Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-31-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Such an empty quote (like many of Don’s statements I called attention to) served not to elucidate how my presentation of Middle Platonism was deficient, but only a pompous declaration that it was. Not because it is obsolete, but because it didn’t offer anything but Gibson’s opinion. That is precisely what made it relevant to my critique of Don’s review.

Can someone clarify why specifically "Middle Platonism"?
Does this have associated with it a specific epoch ?????
Doug I assume you wrote this .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Doherty's is the only plausible hypothesis I've seen, but for the average person its plausibility depends on a knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism, that almost nobody has except for a handful of academic specialists

Earl are you restricting your scope to "Middle Platonism" or are others doing this?
And if so, what is the logic or rationale behind this?
Is this done in respect of the chronology of "Middle Platonism" as a 1st century (and earlier) phenomenom as distinct from say, "NeoPlatonism" of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries?

EarlDoherty · 01-31-2011, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Earl are you restricting your scope to "Middle Platonism" or are others doing this?

Restricting? Not really. To some extent I address Platonism generally, and sometimes even the Neoplatonism of 4th century Julian and Sallustius. I actually hesitated over adding "Middle" to the quote you picked out. Partly I guess it was a chronology thing, and because Don is constantly going on about what is and isn't "Middle Platonism." One of the things, however, that pulls the term into play is that I am addressing for the most part writings of that period (like Plutarch, Philo, Alexandrianism, etc.), which seems to require that I at least point to the Middle.

Earl Doherty

mountainman · 01-31-2011, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Earl are you restricting your scope to "Middle Platonism" or are others doing this?

Restricting? Not really. To some extent I address Platonism generally, and sometimes even the Neoplatonism of 4th century Julian and Sallustius. I actually hesitated over adding "Middle" to the quote you picked out. Partly I guess it was a chronology thing, and because Don is constantly going on about what is and isn't "Middle Platonism." One of the things, however, that pulls the term into play is that I am addressing for the most part writings of that period (like Plutarch, Philo, Alexandrianism, etc.), which seems to require that I at least point to the Middle.

Thanks for that clarification Earl. I am glad to see that you are addressing Platonism generally and even Neoplatonism, and the sources of Emperor Julian and Sallustius. As far as I am able to determine, the source I posted above from Julian supports your conjecture of this "Mythical Realm" located somewhere between the top of the sky and the air beneath the moon, and it even mentions Constantine and Jesus to boot.

If you are exploring Platonism in general, and not "Middle Platonism" in any specific sense, then Don and Gibson are therefore misrepresenting your scope, and we should expect a retraction from Don on this specific issue.

mountainman · 01-31-2011, 10:14 PM

From GDon's Review.

Does GS Wells help to define Earl's claims?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Even GA Wells, probably the leading mythicist before Doherty, finds issues with Doherty's Platonic reading of early Christianity. Wells writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon cites Wells

Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'.

Excellent Earl. It's about time someone did this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon cites Wells

I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: for Paul does, after all, call Jesus a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), born of a woman under the (Jewish) law (Gal.4:4), who lived as a servant to the circumcision (Rom. 15:8) and was crucified on a tree (Gal.3:13) and buried (I Cor. 15:4). Doherty interprets these passages from the Platonic premiss (sic) that things on Earth have their 'counterparts' in the heavens.

Nifty if true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon cites Wells

Thus 'within the spirit realm' Christ could be of David's stock, etc. But, if the 'spiritual' reality was believed to correspond in some way to a material equivalent on Earth, then the existence of the latter is conceded.

This last sentence seems to imply that the existence of a material equivalent on Earth necessarily implies an historical jesus, which is of course illogical. What sort of a "Mythicist" was GA Wells?

GDon provides Earl with free publicity in that Earl is Well's successor.
This is not so bad.

I find this following statement by GDon quite comical ....

Quote:

Doherty does try to offer explanations for why those passages could be applied to a non-earthly being, but has little data to back him up.

