GakuseiDon

If Earl wants to claim that Olympus in Julian's story was set in the Platonic and Mythical Realm, that's fine. But I'll leave this between you and him.

mountainman

The most popular saviour god of the Graeco-Roman empire for many centuries was the healing god Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus, and many temples were dedicated to him throughout the empire. The Roman Emperors sponsored this cult not only in temples and shrines, but upon their coinage. The practice of this very popular pagan salvation cult ceased abruptly in the year 324 CE following the Christian Emperor's orders for the army to utterly destroy a number of ancient and highly revered Asclepian temples.

According to the literature and inscriptions Asclepius performed deeds in the "mythical realm of sleep", for which purpose those who sought healing slept over at the temple. See Galen, etc.

It's too bad that amidst the hundreds and hundreds of shrines and temples dedicated to the Graeco-Roman god Asclepius, we cannot find even one dedicated to the Jesus figure in the new testament. A mythical Jesus takes care of this conundrum.

The world and its myths were non christian. To the pagan, the "in whom we live and move and have our being" had reference to Zeus. The christians plaguerized antiquity for the benefit of posterity.

Doug Shaver

Yes, I did . . . at least a few months ago, if I recall correctly. I've done some more research since then, and would not word it quite the same way now.

avi

Apologies, if so, Earl, didn't mean to offend you. Verbose: yes, mea culpa. Ponderous? well, maybe light weight rather than thick I guess.

I wasn't trying to offend, simply to indicate that you confront a variety of skill sets here on the forum, and I seek to represent those with the least skill, the most ignorance, and the shortest attention span. In that context, it is important to clarify, simplify, and summarize, right from the get go.

Your goal, here, I believe, is to shed light on the origin of Christianity, a tradition we both view as mythical. The cover of your book, Jesus Neither God Nor Man, states that this is "New Revised Expanded", and then, explicitly states, on the cover, "First Published as The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus", so, I approach your work with a mixture of both curiosity and sympathy.

I certainly support the notion of a mythical Jesus. I do not support the idea of making such a claim based upon analysis of the purported significance of the writings of anything in the fictional New Testament.

If one wishes to argue that Platonic notions led to creation of these New Testament works of fiction, otherwise known as the gospels and epistles and so on, then, one ought to draw upon works identified as Platonic in origin, not Paul's epistles. If I wished to argue that Jean Jacques Rousseau was the single most important influence on the writings of Tolstoy, could I accomplish my goal by referencing passages from Tolstoy, without citing Rousseau himself?

Your chapters 13 and 14, both of which I have read, but failed thus far to comprehend, (I will try again next week) deal with Paul's epistles. Since you highlight, in the first sentence of chapter 13, one of the threads on Kata Sarka, here on the forum, I can also search the archives for additional help, as needed.

However, my point is this: Earl, no matter how brilliantly executed these two chapters may be, in the end, what we have, will be an analysis of documents written within an unknown time range, by an unknown person(s), interpolated we know not how often, addressing concepts entirely fictional. How useful is that process, in seeking to identify the origins of Christianity, a very real, and material, not ephemeral process?

My claim is this: one gains nothing by analyzing Paul's writings, in trying to establish the origins of Christianity. I do not accept the hypothesis that folks rushed to join the nascent Christian faith, because of one word written by "Paul".

I think the Christian movement spread exclusively because of Constantine's army. Christianity may well have existed long before Constantine, albeit modest in scope, with relatively few resources, compared with other religious influences. That original Christian movement, at the time of its inception, whenever that may have been, (I guess during the second century, after the third Roman Jewish war) may or may not have been influenced by the gospels, (which I believe were initially authored in the middle of the second century, notwithstanding the claim that P52 was authored in the early part of that century) but it certainly was not, in my opinion, influenced by the epistles of Paul, as revealed here in P46.

I think that earliest Christianity arose simply as an offshoot of Judaism, and maintained most, if not all of the traditional Jewish mores--Paul doesn't really figure prominently in Christianity, in my opinion, until Constantine's need to provide a theoretical justification permitting Gentiles to bypass circumcision and still attain heaven. In my opinion, one must ignore Paul, altogether, if one seeks to explain the explosive rise of Christianity, commencing with the fourth century. It is military might, not analysis of Kata Sarka, that explains how Christianity became the dominant religion in the Western hemisphere.

avi

EarlDoherty

Clearly, you have your own paradigm which is quite different from mine, and thus you would go about making a case for it very differently from the way I do for my case. No surprise there.

Earl Doherty

rlogan

I see the canard about "scholarship" in religious apologetics is still alive and well.

Amongst the apologists, anyway.

rlogan

I've found it both baffling and tedious to address in key areas.

Logical writing is easy to follow. You don't have to take breaks trying to figure out what the person is saying.

That would be Earl Doherty's writing.

