Gregg

krosero's post challenging Earl Doherty's mythicist case is an interesting (if long) one, and when I have time I am definitely going to read the whole thing and see if I can write a detailed response. But I wanted to take a moment here to comment on the rancor that often seems to surround debate on the MJ/HJ issue.

I can understand rancor toward the MJ thesis coming from people with confessional interests, but I guess it's harder to understand coming from atheists, agnostics, etc. But then, I'm not a scholar, not even an amateur one. I don't read Greek, I haven't had any courses in textual criticism, I'm not as familiar and widely read in the relevant literature as I need to be. I don't have much of an ego and I'm not trying to show anyone how I'm smarter and better educated than them (because I'm certainly not). Sometimes I get in over my head, I overstate things, and I have to eat crow. I just find the whole issue of Jesus' historicity fascinating, and I've found Doherty's thesis more convincing and compelling and reasonable than any other theory I've seen, and I like to talk about it and promote awareness of it. Even if it is wrong, I think Doherty makes a serious, scholarly, rational argument, and I don't think his thesis or the man himself deserve the disrespect they sometimes get.

I think there is more than enough doubt about Jesus' historicity, and more than enough intriguing evidence to suggest that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus, for this theory to merit ongoing exploration. Doherty, IMO, deserves kudos for taking the initiative and exploring it. Now, there's nothing wrong with subjecting his thesis to detailed analysis and criticism, but I guess I don't understand the dismissive attitude some take toward it, or the visceral negative reaction others seem to have to it.

I also don't get those who have said that the JM thesis shouldn't be pursued because there are better ways to discredit Christianity. Finding ways to discredit Christianity is the furthest thing from my mind when I'm exploring the MJ/HJ issue. This is just a topic that appeals to me and I don't have any ulterior motives for exploring it or anything at stake in the outcome of the debate.

I guess my point is, I think there could be more respect and a general attitude of spirited inquiry and less sniping, etc. in the debate over this issue. I've been guilty of showing disrespect myself, so I'll try to do better.

Niall Armstrong

Well put! Am very much in agreement (though I probably have a greater problem with my ego), and come to the same conclusions. Therefore it is very important that we show respect to people like krosero and Zeichman, and try to engage with their posts. A lot of work for amateurs, but hopefully we'll learn even more....

Malachi151

Agreed, but one thing that may lead to rancor coming from MJers, myself included is that we typically hear the same thing over and over again, like "but Josephus and Tacitus confirm that Jesus existed", "Why would so many people have believed in Jesus if he didn't really exist", etc.

So, for the MJ camp it seems to be that there is a lot of going over the same issues again and again.

Chris Weimer

Whether atheist or agnostic or Christian or Jew, one needs to be able to read Greek, understand the basic principles of textual criticism, and at least be familiar with the extent literature.

That's hardly an issue here. Some posters here have PhDs, some a degree in a totally irrelevant field, but they still have made great progress in building the educational foundation for understanding what's going on. Imagine if you went to an AMA meeting and a group of "doctors" dissented from the majority opinion, but none of these "doctors" had any sort of degree in medicine or anything related. In fact, they were all Biblical scholars. Would you subject yourself to their treatments? Of course not. The only reason why we have so many armchair scholars here is because people think, "Well, hell, anyone can do that." But they're wrong. Not anyone can. One dedicated to it will achieve some progress, but then we'll have people, and I want to point out Malachi151 in particular, who are dedicated to it, but to it wrongly.

Malachi, I'm not picking on you, I'm just pointing out the obvious here - you had a book out apparently before you even knew about Psalm 22! Obviously we have some problems here.

If Doherty wanted to do things the scholarly way, he wouldn't have published a book for the masses. He would have went through peer-review. He would have tightened his arguments. He would have went to the people whose theories he uses, and he would have done things the "scholarly" way. Instead, he's a sensationalist, and there's hardly a difference between his work and any other conspiracy theory, except that Doherty does in fact have a little Greek.

I wish some others here could say the same.

Zeichman

Thanks for the kind words. To shamelessly plug my paper, the html and pdf versions can be accessed through this site: http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=201 . Doherty has stated that he intends to respond fully to my paper at a future time, though he has made some preliminary comments on a thread that can be found on the iidb.

Regarding the original post, I think I made it fairly clear in my own paper why Doherty's work is so easy to dismiss in the last section. To summarize, challenging unquestioned assumptions in a field is certainly a good thing (e.g., Arnal's "Major Episodes in the Biography of Jesus"), but to direct a book which makes countless controversial and unsupported claims (in terms of academics) to the public is absolutely irresponsible. If the question were treated in a far more reserved, cautious and scholarly way and less clearly agenda-driven, then it would be a worthwhile academic exercise. However, this is uncontestably not Doherty's goal, and Price could do much more with his journal to publicize it in a more academic realm. Instead, Doherty has chosen to test his claims in he comfortable (too comfortable) waters of the interweb and self-published books directed to non-specialists. In short, he doesn't clearly try to go about it like an academic, or even someone who wants his work to be seriously considered by scholars at large.