What? A story is a story. When is a story "History"? Mythical beings in 2011 include Harry Potter and Gandalf the Grey, and the people in the street understand these characters are non earthly beings. The question as to whether Jesus was a mythical being and not an historical being is a very important question.

GDon and the supporters of the HJ hypothesis will always attack any non historical interpretations. The HJ hypothesis has little data to back itself up, so this keeps many HJ proponents on the offensive.

mountainman · 01-31-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

If Doherty's readers are convinced by JNGNM or TJP, they should encourage Doherty to publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal.

What's the difference between the content of a book and the content of a thesis? Richard Carrier is writing books instead of publishing to peer-reviewed journals, and I am sure others are doing the same. Sometimes books can achieve more exposure than peer-reviewed journals. What's this doing in a review of content? Is this some sort of marketing advice GDon?

GakuseiDon · 01-31-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I found Don's writing to be balanced and fair minded, and thoroughly documented, so right now, at least, based on that initial reading of part 1, I am leaning towards accepting Don's interpretation.

Thanks for the positive comments, avi! However, Part 1 is my overall review of Doherty's book, where I summarize the contents and give my views on it. I don't go into specific details (which I do in Parts 2 thru 4), so I wouldn't expect Part 1 to convince anyone that Doherty's theories are wrong.

GakuseiDon · 01-31-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

After an efficient capsule summary of the book and its case, Don begins his review proper by itemizing four of my case’s “disagreements with common consensus” which he considers particularly radical, and which he rightly suspects are “not even on the radar of modern scholarship.” The latter is hardly surprising, since a radical paradigm shift such as denying the historical existence of the Gospel Jesus is going to entail elements which traditional scholarship would hardly have thought of, let alone examined for possible validity. Then he says:

Quote:

Doherty presents his views in such a matter-of-fact way that it is easy to miss that his views on the above topics are quite radical and, frankly, often unsupported by anything but speculation.

This makes it sound as though I make radical declarations (simply ‘matters of fact’) in an utter absence of supporting evidence or argument. Radical, yes, but argued thoroughly. And even if speculation can sometimes be involved, it is, shall we say, argued speculation.

I have no problems with speculation. My objection is this: as we both agree, some elements of your theory are "not even on the radar of modern scholarship". However, someone without knowledge of ancient pagan thinking would come away from your book thinking that pagans believed in a 'spiritual realm' where the myths of the gods were carried out. But no modern scholar claims this. Modern scholarship has no idea that this is what ancient pagans thought. What you are offering is something radical, something unknown to modern scholarship, and it doesn't come across like that. That's why I call it a one-sided presentation of the evidence. Most of your readers wouldn't even know this, because they haven't read what modern scholarship has written on the topic of ancient pagan beliefs.

Let's put it to the test, and I'll ask those on this forum who have read Doherty's book: Did you come away from reading Doherty's book that pagans placing the myths of their gods in a 'spiritual realm' was a relatively non-controversial concept?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Knowledgeable critical scholars can respond and rebut in any way they see fit or are capable of. I certainly haven’t tried to keep the book out of their hands.

Well, in the absence of knowledgeable critical scholars, hopefully my review will get those who have read your book (and even done a review, e.g. on Amazon) to start asking questions. This can be nothing but good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

He focuses on one example (one that has always been a bit of a bugaboo for him):

Quote:

…is Doherty correct that Tatian at one stage didn't believe in a historical Jesus? I find this an incredible assertion, and to me this weakens the strength of his argument from silence.

As stated, this is quite misleading. An “incredible assertion”? Obviously, incredible to him and no doubt others, but it is hardly an anchorless “assertion.”

Yes, I find this an incredible assertion, and others do also. I've read your reasons, which didn't convince me, though that's neither here nor there. I hope readers will look into the question for themselves. I go into this in Part 2 of my review, when I talk about the strange silence in early Christian writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Don briefly remarks on our past web debates regarding the second century apologists:

Quote:

My opinion was that Doherty is dead wrong in his views that Second Century writers like Tatian were members of a Christianity that had no Jesus Christ – either historical or mythical – at its centre. In fact, I found it a bizarre claim, since there are examples of “historicist” Christians that also didn't include details of a historical Jesus. Why hadn't Doherty included them in his book? To me, it was a one-side presentation of the evidence.

