Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 04-27-2008, 10:45 AM

Earl Doherty is an expert at pointing out various silences in the literature which he interprets as significant and supportive of his theory of the non-human Jesus. In various threads here we've hashed out his arguments and presented counter arguments, etc..

I think it might be instructive to make a comprehensive list of the many silences or unlikely interpretations that his theory requires in order to be true. For example, Doherty's Paul wrote about a Jesus who was understood by Paul's readers to have not really lived on earth or been a person of flesh. Yet, Paul doesn't explicity refer to this "other sphere" in any clear way when talking about Jesus's life prior to the crucifixion. This to me is a GLARING silence. He also seems quite silent with regard to his references to Jesus as a "man" and "in the flesh" and the "seed of Abraham", being of the Jewish "race", and all of the non-orthodox interpretations that his theory requires of those references. Those are the kinds of things I'd like to get a list of. Once we have a comprehensive list, we can the perhaps be able to match up the significant silences of the literature that are unsupportive of his theory with the silences of the literature that are supportive of his theory.

Does anyone think this is a good idea who would like to share in this exercise?

ted

Toto · 04-27-2008, 10:58 AM

First of all, you would have to understand Doherty at least as well as Doherty understands the NT.

If you did, you would know that Doherty has a list of the positive indications in Paul and other early Christian writers that his Jesus did not exist on earth. Why don't you start there?

In addition, the NT has been in the editorial hands of people who accepted a Jesus who lived on earth and was crucified under Pontius Pilate as a matter of doctrine, and have had control of the text. This by itself could explain some possible silences, don't you think?

TedM · 04-27-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

First of all, you would have to understand Doherty at least as well as Doherty understands the NT.

I don't get that. If Pauls doesn't mention something, then he doesn't mention it. It is a whole other matter if one wants to say that "flesh" doesn't really mean "flesh", or that he says Jesus was in the line of David because that's what scriptures say as opposed to common knowledge, or other such claims. A silence is a silence no matter what the possible reason for it might be.

Quote:

If you did, you would know that Doherty has a list of the positive indications in Paul and other early Christian writers that his Jesus did not exist on earth. Why don't you start there?

Because that has nothing to do with the topic. That's a different issue. When Doherty says that Paul never talks about John the Baptist, for example, one simply can't refute that by mentioning some positive indication that Paul knew of him via his knowledge of baptism and it's connection to being sons of God, or some such argument.

Quote:

In addition, the NT has been in the editorial hands of people who accepted a Jesus who lived on earth and was crucified under Pontius Pilate as a matter of doctrine, and have had control of the text. This by itself could explain some possible silences, don't you think?

Just as one could argue that such interpolations didn't occur because they left so many unusual silences, like not naming Mary as his mother in Galations 4. But again that is an entirely different issue.

Until we really get a sense of the magnitude of the silences on both sides of the issue, we can be unduly influenced by Doherty's lists of silences. Why not balance things out and list the silences that actually argue AGAINST his theory too? Isn't anyone here willing to think outside the Doherty box?

ted

Toto · 04-27-2008, 09:19 PM

Doherty's theory is not based on simple silences, but on silences where one would expect to find some mention of the details of a historical Jesus.

If you think you can just balance this out with some other silences, I am afraid you don't understand enough about the box you are in.

Ted Hoffman · 04-27-2008, 11:10 PM

TedM, I remember your remorse some years ago when you overeached yourself and got burnt when you were criticizing Doherty's Top 20 Silences. In your words, you "ventured into [an unfamiliar] territory with such unsupported confidence"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I was careless, and it was absolutely irresponsible. I'm truly sorry, and embarrassed. I deserve to feel foolish, and I do. I apologize to you Earl, to TedH, and to all readers here.

What happened was I jumped to some inaccurate conclusions based on what I had read about Philo from your site just this morning. I clearly should have stuck to the main topic here and not allowed myself to get off course on the positive elements for your thesis. I should have remembered that I am not qualified to critique the positive evidences for your thesis, and not have ventured into that territory with such unsupported confidence in my attempts to support the argument at hand.

I need to stick with what I have looked at, and it is the writings you have referenced for your Top 20. Any "discoveries" while reviewing the Top 20 are limited to just those items, and in no way make me an expert or scholar on the Top 20, and of course they don't make me any more qualified to address other topics that I have not studied either. I'm not a scholar. I'm an amateur who was just curious about how valid those 20 most critical silences might be. The review may have a few new ideas to some, but I see it more as a primer for those who wish to look into the subject more closely...Thanks for setting me straight Earl, and helping me to be a lot more careful in the future.

