ApostateAbe

It is a variation of appealing to authority, and I gave my list of things I find wrong with it here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....92#post6683892

Ted Hoffman

And I pointed out that Trebilco was arguing against syncretism of Judaism and the Sabazios cult while Doherty was arguing borrowing, not syncretism. And if you want to argue against borrowing (the concept of cultic meals for example), then you are really out there.

EarlDoherty

Unbelievable! First of all, my response was to Don’s contention that scholars know so little about the mystery cults that they can’t make any pronouncements about their beliefs and rituals. He asked “So how does Doherty know?”—clearly suggesting that I have come to these sorts of conclusions all on my little lonesome.

So what do I do in response? What else but point to established and recognized scholars who have studied the cults and their primary sources (as sparse as they might be) and have come to conclusions: in this particular case being addressed, about sacred meals. (If Abe can point me to any scholarly work in any field which never backs up one’s own analysis (and my books are full of my own original analysis—for which I get roundly attacked by appeals to authority, including by Abe) with quotes from other scholars, I’ll eat a copy of both my books.)

So what does Abe do in response to my answer to Don? Criticizes me for laying out what other recognized scholars have said about the mysteries and their meals! He accuses me of relying on others for my views. Is he assuming that I have not even taken the trouble to examine pictures of, for example, the Mithraic sacred meal myth for myself? Now, of course, I did not travel to the Mediterranean to see firsthand the various depictions on the cult monuments, but I have to assume (perhaps he doesn’t) that the many reproductions found in scholarly books are reasonably accurate and “clear” enough.

And what does Abe himself do when he wants to make his point about my appeal to Helmut Koester on the matter of the Sabazios cultic meal? Why, he goes to a scholarly study on the matter and quotes it!

Abe, shouldn’t you be hunting down the evidence for yourself, and not just quote some scholar? Oh, the shame of it! How can you show your face around here again?

Of course, the one scholar you do not bother to read is the very one whom you are so fervently attacking with such ignorance of what I have actually written. What a farce!

If mythicists are accused of being deranged, maybe it’s because of being driven around the bend by the sheer mindless drivel posing as rebuttal that is being thrown at them. It’s a wonder I haven’t been committed long ago.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

I was aware of what Trebilco and Koester were arguing (Koester argued in favor of syncreticism, and Trebilco argued against it), but that is not especially relevant. I brought up the evidence cited by Trebilco to reveal what the evidence actually contains and how to make the best sense of it. The most plausible conclusion is, apparently, that the painting on the tomb has nothing to do with either messianic Judaism or Christianity, nor do the doctrines of the mystery cult have much in common with Christianity. If Doherty had looked at and presented the original evidence in completion, then he would apparently have a much tougher argument concerning his point that Christianity borrowed from mystery cults. Instead, Doherty quoted someone who mentioned the painting in passing in an introductory text. Does that not strike you as bad historical practice?

Maybe this would not be so bad if Doherty elsewhere has directly examined the ancient evidence, or if Doherty's claim that Christianity borrowed heavily from mystery cults was not a central assertion. GakuseiDon says that Doherty has not presented evidence of his knowledge about mystery cults, but maybe Doherty did (I don't know, I haven't read his books). If all Doherty has is quotes from scholars, I take that to be a very big red flag, at the least.

ApostateAbe

Doherty, nobody around here thinks that I am a historical scholar, nor do I ever encourage such a delusion. In contrast, there is a surprising number of people around and about who believe that your writings represent good historical practice. Sometimes they even claim that your historical practice is better. If you examined the original ancient evidence, then that is what should be contained in your presentation of the evidence, not the opinions of other scholars who maybe or maybe not looked at the evidence, especially not the passing opinions contained in introductory textbooks.

Toto

Abe: if you want to criticize Doherty, but you don't want to buy his book, there are several options. You can request a review copy. You can find a library that has it.

EarlDoherty

And how can you have the gall to declare that I do not if you haven't read my books?

And how can you possibly suggest that I only appeal to other scholars in the context of presenting a theory which contradicts what all those other scholars believe and to whom you consistently appeal for authority? Where would I get my ideas from if not from my own examination of the original ancient evidence?

You may claim not to regard yourself as an historical scholar, but do you regard yourself as a rational thinker?

I think I had better put my name in soon at my local asylum.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

Good ideas. I did check the interlibrary loan catalog at my college a couple of years back, but it didn't have it, though it did have a book by RG Price, which I read (mostly). I am attending a branch of a grad school that is not part of an interlibrary loan network, so it will be more difficult. I am of course open to receiving a review copy.

TedM

Don, first of all, thanks for your review of Earls work. It's no easy task.

Are you saying that Earl has been selective in his review of the 2nd century apologists, and by being selective he has missed an important perspective about how people of the time thought and wrote with regard to historical events in general, and by missing this perspective he is making untested assumptions about 'human nature' not only regarding the 2nd century apologists but the 1st century epistles also?

You provided a few more examples other than Tertullian (Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, and Melito's apology) as being written by believers in a historical Jesus but not alluding clearly to that belief when writing about him. Has Earl not covered these in his book in the way you say he did not cover 'Ad Nations'--ie no explanation was given for why a believer in a historical Jesus would not refer to a historical Jesus in one or more of their works?

I thought Earl made some good points about Ad Nations, but if there were others out there doing the same thing, then it DOES need to be part of the overall perspective.

To help with my perspective (I've spent little time on 2nd century writings), are there ANY 2nd century writings that clearly show the author did NOT believe a historical Jesus who walked this earth and was founder of the Christian faith -- existed? IF there are NONE, that is surely a significant issue to be considered because the awareness of the belief in his historicity was out there--clearly in the writings of Ignatius and Justin and Papias, right? If a number of apologists were aware of the belief in a historical Jesus among Christians and NONE of them said "what are you talking about?--Jesus never was on earth", that would seem to be problematic for the idea that these same folks believed Jesus hadn't walked the earth. Has Earl addressed this significant issue in his book?

ApostateAbe

I would recommend a local asylum only if you or someone you love suspects that you are a danger to society.

Since I didn't read your books, I am relying on what you claim is contained in your books, according to what you wrote in the OP. To rebut the accusation that you do not have sources for your knowledge about mystery cults, you say your knowledge about mystery cults comes from what Koester and Nilsson wrote, you quoted them in the OP, and you say the quotes are contained in the book. You did not say anything about other evidence contained in the book, though presumably the original evidence would be much more relevant than these quotes of scholars. Ergo, I conclude that your book does not contain such evidence.