First of all, note the “either historical or mythical”. I have said, and make it clear in the new book, that Tatian’s (and the others’) Jesus (or rather Son/Logos, since they don’t use the name Jesus) was not mythical in the sense of Paul’s sacrificial Christ, but that the Logos idea itself was nevertheless a form of mythicism, since it related to heavenly mythology about the nature of God and his emanations and involved consequent salvation. So here, too, he has got it wrong.

Earl, you need to reread what I wrote. You are claiming that Tatian didn't believe in any kind of Jesus, correct? Here is what I wrote: "writers like Tatian were members of a Christianity that had no Jesus Christ – either historical or mythical – at its centre"

What exactly did I get wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And who is that apologist? He doesn’t name him, but those cognizant of our earlier debates may remember that it was Tertullian.

Yes, it is Tertullian, and more specifically, his Ad nationes. See Part 2 of my review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Now we reach my biggest bone of contention with Don in regard to debates we have had over the last few years. Yes, I have admitted that my statement in The Jesus Puzzle he never stops quoting, in regard to the placement of Hellenistic savior-god myths in the upper Platonic world, was too “matter-of-fact.” I subsequently, long before the new book, qualified and nuanced it in a way that was needed and missing earlier. And Don has admitted that I have admitted it. Yet he still has the tendency to treat the point as though nothing has changed, he continues to criticize my views as though I am still making that “stark” unqualified and unnuanced statement:

Quote:

(Doherty) does this again in JNGNM. For example:

The second resemblance was to a wide range of pagan savior gods found in the “mysteries”, the dominant form of popular religion in this period, going back to ancient roots. Like Paul's Christ, these savior gods were thought of as having performed acts in a mythical world, acts which brought sanctity and salvation to their believers. These cults had myths and rituals very much like those of the Christian movement. (Page 4)

Well, I do not. First of all, this quote from Page 4 of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man is in an introduction in which I lay out the case I will make in the body of the book, I make no attempt to ‘evidence’ it at this point. That evidence is addressed at great length in later chapters, something Don does not point out, let alone deal with here.

That's not my point. As I wrote above, do you know anyone knowledgeable about the topic who proposes that ancient pagans believed this? And does it come across in your book that no-one else proposes this?

Of course you introduce evidence later on. If someone wrote a case for a theory that was completely consistent with modern scholarship they would introduce evidence. But what about someone who was proposing something radical, something against modern consensus, ESPECIALLY in a popular publication for people with little knowledge of the issues? Wouldn't it be worth noting which parts are radical? I'm not allowed to use the Analogy That Dare Not Speak Its Name (and, Toto, it is such an appropriate one in this case!) but if I incorporated radical declarations to support my controversial theory, and I didn't identify which parts were radical, wouldn't you question this?

The problem is that people come away from your books more confident about your theories than you are yourself, at least from your comments on FRDB. I'm sure they finish your book scratching their heads and thinking, "Well, here is Doherty's theory, and here is his evidence. Apparently people back then thought their myths took place in a 'spiritual realm'. Doesn't appear controversial. Case closed. Why doesn't everyone believe him?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

He appeals to Bart Ehrman:

Quote:

Recent scholarship, however, has been less inclined to call Christianity a mystery cult, or to claim that it simply borrowed its characteristic ideas and practices from previously existing religions. In part this is because we do not know very much about what happened during the mystery rituals, especially in the period when Christianity began. For example, did they typically partake of a meal, commemorating the death of their savior god? We simply don’t know.

So how did Doherty know?

Well, either Ehrman is overstating the case, or Don is misleadingly presenting him. I have done no more than what scholars of the mystery cults have themselves concluded. We all know that most even critical scholars are very reluctant on principle to see Christianity as in any way a mystery cult.

