Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to GakuseiDon: Do you intend to post a review of Earl Doherty's latest book sometime this year?

Earth to Johnny Skeptic: Yes. The draft is pretty much complete, but I want to tie out the "World of Myth" section, and I'm still trying to track down a few more of Doherty's sources. Once that is completed, I will put it on my revamped website (which is still to be revamped). Hopefully, I'll complete it in the next few months, though I'm not in any hurry.

My Review table of contents currently (subject to change):

Part 1: Review Summary

1. Introduction
2. Evaluation
3. Conclusion

Part 2: Early Writings

1. Silence in early Christian writings
2. The Q document
3. Early writers
4. Dates of early writings

Part 3: Paul

1. Paul's gospel / Paul's Jesus
2. Adam Christology
3. When did Paul live?
4. Moses / Melchizedek

Part 4: Doherty's World of Myth

1. Metaphysics 101
2. In the flesh
3. World of Myth
4. Born of Woman
5. Review of Doherty's references
6. Plutarch
7. Carrier's review of TJP

aa5874 · 06-19-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

I am by no means an expert on this, but it is interesting to me that Paul uses so many unique phrases re: Jesus compared to the Gospel writers, given that they are writing about the same person. No one in the gospels said that Jesus was born of a woman, or that he died according to the scriptures.

You mean Mary was a man?

According to gMatthew and gLuke Jesus was born of a WOMAN who was a virgin.

And the Pauline writers were aware of the SCRIPTURE called gLuke.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, according to your interpretation, reading Paul for Paul, one can get a "broad sketch of Jesus' life".

Yes. Which points that I present do you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

From reading theology, reading a spiritual take on things, you can get to a sketch of the life of Jesus??

Yes. Which points that I present do you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That is trying to tease history out of theology - a sure fire way to take a magic carpet ride....

Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to GakuseiDon: Do you intend to post a review of Earl Doherty's latest book sometime this year?

Earth to Johnny Skeptic: Yes. The draft is pretty much complete, but I want to tie out the "World of Myth" section, and I'm still trying to track down a few more of Doherty's sources. Once that is completed, I will put it on my revamped website (which is still to be revamped). Hopefully, I'll complete it in the next few months, though I'm not in any hurry.

My Review table of contents currently (subject to change):

Part 1: Review Summary

1. Introduction
2. Evaluation
3. Conclusion

Part 2: Early Writings

1. Silence in early Christian writings
2. The Q document
3. Early writers
4. Dates of early writings

Part 3: Paul

1. Paul's gospel / Paul's Jesus
2. Adam Christology
3. When did Paul live?
4. Moses / Melchizedek

Part 4: Doherty's World of Myth

1. Metaphysics 101
2. In the flesh
3. World of Myth
4. Born of Woman
5. Review of Doherty's references
6. Plutarch
7. Carrier's review of TJP

I am looking forward to it.

If you need someone to review to make sure that it is all it can be before it is released for public consumption, then send it to Toto.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 08:50 AM

Holy Ravioli! What an idea. Toto would circle everything in red ink, and write "But what are your MOTIVES for writing that?" and then say "Wait for Richard Carrier's book."

I don't think it will be read by anyone except those who are already convinced that Doherty has major issues with his theories, but that's okay. It'll be my closing statement on the subject, I think. I hope it will be a reference for those interested in studying early metaphysics, at the least.

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Holy Ravioli! What an idea. Toto would circle everything in red ink, and write "But what are your MOTIVES for writing that?" and then say "Wait for Richard Carrier's book."

I don't think it will be read by anyone except those who are already convinced that Doherty has major issues with his theories, but that's okay. It'll be my closing statement on the subject, I think. I hope it will be a reference for those interested in studying early metaphysics, at the least.

Cool. It is very much needed, and I could use it, because the only existing reviews of Doherty out there seem to be Biblicist Christian reviews, and they tend to leave out explanations that may reflect negatively on Paul or Jesus or the canon, though they can be useful to a limited extent. It is the same problem that exists for most existing criticisms of mythicism. The apologists love to write criticisms, but the secular scholarship does not.

<removed>

maryhelena · 06-19-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, according to your interpretation, reading Paul for Paul, one can get a "broad sketch of Jesus' life".

Yes. Which points that I present do you disagree with?

Yes. Which points that I present do you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That is trying to tease history out of theology - a sure fire way to take a magic carpet ride....

Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...

No way - my feet are squarely on terra firma - magic carpet rides are not my thing at all....

Which point do I disagree with - your statement that you can "get (a) broad sketch of Jesus' life" - from reading Paul as Paul. All you produced are quotations from a theological based source. Your going to need a magic wand to transform Paul's spiritual Jesus construct into a Jesus that had a historical, a human, component i.e. flesh and blood.

