Freethought & Rationalism Archive

openlyatheist · 10-12-2005, 10:54 AM

I have been reading the work of Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (including Richard Carrier's commentary on Doherty) lately and have been exposing myself to the work of "Jesus mythers".

While I find what they say compelling I have noticed that Christians are hung up on the notion of historical credentials - they say "No serious historian doubts Jesus existed. These people are not historians."

Are skeptics only qualified to comment on the historicity of Jesus if they have a degree in history? What kind of degree in history? How then can convincing arguments be made by non-historians who doubt Christianity and better yet, shouldn't the work of "serious historians" have settled the matter already?

Toto · 10-12-2005, 11:20 AM

Christians will grab at any straw, you know

You will notice that some of the Christian apologists who post here try to claim that Jesus mythicism is just a looney idea that no one can take seriously. This is propaganda and an attempt to keep people from actually examining the case, by creating the false impression that experts have already done the work for you. It is unfortunately true that some prominent mythicists are a bit looney, but there are a number who have solid academic credentials, so the apologists have to find some reason to discount them - aha! Wells is really a linguist, not a real historian! Doherty has only a classics degree!

But Richard Carrier does have a degree in history and is working on his PhD. He has posted some pertinent thoughts - you can search for his old posts, and read his review of Doherty here (he has subsequently upped his estimation of the likelihood of the mythicist case to "probable.")

And I don't think that you will find a modern historian who has written anything about the case for the historical existence of Jesus, pro or con, using modern historical methods. A lot of British historians will claim there is evidence for Jesus, but the basis of their assertion is that the gospels must be accepted as historical documents, and this is quite dubious. A modern historian will probably want to skirt the issue - there isn't enough hard data to be sure about anything, and the subject is just a little too controversial to get them tenure.

Zeichman · 10-12-2005, 11:21 AM

I think "Biblical historian" would be a better way of phrasing it. But that wouldn't be true, given Robert M. Price, whom I believe does have a doctorate in something relating to Biblical literature.

Either way, Doherty, Wells, Freke & Gandy, Achyra S, etc. are certainly not authorities on the topic by nature of their education on the topic of Biblical Literature.

And several of those I just listed are not experts by any definition of the word.

Toto · 10-12-2005, 11:28 AM

Robert Price has 2 PhD's, in New Testament and Systematic Theology. Doherty has a classics degree. Wells is a professor of linguistics. None should be mentioned in the same list as Freke & Gandy or Acharya S.

Wells discusses the credentials issue here.

Zeichman · 10-12-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Robert Price has 2 PhD's, in New Testament and Systematic Theology. Doherty has a classics degree. Wells is a professor of linguistics. None should be mentioned in the same list as Freke & Gandy or Acharya S.

Wells discusses the credentials issue here.

As I stated, Price seems to be the exception in areas of education (and notably, he seems to be more "Jesus agnostic" than wholly MJ). While Classical Languages and Linguistics may be useful for the study, it is certainly not the most relevant area.

I will certainly agree that we should judge the scholar primarily on their methods and not exclusively on their education.

And I mentioned the "hacks" because of all the times Lee Strobel gets thrown in among the scholars who believe in a historical Jesus.

Beth Phillips · 10-12-2005, 09:59 PM

I think that if 'historians' could show that Jesus really existed, or if any of the biblical events actually happened, then they would have long ago done just that.

There is a big difference in 'Church Historians' and 'Historians'. The former works from the premise that the biblical events actually occurred, and the latter (unless swayed by personal religious conviction) works under the premise of what we can know for sure.

Quote:

I will certainly agree that we should judge the scholar primarily on their methods and not exclusively on their education.

I agree with this as well. Appealing to one's own academic authority is...well...:snooze:

Clivedurdle · 10-13-2005, 08:51 AM

Isn't Ellegard a historian? But I suppose positing Jesus is the teacher of righteousness may not be quite mythicist, or is it?

Steven Carr · 10-13-2005, 10:06 AM

What qualifications in history does the Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, have?

Surely what methods is the methodology used, and whether such a methodology yields reliable results.

Viti · 10-13-2005, 10:17 AM

Why question their credentials and what the heck is an "historian" anyway? Someone with a history degree? Someone who studies history (which could be non-formally educated)?

Why not just rebut their conclusions or assertions or demonstrate bad methodology or criticize the actual work rather than the person?