Would critical scholars care if the pagan mystery cults' meal took place in a 'spiritual realm'? Earl, if the evidence is there, why don't they state that? Why can you see the hints, the indicators, but not them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

But now Don gives us something so confused that one must question his ability to formulate a logical presentation.

Quote:

After swapping many posts with Doherty on FRDB on the topic, I noticed that there was a pattern in his replies: whenever I questioned Doherty on Paul's beliefs, he pointed me to the mystery cults. And whenever I questioned him on the beliefs of mystery cults, he pointed me to Paul. Finally, in one post, I said that he seemed to be relying on circular arguments. Doherty responded (my emphasis):

You recently said that you felt I was arguing in a circular fashion, and while I don’t think I laid out my material in Part Four [of TJP] in a way that should have indicated that, you may have come away with that impression. I get the idea that you have interpreted me as though I were saying: the pagans placed the myths of their savior gods in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret Paul that way. Actually, my movement was in the opposite direction. I have always worked first with the early Christian record, and come to a heavenly-realm understanding of it through internal evidence (supported by the unworkability of an earthly understanding of that record). My interpretation has not been governed by an a priori Platonic reading of the mystery cult myths, although I was of course familiar with them and Platonic cosmology in general and could recognize that my findings within the early Christian record would fit into the latter scheme of things. They were mutually supportive.

This was an extraordinary admission, and to me cut to the heart of the matter. Despite Doherty's stark comments about how pagans thought back then, he wasn't getting this information from pagan sources. Doherty was using his controversial readings of Paul and early Christianity to interpret pagan beliefs, and not the other way around.

That is a complete misrepresentation. This part is particularly egregious: “whenever I questioned Doherty on Paul's beliefs, he pointed me to the mystery cults. And whenever I questioned him on the beliefs of mystery cults, he pointed me to Paul.” Not to mention nonsense, and his quote from me shows that, since it categorically denies this. First of all, I don’t think I have ever “explained” the mystery cults by pointing to Paul, certainly not in the sense of arguing that the pagan cults thought such-and-such because Paul thought something similar.

As I quoted you above:

"I get the idea that you have interpreted me as though I were saying: the pagans placed the myths of their savior gods in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret Paul that way. Actually, my movement was in the opposite direction. I have always worked first with the early Christian record, and come to a heavenly-realm understanding of it through internal evidence".

It certainly SOUNDS like you are arguing that we can interpret the pagan cults as thinking such-and-such because early Christians thought something similar. If your "movement was in the opposite direction", then your previous sentence would read "the early Christians placed the myths of their savior God in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret the pagans that way." At least, that is how I understood it at the time. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

So Don’s “extraordinary admission” on my part, with his accompanying accusation in italics (above), is completely unfounded and false. He further suggests that “clear-cut evidence on the Christian side…is missing,” but he seems to have set the bar so high that in his mind it is unattainable. In any case, he dismisses whatever evidence I have provided. Even styled as “indicators,” as I did to soften things for him, he labels them “ad hoc rationalisations.” All of this is debatable, yet he states it much more ‘matter of fact’ than anything I may have been guilty of.

Touche, and true enough, at least for Page 1 of my review. But Part 1 was only an overview. I go into details in Parts 2 thru 4.

GakuseiDon · 01-31-2011, 11:37 PM

deleted

mountainman · 01-31-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Would critical scholars care if the pagan mystery cults' meal took place in a 'spiritual realm'? Earl, if the evidence is there, why don't they state that? Why can you see the hints, the indicators, but not them?

Julian's Kronia c.361 CE is direct source evidence of a mythical banquet between gods and men (Roman Emperors) set in the Platonic and Mythical Realm that is being alluded to by Earl Doherty's research.

mountainman · 02-01-2011, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

If Doherty's readers are convinced by JNGNM or TJP, they should encourage Doherty to publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal.

What's the difference between the content of a book and the content of a thesis?

Books are read by people like you. Theses are read by people who DON'T have crazy half-arsed theories. :angel:

Really?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2011, 11:37 PM	#18
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	deleted

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.