Gawen

I have just read the first parts of Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle - Was There No Historical Jesus', from his website.
It makes sense to me, but I am no historian, theologian or studier of linguistics of any manner. I ask those of you who have put much time, money and thought in this matter, does Mr. Doherty seem on track?
I plan to read the entire site. Should I?

Kosh

Richard Carrier reviews the book

Gawen

Thank you

rlogan

Earl seems to have earned some respect here.

His critics excoriate him on anything sounding remotely like an "argument from silence".

But really - what can you do when asked to prove a negative?

You probably haven't gotten many responses because the Doherty Wars were fought not long ago here. At the signing of the peace treaty the Myth school warriors allowed the Historical Jesus survivors to collect their dead and wounded and depart with honor as they had fought valiantly before their decisive defeat.

Doctor X

I would qualify that to "Historical Christ," because whether or not "some guy" existed has not been established one way or the other. Of course, if "some guy" existed that does not mean we can say anything at all about him.

--J.D.

Ted Hoffman

Read the entire book. Read the antire site if u can especially readers responses and how Doherty handles them.

Also, dont forget to read the works of his critics. We have snot-faced J.P. Holding and locally, we have Chris Price aka Layman.
Read Layman's Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition
Earl Doherty's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews and my response to Layman: Flipping Layman's Frazzled Factoids: Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition
Another one addressing Layman's arguments:
Flipping Layman's F. Fs : Earl Doherty's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews

And so on and so forth and dont miss
Did Marcion believe in a HJ? split from Argument on "born of a woman" "of the seed of David"
Paul Believed Jesus Was Born of a Descendent of David According to the Flesh

By the time you are done, you will have a fairly good picture on the Jesus Mythicism concept and Scholarly position on it.

Then u can come back with questions if u have any.

Gawen

...I am doing so now and I reckon I'll be gone a few days just to read it all...LOL.

Thanks y'all

Gregg

Thank you for taking time to read ALL of it.

As a Jesus myther myself, I find it frustrating when even atheists and agnostics just take a cursory glance at Doherty's site and then trot out all the tired arguments for Jesus' historicity. If they look closer they'll see that Doherty addresses all these objections in depth, and dismantles them pretty convincingly.

But I try to keep in mind that the idea does seem pretty radical at first. I was a historicist for a long time and I always rejected out of hand the very notion that there was no real person somewhere under all those layers of myth. I can understand why many folks dismiss it as quackery, even those who have no vested interest in believing that Jesus actually existed. But Doherty is for real, and the case he makes is sound and persuasive, whether you're convinced by it or not. Give him a fair hearing.

GakuseiDon

The problem is, Doherty's theory doesn't have greater explanatory power, for exactly the same reasons as he gives against a HJ.

As JP Holding puts it: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_D12_TFH.html
If you look at the legends of the pagan gods of the time, they are rich in details - of birth narratives, marriages, events and companions. As gets pointed out time and again, saying Paul should have mentioned more details about a HJ if he believed in a HJ begs the question of why Paul doesn't mention more details about a MJ if he believed in a MJ.

So why didn't Paul and the early epistle writers give more details of a MJ?

Amaleq13

According to Paul, they were teaching the same thing he was.

All the relevant details are given: sacrificed, raised, seen, returning.


Waiting...waiting...waiting...waiting...