PhilVaz

Earl << Before I quote a draft of that below, I want to ask about the website someone provided a link to above, one titled “Parallel Pagan Saviors Examined.” It purports to offer a response to my views on the subject, but in downloading that page, the final half of it does not come through properly. Most of it just reads “text text” under a series of headings. >>

Hey thanks for noticing. It's called getting my page into the search engines before I finish the article. That's the great thing about the web, nothing ever has to be final. But I'll put a date like "finished xx/xx/2007" up top when I do finish. Could be a couple weeks or months. But at least an orthodox Catholic (myself) is reading your book. I only plan on responding to the first chapter about St. Paul and the "heavenly Christ", and part of the chapter on "dying and rising gods." I believe I have summarized your position correctly so far.

Phil P

EarlDoherty

The reason it was pre-emptive was because in discussion here, and in what I could read on the website, I was being lumped in with statements made by certain scholars (past and present) like Robert Price who were presenting the question of savior-god resurrection in literal terms quite unlike my own, which I made clear in my posting. I was thus fully justified in anticipating the likelihood that I would be misrepresented, and a pre-emptive strike seemed called for. I'm glad you found it impressive, Don.

Now that I have laid out my position clearly on this matter, I trust that in further discussion of the question of resurrection, the pagan gods vis-a-vis Christ, that some notice will have been taken of it and find its way into that discussion. rather than just being ignored. I noticed that earlier in this thread (was it this one?) there was a fair amount of talk about traditional scholarship's position against the Jesus Myth theory in the 20th century, and certain comments were made to the OPoster about the reliability of that traditional dismissal of mythicism, and yet not one person mentioned, let alone directed him to, my recent comprehensive rebuttal to those alleged "refutations," despite the fact that it is over 40,000 wprds long and the first of its kind. Now I know what it's like to live and work in obscurity!

Pride has nothing to do with it. If a group is going to engage in in-depth discussion on the Jesus Myth theory, I would think it is only to be expected that they would acquaint themselves with major writings on the question, and take account of them in their own arguments, even if only to refute them.

Phil says that "he believes he has summarized my position correctly thus far" and I will have to check that out, but surely I can expect that he will look at it again and take into account the new material I offered on this subject in my foregoing posting.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

No Robots

And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?

EarlDoherty

It's always best to make clear what you are referring to. Just what major writings or arguments are you suggesting that I have not addressed that might affect my presentation of the Jesus Myth case?

While I'm here, I will note that GDon has surfaced here after a long and unusual silence on his pet thread "Middle Platonism and Missing Evidence." Scarcely a day went by that he did not make a posting (repeating the same point he had made in countless previous postings) on my claims about "the world of myth". That silence began after I had posted the following on January 27:

Apparently he didn't, because there was no further comment from him, either on that thread or on the "Archons" thread.

I bring this up in connection with the original point of this posting (as well as my previous one). One must always deal with major arguments on the other side (and hopefully I have not often been guilty of failing to do that, despite NR’s vague intimation above). Perhaps Don did read that “Archons” posting and was unable to factor its content into his position on the other thread, which is why he has since been uncharacteristically silent. I don’t know. But he has a history of not responding to arguments that I put forward. I have a few times in the past, for example, asked him what he thought about the “heavenly Jerusalem”. It was obviously not on earth, but was it an allegory only? Did no one imagine that it had buildings and cobblestone streets and anything else that might pertain to a city, even a perfect heavenly one? I never received an answer. I also asked him if he thought that the castration of Attis, if not an historical event, was regarded simply as an allegory, and that the eunuch priests of Attis could physically castrate themselves for the sake of an allegory. Would Christians today be willing to regard the story of Christ as only an allegory? He never answered those questions either.

If you’re going to come out onto the football field, you can’t just play with your own ball at one end of the stadium. And that applies to more than just Don.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

That's correct. I read the "Archon" post, but it wasn't related to the topic of pagan views of their gods, so I didn't respond.

How strange! Since I did answer, and you even responded to my answer. Perhaps you mean that I didn't respond adequately?

This is the thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=150998

This is my response:
"Earl, you seem to get confused between what exists above the firmament, and what exists below. Clouds exist below the firmament. I'm not aware that ancients placed clouds above the firmament. The "heavenly Jerusalem" existed above the firmament. Perhaps it had streets, walls, etc. Certainly AoI talks of "thrones" and "garments". But what about between the moon and the earth? What is placed there?"

Again, how strange! I singled out your question and responded. But perhaps you didn't see it? You never responded to my own question. This thread here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=174800&page=4

Earl: I recently asked you if you thought the priests of Attis would willingly castrate themselves if they regarded the myth as allegorical only.

GDon: I don't know. What is the correct answer?

You never responded back. Perhaps you can give the answer now? References to pagan writings would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

If you read the threads above, I spend most of them appealing for some evidence from you to back your claims up. I urge people to revisit those links to see Earl indulging in his usual rhetoric and ad homs, for example:

To try to get across anything about ancient mythology to Don, Rick & Co. seems to be a hopeless task. That is perhaps understandable when they are unwilling to grasp or admit anything which risks undermining the literal interpretation of the Gospels and the Gospel-determined historical interpretation of the early Christian record.

Since none of "Don, Rick & Co." appear to believe in a literal interpretation of the Gospels, that statement borders on paranoia. But read the responses and see for yourself.

True enough.

I'll note that Doherty has made these accusations before, and I don't doubt that he will again. IMHO he doesn't have evidence to back up his interesting speculation. But the only way forward is to look into his claims, and separate the evidence from the rhetoric and the speculation. So I urge his supporters to start questioning his claims, and asking for evidence. Let's start looking beyond the rhetorical questions and the speculation. Of course, we should do the same for the historicist position.