Toto · 06-19-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

GakuseiDon seems to have made something of a good point--Paul knew nothing about the New Testament canon, including the gospels, because the canon didn't exist.

It's more like: if you discount the Gospels as containing much history, or verifiable history, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Gospel details that are missing in Paul are a reflection on Paul. . .

If you discount the gospels as containing any history, you have nothing left as a base for your historical Jesus. Paul's Jesus is a shadowy figure that cannot be tied to any historical period. You are left postulating that there was a historical Jesus who left no historical footprints, but somehow inspired others to found Christianity.

Quote:

I suggest that the first step is reading Paul for Paul without using Gospel details at all. If we do, we can get a broad sketch of Jesus' life:

Jesus was born a Jew:

Romans 9:3
...

Jesus was a descendent of David:

Rom 1:3
...

These points are the same point - that Jesus is connected to the Jews. But when was he born? Was he actually born? :huh:

Quote:

Jesus did not please himself (sounds like he could have done something different):

Rom 15:3
For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

This is not a detail of his life - it is a general statement derived from Hebrew Scripture.

Quote:

Jesus was 'rich' but became 'poor' by choice:

2Cr 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

The only version of the historical Jesus that pictures him starting out as rich is James Tabor's. If Jesus was rich, he was not an obscure Jewish peasant who would escape notice of the pagan writers of the time.

Quote:

Jesus knew no sin:

2Cr 5:21
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Do you think this is historical or theological?

Quote:

Jesus suffered:

Rom 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Historical or theological?

Quote:

On the night he was delivered up to the rulers of the age for crucifixion, he shared bread:

1Cr 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was delivered up took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

You are reading the gospels into this if you read it to say that he was delivered up to Pilate. But a case can be made for this as interpolation.

Quote:

Jesus death was 'righteous':

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Jesus was appointed "Son of God" by the resurrection, according to the Spirit:

Rom 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Wait a minute - are you seriously claiming that the Resurrection is historical??

Quote:

Jesus was resurrected a short time before Paul wrote:

1 Cor 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming

This says nothing about when Jesus lived. If you think he lived up until 3 days before his [unhistorical] Resurrection, you are again reading the gospels into Paul.

Quote:

As almost a summary of much of the above: Jesus made himself of no reputation, came as a servant and humbled himself, became obedient unto death, and earned the name "Lord" ...

Historical or theological??

ETA: in short, when you give up the gospel Jesus, you are left with a mere claim that there was a person who was crucified (actually? metaphoricall?) at some undefined time, and then Christianity started. You are 90% of the way to giving up any identifiable historical Jesus and on your way to mythicism.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. It is very much needed, and I could use it, because the only existing reviews of Doherty out there seem to be Biblicist Christian reviews, and they tend to leave out explanations that may reflect negatively on Paul or Jesus or the canon, though they can be useful to a limited extent.

Actually, this is something that I point out in my review: Doherty seems to deal with an orthodox Christian vew rather than a secular scholarly one. This is a sneak preview from my draft review of his "Jesus: Neither God nor Man":

Quote:

A final example: Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early writings. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and “critical scholarship, which has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty continues to refer to Gospel details that are missing in Paul, as though it impacts on the reliability of Paul:

Page 65

The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God.

I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, especially given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism, which we see in Mark.

In fact, Doherty sometimes appears to be arguing more against Christian apologists than against critical scholarship. He often brings up arguments by apologists (e.g. “Apologists place crucial importance on this passage, and it usually involves some form of special pleading” (page 76)), and I have to wonder: why? If the argument is bad, why not present the viewpoint of critical scholarship? And if the argument is good, what does it matter whether it is used by apologists or not?

The impression I gathered reading through JNGNM is that for Doherty addressing critical scholarship is less of a concern than addressing modern conservative Christian views of the Bible. That would be fine if the purpose of JNMNG was to critic modern conservative Christian views. But if Doherty wants his book to be taken seriously by critical scholarship as a new paradigm in which to understand Christian origins, I don't see the need for examining apologetic arguments, if there are better ones available.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Which point do I disagree with - your statement that you can "get (a) broad sketch of Jesus' life" - from reading Paul as Paul. All you produced are quotations from a theological based source. Your going to need a magic wand to transform Paul's spiritual Jesus construct into a Jesus that had a historical, a human, component i.e. flesh and blood.

Wouldn't Paul's statement that Jesus was a descendent of David "according to the flesh" do this? What do you think it means?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2010, 08:50 AM	#35
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Holy Ravioli! What an idea. Toto would circle everything in red ink, and write "But what are your MOTIVES for writing that?" and then say "Wait for Richard Carrier's book." I don't think it will be read by anyone except those who are already convinced that Doherty has major issues with his theories, but that's okay. It'll be my closing statement on the subject, I think. I hope it will be a reference for those interested in studying early metaphysics, at the least.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.