Big ole ad hom, isn't it..."Achrya S's conclusions are wrong because she's a non-historian and a hack"?

Toto · 10-13-2005, 11:03 AM

Earl Doherty has sent this to me:

Quote:

First of all, my degree is a combination of History (with the emphasis on Ancient) and Classical Languages. That should put me in the ballpark for proper credentials, though as I said in my Carrier Comment piece, I had to drop out late in my MA year because of a chronic health problem. (I cashed in my chips for an Honors B.A.) Naturally, not having attained a PhD will discredit me for those who are desperate to have me discredited. When I took up my Greek and historical materials again after more than a decade's hiatus, I (re-)studied Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Syriac and went into depth on a great range of biblical, historical and philosophical materials, probably more than a PhD course would require.

Second, I know of no "historian" (PhD or otherwise) who has done a comprehensive study of the question of whether Jesus existed, much less tackled a debunking of the Jesus myth theory, and certainly not in the last half-century when modern NT research on all sides has had key materials available. Michael Grant tackled the subject of Jesus in 1977, but then, his prolific output (perhaps a little too prolific) has covered almost every nook and cranny of the ancient world, and there was nothing particularly insightful about his effort on Jesus, nor did it attempt to examine the theory that he never existed. (It's highly significant that he suggests that his effort has fresh value because it's a "neutral" examination of Jesus as "an historian's review," which speaks volumes about the vast majority of studies about Jesus that have been anything but neutral or the work of "historians".)

Grant devoted exactly a page in his Appendix to commenting on the question of the no-Jesus theory, and his reasons for rejecting it were as shallow as everyone else's. We have to keep in mind that his (and so many others') confidence in the Gospels containing a certain degree of historically-based and usable residue antedated the period (since around 1980) of discovery that the Gospels are midrash, culminating in Robert Price's work (echoed with a little less courage by a few others) which has shown that it is virtually ALL midrash from start to finish. Grant, too, appeals to the claim that the Christ-myth theory "has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars," which was and continues to be first-rank nonsense. The "annihilation" of G. A. Wells' Did Jesus Exist that Grant mentions? "G. Stanton in The Times Literary Supplement, 29 August 1975, p. 977," one-page effort, apparently. Not too much more has usually been needed to outline the sum total of 'disproofs' of the mythicist theory, which have been mostly limited to Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny (not to mention the definitive voices of Thallus & Phlegon, even if second-hand), and timeworn rationalizations for the silence in Paul. This is not to mention the regular "appeals to authority", which often seems to be simply a circular case of all these authorities appealing to each other.

The irony, of course, is that many of those who not only try to discredit Jesus mythicists like myself but confidently declare the undeniable accuracy of the other side of the question, are themselves neither credentialed historians nor classical linguists of any sort. If a lot of them have undertaken a certain amount of competent study in the field as a basis for their opinions (often to supplement confessional ones), why do they not allow that a similar competency may be attainable through private study by those who have come to the opposite conclusion? The question is rhetorical.

Someone mentioned that the qualification for competency ought to be further restricted to the "biblical historian". The problem is that such 'historians' invariably come out of a religious-confessional background. (I'd challenge anyone to give me much of a list of "biblical historians" who do not.) Are they going to approach the question in an unbiased manner, using the methodology of the historian's craft in a neutral manner? Again, a rhetorical question. Can anyone show us how a "proper" historical methodology has arrived at a demonstration of Jesus' existence--beyond the type of argument I've mentioned above? We have to keep in mind that "methodology" is essentially a distillation of procedures that have been used in the past to arrive at the present "received wisdom." Since "received wisdom" in any field is regularly overturned, orthodox methodology must by nature have its limitations and deficiencies. No matter how many letters after one's name, someone working in any discipline can only be "trained" in whatever knowledge and methods are known up to that time. After that, we're on our own. I suggest that progress is most often achieved by those who aren't satisfied with "received wisdom" and how standard methodology has been traditionally applied.

As a matter of interest, I might mention that it took me five years of close study of the New Testament before I suddenly twigged to my principle and pattern of the "positive silences" in Paul and other epistle writers. Getting a proper orientation on how Paul was presenting his faith was staring me in the face all along, but it shows how difficult it can be even for someone working outside the box to grasp new ways of looking at things. Imagine the difficulty of the NT scholar or the average historian (not to mention "biblical historian") who has been immersed in the old paradigms all their lives and careers being willing or able to step beyond the traditional safe limits and see the world from an entirely different perspective, no matter how weak the pillars holding up the old platform they are standing on might be.