What struck me from the first section was repeated abuse of the term "critical scholarship". Don can't be blamed for the invention of the fallacy he follows, but he shouldn't use it.

Critical Scholarship is not a club. It is a methodology.

But Don's first section can be summed up with a deceptive "Earl Doherty doesn't do/isn't accepted by critical scholarship" argument ad populum along with "Earl the incompetent or manipulative nutjob" smearing.

Argumentum ad Populum would be bad enough if this were physics or mathematics, but this is a field for millenia run by Christians and still is rife with Christian-based, belief systems doing Don's alleged Critical Scholarship.

The argument goes beyond being a logical fallacy, but is instead disengenuous. So a survey of Christians disagrees with Earl. News at 11.

But what do they (HJ/MJ) actually disagree about? There is another fallacy at work here too.

There is almost nobody who believes in a gospel Jesus: sending two thousand pigs into the sea, walking on water, turning water into wine, the wise men, the virgin birth - on and on. Even the stuff Don says is "Historical" like "Born of a Woman" - that isn't history. Parables are not history.

In place of what the gospels say, "Historical Jesus" adherents (AKA Critical Scholarship) have instead substituted an unheralded itinerant who was crucified.

In terms of volume - total gospel verses - we probably have "Historical Jesus" adherents rejecting over 99% of what was written about him.

That last 1% seems really important to them but even that 1% is irrelevant to Christianity.

Whether Jesus was historical or not in your Christianity, both positions require faith: the faith that Christ Crucified forever abolishes our own obligation to sacrifice for the expiation of sins. We don't have to suffer because Christ did it for us.

By pretending there is such a radical difference between the "1% Historicity" crowd and Doherty, and an irrelevant 1% at that - we get to pretend he's a kook.

Here is where the twin device of conceding 99% myth and then pretending the remaining 1% is radical kookism can be found:

Don immediately concedes the most important ground: mythicism is a reasonable question. He says there's "very little" evidence of historicity, but even that takes a lot of bad argument.

But he will reverse himself later to say Earl represents radical kookism.


All Don can muster for Jesus is a mere 22 words. A man named Jesus. Crucified. Cult leader. Josephus writes more than that on numerous Jesus' of even minor note.

By volume, that's 22 words out of the 22 thousand words in Matthew alone. Technically, that's 1/10th of 1% but why quibble.

That makes Don a very reasonable-sounding chap at first, rejecting just about everything written about Jesus in the Bible. GakusiDon is almost entirely a mythicist.

But then we are introduced to Earl the bizarro mythicist:




This and other passages like it are pregnant with "Doherty the Incompetent and Dishonest Kook" verbage: "radical", "incredible", "complete speculation", "one-sided," etc.


The argument seemed to be that hey, Doherty is asking a reasonable question, it is nearly universally acknowledged that there's almost nothing historical about Jesus, and sure he writes really well and the arguments look so sound when laid before you...

but he's a crank.

You can't see it because you don't know enough. What you see is an illusion of well-thought out arguments.

What to say about the logic of "Earl is wrong because he hasn't published peer review journal work"...

I don't know what there is in christian studies that represents the same kind of peer-reviewed science Don and others are representing.

I admit I do not know well enough to say except that I know for certain some Journals are definitely faith-based because I have read them.

One has to admit it is problemmatic and not comparable to academic journals covering science or even nonsecular history if they are honest.


What journals are you suggesting he submit to Don?

Camio

From where I stand, the trouble with mythicism is not so much about proving that almost nothing regarding the Jesus-of-the-Gospel is historically reliable. As Don said, this is granted by almost everyone. The problem is: how to explain the ignition of Christianity without some real guy(s), whose name wasn’t maybe even Jesus, at the start? Earl Doherty, among others, provides what seems to me interesting alternatives, though I’ am not qualified enough to assess his interpretation of ancient texts. At this point,I am not wholly convinced though it would successfully pass Occam’s razor test. Once again, this is an open question from my part, I don’t have the required skills to evaluate this by myself, I can only witness the wrestling match on this board and elsewhere on the question. That is why peer-reviewed journals or academic publishing, despite being far from a perfect system, is better than nothing. Eager to see how Carrier gets through it btw.

What do you mean by “irrelevant to Christianity”? Are you talking about the birth of Christian theology?


Jean-François.

GakuseiDon

True, and isn't that a good thing?

Even if Doherty is wrong, there is little evidence for a historical Jesus. That's true whether Acharya S or Mountainman is wrong.

That's correct. IMVHO people who don't know enough about ancient thinking will read Doherty's book and not understand where he is making radical declarations.

Let me use the following example: imagine there is a person who doesn't understand how carbon dating works. If someone for some reason (and I won't say why) published a book saying carbon dating is nonsense, and gave a list of reasons why based on radical declarations, and doesn't let on that the reasons are radical, won't the reader come away with the impression that those who believe carbon dating works are either stupid or have some kind of agenda? That's what is happening with those who read Doherty's book, IMHO.

