these are worth demonstrating in peer-reviewed publication? The reason I call Doherty's thesis a pile of crap is because IMHO each pillar is supported by unevidenced speculation, as much as Doherty claims otherwise. And that is precisely the point: Doherty DOES claim that the evidence is there. (Of course my opinion here is that only as a layman, an amateur only. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for anything. But I'm not arguing here whether you think that Doherty has the evidence or not, but whether Doherty appears to claim that he has the evidence to convince an open-minded critical scholar.)

To get back to my theme: From the comments that you have read by Doherty, do you think he believes that he has enough evidence to support his cumulative case if he did publish in peer-reviewed publication? That it is just a matter of getting open-minded people to see that he does indeed have the evidence to support his theories?

GakuseiDon

Do you think critical scholarship is aware of mythicist theories, are afraid of their strength, and thus run scared from them? That's the "conspiracy" theory that I am talking about here. Perhaps there may be a better word.

Same question I asked Toto then: From the comments that you have read by Doherty, do you think he believes that he has enough evidence to support his cumulative case if he did publish in peer-reviewed publication? That the evidence is there, and it is just a matter of people being open-minded enough to review his theories?

Toto

That's a deceptive misuse of language on your part. From your point of view (and many others, with some justification), conspiracy theories are nutcase theories. You want to claim that mythicists are nutcases, so you are trying to label their theories conspiracy theories. But there's no conspiracy, so you find a phenomenon that is not a conspiracy and label it an implicit conspiracy.

IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY.

I think that critical scholarship is vaguely aware of mythicism, and has no motivation to examine it. Beyond that, different critical scholars seem to have different opinions.

Your problem with this: the best explanation may still not be very good.

I believe that critical scholarship is clearly aware of the weakness of the historicist arguments. Crossan stated as much.

Option C: critical scholarship is aware of the weakness of the historicist arguments. Different scholars have some knowledge of some of the weaker mythicist theories, but no motivation to examine mythicism.

Yes, I think he does, and if he were at a different point in his life and career, he might follow the strategy of trying to get peer review of slices of his work. Your idea that he secretly thinks his theory is unsupportable is about the stypidest idea ever floated on this board.