No Robots

Did you miss the fact that in my post there were several hyperlinks to the relevant documents? Here they are:

• Conybeare, Fred C. The Historical Christ London, 1914. This is a full-length book on the subject written by a rationalist.
  
• Jesus of Nazareth : His life, times, and teaching / by Joseph Klausner. One of the first biographical studies to situate Christ wholly and naturalistically in his Jewish setting.
  
• "The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Another important argument for Christ's wholly Jewish background.
  
• "Jesus, Myth, and History: Troeltsch's Stand in the "Christ-Myth" Debate" / B. A. Gerrish, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 13-35. Summary of the response to mythicism of one of the greatest German historians.
• Constantin Brunner's lengthy critique of mythicism.

You might want to check my first post on this topic.

EarlDoherty

This is incredible. You call that an answer??? You're as bad as Gibson, deflecting a direct question by asking another one. My asking your opinion on what the priests of Attis would have believed was directly pertinent to the arguments you were making, and you answered "I don't know." You don't know your own opinion, or can't form one? This has got nothing to do with "evidence". This is the kind of evasion which makes it impossible to debate you.

It's also an evasion to say that when I offer material which has a connection with the subject under discussion and can be used to throw light on it (as I did in the "Archons" posting), you claim it is not addressing the specific point you are making or the narrow question you are asking, and therefore you will make no comment on it. Your obsession with "sublunar" and your demands for specific pagan references relating to that narrow topic (which I have long said are unavailable) is used as an excuse to ignore related and context arguments. It won't wash, Don, and it is very transparent, and I'm quite sure everyone recognizes it for what it is.

In any case, what would have prevented you from responding to my "Archons" posting on its own basis, particularly since it had at least an indirect connection to your "Middle Platonism" thread? Who is standing with a gun to your head preventing you from recognizing or commenting on anything that doesn't have the word "sublunar" in it? I've several times acknowledged that the "sublunar" concept need not have been universal. Are you not here to defend your views against the mythicist position? Have not my recent postings related to that raison d'etre? Why are you (and everyone else of your mindset) silent on those postings? You'll all be giving me a swelled head and making me imagine that they are so compelling no rebuttal is possible (somewhat like the silence on my Refutations article).

This is becoming a joke, and I don't know why I am wasting my time here.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

This, too, is a joke, right? Two books around a century old, an obscure article in one of hundreds of journals...and Brunner??? (And when did "Baeck" write?) Did you overlook all the "authorities" over the entire 20th century that I did respond to in my "Refutations" article? Oh wait, of course you did. Like almost everyone else, you didn't bother to read it.

Earl Doherty

No Robots

The reason that much of the criticism of mythicism dates from a century ago is that that was the heyday of mythicism. Mythicism arose at the same time that did the view that Christ was a Jew. It is the latter that has won status as the consensus position among scholars. As states NT scholar William Arnal, himself an atheist:

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity / William Arnal. (p. 5)

Your attempted revival of mythicism has not explicitly come to grips with this century-old Jew/Myth debate, and certainly hasn't examined in detail the reasons for the triumph of the Jew over the myth in contemporary scholarship.

Mythicism arose largely as a reaction against the scholarly conclusion that Christ was a Jew. Your revival seems to have some kind of social remediation objective, at least that is what I conclude from this passage:

So long as we cease to search for meaning in the sphere of fantasy, or extrapolate the best in ourselves onto an idealized, larger-than-life individual or heavenly force (which the Jesus Seminar is still trying to do). Instead, we need only find it in the earth-based capacity of every human individual.

Be that as it may, you cannot expect to interest scholars in your project if you refuse to fully engage the discussion at the point at which it was judged closed. You simply have to confront the Jew/Myth polarization head-on.

I am not sure why you put Baeck's name in quotation marks. Leo Baeck was one of the twentieth-century's most important Jewish thinkers.

I am not sure from whence derives your contempt for Constantin Brunner. I note that Canadian Humanist Publications is the publisher of The Jesus Puzzle. Assuming from this that you have some connection to Humanist organizations, it may be of interest to you that Joseph Ben-David of the Humanist Foundation in New York has given several lectures on Brunner.

GakuseiDon

Earl, this has nothing to do with evasion. I honestly don't know. I genuinely want to know the answer if it is relevant to your position.

Seriously: What is the answer to your question? And what evidence do you have for it?

Fair enough.

Well, you actually. You wrote:

"The only thing I want to say at this point…well, there are two things. One is that I am very reluctant to engage in any further debate with Don. Everything he has raised in this thread we’ve been over ad nauseum. He ignores or simply fails to understand the responses I’ve given to his timeworn objections. I’ve long admitted that we have no crystal clear description of the Middle Platonic interpretation of the myths of the Hellenistic savior gods. There are no explicit writings from the mysteries, not the least because such things were forbidden to be set down, and if any were, the Christians destroyed them along with the cults themselves."

There was nothing new in your Archons thread, at least with regard to actual evidence, so I didn't feel there was any reason to respond.

I hope that people will read the last couple of sentences I quoted from you above with interest. There IS evidence from pagan writings about what pagans believed about the stories of their gods. I've been producing it on these threads (Jupiter had a tomb in Crete, Hercules lived around the time of Troy, etc). It doesn't support you. But the evidence that does support you was destroyed by Christians, right?

So: evidence on one side, no evidence on the other. Hmmm...

I'm not sure why others of my mindset aren't responding, but speaking for myself: You've introduced nothing new. You've produced no new evidence. You are still playing to your audience, trying to make it sound like we all suspect you are right but are just too scared to admit it -- even the non-theists!

Because you love it! Why else are you now complaining that people aren't responding to you?

I'm always happy to read your interesting speculation, Earl. I'll start responding more when I see evidence.