At the very least, many of Doherty's mistakes could be fixed by going through a decent peer-review system. However, he does not, and his work quickly builds mistakes upon mistakes which means that the whole is hard to seriously consider.

Chris Weimer

I really don't understand why anyone would still bother with Praxeus. You know he refuses evidence because it disagrees with his beliefs. He'll never budge, because he doesn't want to. You could show him the stars and he'll still think it's day.

wordy

Jesus to me is most likely myth. But I am open to that there could have been a source for the myth. Even the Essenes? about 100 years earlier had a "Teacher" so why could not a "Jesus" have been historical. But the gospels seems too much literature to be factual.

I'm even skeptical of Paul. I think Constantine may have been historical.

Could not some of his allies have constructed the myth based on a real person but the construct to be so remote from the historical that it is almost more myth and fiction than a real historical thing.


But apart from the interesting read when Doherthy and others try to describe what point to the myth and the others why it is historical.

In reality faith in Jesus is social and psychological and not about history of facts or myth.

Faith in Jesus is about social relations and emotions and traditions and even if we could solve the the MJ or HJ problem the believers in Jesus could not care less cause for them the real Jesus is the one they feel in their hearts or stomach or brain. The proof is how the pudding taste and to them it is the best pudding they have ever tasted.

That it is social delusions they have no interested in. To them it is all real.

So we do this only for our own interest, the Jesus fans don't care.

Malachi151

No. I just now put my "book" together, and its self-published, so I don't give it much credit it in the first place, it's not a real book. I was asking about Psalm 22 a year ago or more.

I fully acknowledge that I'm not a real scholar on this issue, but the field of Biblical studies is much different than any scientific field.

For the most part, there is a small finite amount of information to deal with, and its all about fitting those pieces together and interpreting them.

For the most part I would say that a degree in theology gets in the way of understanding the story of Jesus, it doesn't help.

In theology you learn based on traditions. Theology necessarily takes an a priori view. You are told how to interpret passages, what they mean, etc., etc.

I don't think that the comparison between the sciences and biblical criticism holds up.

I do agree that knowing the languages is important, and that having studied ancient literature is important, especially ancient Hebrew and Greek literature, and that a knowledge of all the relevant sources is good, etc., and while a degree in theology may include this, you can also get this education elsewhere.

I don't have the proper education to write anything on this subject that would be taken seriously, I know that, but most of the people that have the appropriate education have a theology background and are Christians, so they aren't going to advance this topic any. Though Doherty has done well, I don't care for his writing style, and basically, The Jesus Puzzle is good, but he had an effect and now the discussion has moved past TJP thanks to his efforts. Erhman is an ex-evangelical, and I disagree with a lot of what he says, I think that he still have too much of that indoctrination in him. Robert M. Price is good, but he calls himself an agnostic Christian still.

But just look around. Dr. James Tabor has a PhD and a chair position in a major university, yet look at the obvious crap that he puts out.

I hate to say it, but I think that 50% of the posters here have better scholarship on the Bible than James Tabor. His latest book is a joke, though I haven't read the whole thing, and his comments on the Lost Tomb of Jesus was appalling, I mean he trotted out the genealogy from Matthew as a legitimate geology of Jesus from Mary's side of he family. What the hell is that all about?

Look at the PhDs in the theology field. They have an inordinate amount of quacks and charlatans and true believers that have no rationality or logic to them at all. Ben Witherington is another prime example.

I'm sorry, but I won't trust my own judgment over the judgment of a medical doctor when talking about health or medicine or physiology or a nuclear scientist when talking about physics, but I will trust my own judgment over that of a Biblical scholar when it comes to understanding the Bible.

No Robots

Isn't this akin to the Church keeping the Bible in Latin so that laymen weren't able to read it for themselves? Aren't you trying to maintain a privileged scholarly priesthood to whom we poor sods are forced to kowtow for a few crumbs of the divine Word? I'd rather spend my time chewing the fat with guys like Malachi than with our contemporary academic aristocrats.

Gregg

Well, I'm not going to keep my mouth shut on this subject regardless, although I know I need to be more circumspect and try not to overstate things. I only have a layman's education in evolution but I put in my two cents on that topic also. There are plenty of people a lot more educated than me in biology and chemistry and other fields relevant to evolution who believe in intelligent design, and I still know they're wrong. BC&H is nowhere near as precise a field as evolutionary theory. I'm going to feel free to contribute to the discussion, even though I know I may get my head handed to me on a platter sometimes. Maybe someday I will have the time to learn Greek and become more familiar with text criticism, even if I have to audit classes.Doherty was published by the Journal of Higher Criticism, I believe (Fall 1997). Regardless, presenting one's case the way Doherty did does not make it wrong. And it may have been necessary for someone to do it the way Doherty did to shake things up and get the ball rolling.This is crap. This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. And I'm sorry, you can't compare Doherty's thesis to something by Archya S. or Barbara Theiring or the Holy Blood Holy Grail guys. There is no comparison.