Look, I would have no problem with anyone agreeing with Doherty (other than that they would be wrong of course) IF THEY HAVE LOOKED INTO HIS THEORIES FOR THEMSELVES. A few people are going down this path -- Kapyong, Doug. But I think you do yourself a disservice if you say that Doherty has a case that should be answered by the mainstream if you don't even understand the issues involved in the first place. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells? Isn't this the same thing ANY fringe supporter might claim? You're only one step away from the Ancient Advanced Pygmy Theory and you don't even know it!

Even if you disagree with my review, I hope it will get you to start asking Doherty questions. Even if you agree with his overall theory, don't you have ANY questions? Are you so clear on ALL details? Why not ask him where you think he is unclear? What would be the harm?

No, that is not correct, and I have never said that. People who have found problems with Earl's work have urged him to submit to peer-review in order to have knowledgeable people look over his ideas. Surely this is a good thing? Even if he doesn't get a fair go, at least the dialogue will be underway. So what if an amateur nobody like me finds Doherty is a crank? Who should care? No-one. But for goodness sakes if you are going to agree with him, have a better reason than his book sounds convincing. Look into it! Ask questions!

How do YOU know that Doherty isn't a crank? Ask him a question or two on points where you disagree with him, and wait for his paranoid response. Did you see how he reacted to avi?

Why not then write on topics that don't directly attack Christian beliefs? "Cultist meals took place in a spiritual realm!" "Pagans believed their myths occurred in a spiritual realm!" "Tatian didn't have a Jesus Christ at the core of his Christianity initially!" "Justin Martyr didn't have a historical Jesus at the core of his Christianity initially!" "The Q community created a symbolic figure to represent their thoughts and actions!" There are lots of topics that he can write on that isn't on the radar of modern scholarship, that wouldn't be a direct attack on faith-based positions.

Look, by going the popular press route, Doherty is writing to an audience who knows very little and don't understand the issues. Not really his fault, but if you eat with the chickens you can't really complain about the quality of conversation (not saying that anyone here is the equivalent of chickens, btw!) My review will hopefully open up some of those issues -- at the least, get people to start asking questions -- and I hope you agree that this can be nothing but good? Let's start testing Doherty's theories. I'm not saying "IMO Doherty is a crank, ignore him", I'm saying "IMO Doherty is a crank, test him out!" It can only be a win-win situation if we do. It will either vindicate or expose him. Surely either would be good?

I hope my review will at least lead people to question anyone who pops up and says "People back then thought the myths were played out in a spiritual realm", so that they get asked, "What is the evidence for that?" If all the first person can do is channel Dave31 and say, "Read Doherty's books!", then I hope this will start to ring alarm bells.

SBL, who are now calling for papers for their Nov 2011 meeting.

Here is one of the papers from the 2010 meeting, that I would love to read (except I don't want to pay $115 on Amazon for it):

G. William's The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles (or via: amazon.co.uk). According to the blurb:

This book provides a comprehensive and critical examination of the role of spiritual beings in the authentic Pauline epistles, the first work to give an exhaustive and systematic account in recent years. Contrary to the views of many scholars, that spirits are trivial or irrelevant within Paul's writings, this monograph argues that they are inherent features of the letters. Read within their historical and cultural context, the epistles can be seen to participate in widely held assumptions about the role and influence of spiritual powers. This argument allows for a fresh perspective on a neglected theme, allowing for a re-evaluation of aspects of Paul's letters. Part One sets out the problems of interpreting the spirit world, with reference to the agendas of modern scholars and ancient readers. Part Two then examines angelology and demonology, progressing through the main inhabitants of the Pauline spirit world: angels, Satan, demons, powers, etc. Finally, Part Three sets out the key thrust of the argument: the spirit world may be regarded as inherent in the letters because it is integrated into major Pauline themes. This thesis is put forward by analysing the role played by spirits in helping to shape three areas of concern for Paul: his Christology, soteriology, and sense of community. Such an integrated approach yields a new way of perceiving the place and importance of spirits, not as a major or minor "doctrine" but as an axiomatic and cultural idiom in the Pauline texts.

Perhaps Doherty could do something similar? Or even critique Williams'?

Rlogan, what do you personally recommend that Doherty does as his next step? How should he try to get his theories out there? Is popular press and web forums enough, where he attracts unqualified laymen like myself? It isn't a trick question; what do YOU recommend?

GakuseiDon

Out of interest -- or rather, out of morbid curiosity -- are you saying that Doherty is right about the early Christian letters indicating the earliest Christians didn't believe in a historical Jesus? Given your position that the early letters were written by Constantine good fella drones, I'm not sure how the two positions are compatible?