One very good example of that can be found in my current "debate" with GakuseiDon over the second century apologists, and I'd like to inform the list that I've just posted a lengthy rebuttal to GDon's own recent rebuttal in our exchange. I have gone into even greater depth with some of the apologists than previously, and I consider my new and extensive discussion of the "smoking gun" passages in Minucius Felix to be the most definitive analysis yet presented. It's at: http://pages.ca.inter.net/oblio/CritiquesGDon-2.htm and http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon-2.htm .

.......Thanks, [Toto], if you'd be kind enough to post this. (I can't join the list myself because I'd never have time for anything else.) Perhaps I could ask you to place another, more formal notice about my GDon rebuttal on the pertinent thread, or even a new one so that it doesn't get buried. I've quoted both site addresses because the humanists site is currently undergoing some renovation and I'm not sure if access is going to be spotty.

Incidentally, there is an appearance in the works early next year by the Doherty-Price duo (a Vaudeville team some might call it), but it's just in the initial planning stage for now, and I'll let you know when things get a little more definite.

All the best,
Earl

10-12-2005, 10:54 AM	#1
openlyatheist Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Glendale, CA Posts: 139	Jesus Myth: does it take an historian? I have been reading the work of Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (including Richard Carrier's commentary on Doherty) lately and have been exposing myself to the work of "Jesus mythers". While I find what they say compelling I have noticed that Christians are hung up on the notion of historical credentials - they say "No serious historian doubts Jesus existed. These people are not historians." Are skeptics only qualified to comment on the historicity of Jesus if they have a degree in history? What kind of degree in history? How then can convincing arguments be made by non-historians who doubt Christianity and better yet, shouldn't the work of "serious historians" have settled the matter already?

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

10-12-2005, 11:20 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Christians will grab at any straw, you know You will notice that some of the Christian apologists who post here try to claim that Jesus mythicism is just a looney idea that no one can take seriously. This is propaganda and an attempt to keep people from actually examining the case, by creating the false impression that experts have already done the work for you. It is unfortunately true that some prominent mythicists are a bit looney, but there are a number who have solid academic credentials, so the apologists have to find some reason to discount them - aha! Wells is really a linguist, not a real historian! Doherty has only a classics degree! But Richard Carrier does have a degree in history and is working on his PhD. He has posted some pertinent thoughts - you can search for his old posts, and read his review of Doherty here (he has subsequently upped his estimation of the likelihood of the mythicist case to "probable.") And I don't think that you will find a modern historian who has written anything about the case for the historical existence of Jesus, pro or con, using modern historical methods. A lot of British historians will claim there is evidence for Jesus, but the basis of their assertion is that the gospels must be accepted as historical documents, and this is quite dubious. A modern historian will probably want to skirt the issue - there isn't enough hard data to be sure about anything, and the subject is just a little too controversial to get them tenure.

10-12-2005, 11:21 AM	#3
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	I think "Biblical historian" would be a better way of phrasing it. But that wouldn't be true, given Robert M. Price, whom I believe does have a doctorate in something relating to Biblical literature. Either way, Doherty, Wells, Freke & Gandy, Achyra S, etc. are certainly not authorities on the topic by nature of their education on the topic of Biblical Literature. And several of those I just listed are not experts by any definition of the word.

10-12-2005, 11:28 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Robert Price has 2 PhD's, in New Testament and Systematic Theology. Doherty has a classics degree. Wells is a professor of linguistics. None should be mentioned in the same list as Freke & Gandy or Acharya S. Wells discusses the credentials issue here.

10-13-2005, 08:51 AM	#7
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Isn't Ellegard a historian? But I suppose positing Jesus is the teacher of righteousness may not be quite mythicist, or is it?

10-13-2005, 10:06 AM	#8
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	What qualifications in history does the Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, have? Surely what methods is the methodology used, and whether such a methodology yields reliable results.

10-13-2005, 10:17 AM	#9
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Why question their credentials and what the heck is an "historian" anyway? Someone with a history degree? Someone who studies history (which could be non-formally educated)? Why not just rebut their conclusions or assertions or demonstrate bad methodology or criticize the actual work rather than the person? Big ole ad hom, isn't it..."Achrya S's conclusions are wrong because she's a non-historian and a hack"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.