Presumably, you are wiser and more careful this time. I only have two questions for you before we engage in your latest attempts at rebutting Doherty:
1. Have you got Doherty's book?
2. Have you read and understood it?

Solitary Man · 04-28-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty's theory is not based on simple silences, but on silences where one would expect to find some mention of the details of a historical Jesus.

If you think you can just balance this out with some other silences, I am afraid you don't understand enough about the box you are in.

How does Doherty come up with the expectation?

TedM · 04-28-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty's theory is not based on simple silences, but on silences where one would expect to find some mention of the details of a historical Jesus.

If you think you can just balance this out with some other silences, I am afraid you don't understand enough about the box you are in.

Doherty's theory isn't just about a missing human Jesus. He substitutes for that his own version of a Jesus in the parallel universe. That's what I'm addressing here. If there was such a belief in early Christianity about Jesus, then we might expect to find MANY THINGS that would support that kind of Jesus. I think it is a helpful to do what Doherty does: Conjure up and examine all of the possible silences that one might expect would not exist for this "Jesus in the skies" that he proposes was the universal early Christian paradigm written about by Paul, and the other earlist epistle writers.

IF we can't find much in the way of such silences, then that only should strengthen Doherty's theory.

ted

TedM · 04-28-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

TedM, I remember your .....

Thanks for throwing that back in my face, Ted. Real nice of you.

It's irrelevant to this thread. Move on if you can't deal with the actual topic here.

BTW you gave up on the first silence you half-heartedly tried to critique, after I responded to you. Feel free to revive that one too!

ted

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-28-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

First of all, you would have to understand Doherty at least as well as Doherty understands the NT.

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to give us (a) the specific criteria that you have used to determine that Doherty -- whom you've previously labeled as an amateur - does indeed understand the NT "well" and (b) the ones you would or do employ to say whether or not others do understand the NT "at least as well as", let alone "better" than, Doherty allegedly does.

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-28-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

First of all, you would have to understand Doherty at least as well as Doherty understands the NT.

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to give us (a) the specific criteria that you have used to determine that Doherty -- whom you've previously labeled as an amateur - does indeed understand the NT "well" and (b) the ones you would or do employ to say whether or not others do understand the NT "at least as well as", let alone "better" than, Doherty allegedly does.

Jeffrey

There is nothing in my question that states or implies that Doherty has anything beyond an educated amateur's understanding of the NT, is there?

04-27-2008, 10:45 AM	#1
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Arguments from Silence against Doherty's Jesus Puzzle Earl Doherty is an expert at pointing out various silences in the literature which he interprets as significant and supportive of his theory of the non-human Jesus. In various threads here we've hashed out his arguments and presented counter arguments, etc.. I think it might be instructive to make a comprehensive list of the many silences or unlikely interpretations that his theory requires in order to be true. For example, Doherty's Paul wrote about a Jesus who was understood by Paul's readers to have not really lived on earth or been a person of flesh. Yet, Paul doesn't explicity refer to this "other sphere" in any clear way when talking about Jesus's life prior to the crucifixion. This to me is a GLARING silence. He also seems quite silent with regard to his references to Jesus as a "man" and "in the flesh" and the "seed of Abraham", being of the Jewish "race", and all of the non-orthodox interpretations that his theory requires of those references. Those are the kinds of things I'd like to get a list of. Once we have a comprehensive list, we can the perhaps be able to match up the significant silences of the literature that are unsupportive of his theory with the silences of the literature that are supportive of his theory. Does anyone think this is a good idea who would like to share in this exercise? ted

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

04-27-2008, 10:58 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	First of all, you would have to understand Doherty at least as well as Doherty understands the NT. If you did, you would know that Doherty has a list of the positive indications in Paul and other early Christian writers that his Jesus did not exist on earth. Why don't you start there? In addition, the NT has been in the editorial hands of people who accepted a Jesus who lived on earth and was crucified under Pontius Pilate as a matter of doctrine, and have had control of the text. This by itself could explain some possible silences, don't you think?

04-27-2008, 09:19 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Doherty's theory is not based on simple silences, but on silences where one would expect to find some mention of the details of a historical Jesus. If you think you can just balance this out with some other silences, I am afraid you don't understand enough about the box you are in.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.