David Bowden

Richard Carrier has posted his in-depth review of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle.

For those who've already read Doherty, plan to read him, or who might have been persuaded against reading him for whatever reason, please check out Carrier's article, which goes into the good and the bad aspects of JP's argument against the Historical Jesus.

Carrier's conclusions, at the very least, ought to be read and considered by anyone who's bought into the notion of Doherty as "amateur and therefore unreliable."

I think that the whole article is fair in its criticism both of Doherty and of Doherty's critics (who as Carrier points out, routinely miss the mark by attacking straw-man versions of Doherty's actual case).

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml</a>

Great work, Richard.

-Wanderer

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

lpetrich

Whew! I've finished reading it!

It's a long and detailed and IMO excellent discussion of that book; RC points out some interesting differences between early Christian literature and most other literature from the Greco-Roman world, such as a background of extremely vehement ideological conflict and a strong tendency to rewrite and manufacture history.

And as RC points out, the sect that won was not necessarily the "right" one, if any one of the early Christian sects was "right". It was either the luckiest or the most skilled at getting the favor of the Roman authorities.

Vorkosigan

Great work, Richard! Well worth the effort. I hope it stimulates professional interest in taking Doherty seriously.

Vorkosigan

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Toto

I'm bumping this up. Maybe King Arthur will see it.

King Arthur

Yeah, yeah... I'll read it.

I'd never heard of Richard Carrier as a scholar before I stumbled across this website though. I don't know why his acceptance of Doherty's work makes any difference. Judging by the spin in some of Carrier's other articles like his work on the Canon of the NT, I would say that it wouldn't take much for him to agree with Doherty. (He reflected mainly the opinions of Bart Ehrman, using, though ignoring most of the conclusions of other excellent scholars like Metzger). Are we as atheists supposed to find every little way of twisting the facts to make everything about religious texts sound ridiculous? I'd rather be a party to truth for truth's sake.
If Crossan, or Vermes, or some such scholar accepted Jesus mythicism, then I might be more convinced. However, I don't see them crossin' over!

Vorkosigan

Crossan has concluded that current methodologies offer no hope of extracting the HJ from the current data. I suggest you read The Birth of Christianity, specifically the remarks on methodology on p. 149. Although he is not a mythicist -- he believes there was some kind of HJ, as does almost everyone. However, Crossan's methodology, which is rooted in extensive sociological and anthropological analysis, offers no fundamental objection to Doherty's view that Jesus began as a myth.

I can see again that you have failed to offer any substantive and specific objection to Doherty's views. In light of the fact that none of the scholars you've cited can offer them either, I assume then that you are merely asserting your own prejudices. Have you even read The Jesus Puzzle?

Also, I'd like to hear how you became an atheist, Art.

Vorkosigan

RyanS2

Does that mean he is less of a scholar? The remark is confusing, if I'd never heard of Crossan before this website, does that mean he's now not an authority?

Because he is a professional, highly accredited historian. The most common complaint among apologists arguing against the Christ-myth is that they are not historians, and hence, do not understand historiography, and hence, it is prima facia evidence for disregarding the Christ-myth. I've already mentioned one popular Christian apologist, James Holding or Robert Turkell or whatever, whom uses this as a discounting method, in fact, he even mentions Richard Carrier BY NAME as a historian who doesn't believe in the Christ-myth.

Are you insinuating he makes up the stuff he writes? The remark sounds strange, perhaps you didn't intend it to be so.

Do you know the truth? What methods did you use to establish this? Explain your historiographic method, your references, etc. Why does your theory fit better than Doherty's? Just saying "More people agree with my theory" or "I have better scholars" is just using two faulty arguments, argument to the majority and argument to authority. For example, let's use a methodology laid out by Thomas Sowell, "A Conflict of Visions Ideological Origins of Political Struggles", p. 16:

By this, I'm asking what facts do you have which speak against Carrier/Doherty's ideas, and explains more clearly with less assumptions the known data, as tiny as it may be in the case of early Christian history?

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Toto

Carrier addresses all of your issues. He says that Doherty is not part of the academic guild, but that his work is correct. Making it scholarly in the full sense would mean adding more footnotes and some stylistic changes.

He also includes a good discussion of historiography - how historians decide one theory is true, or better than others.

Edited to add: so read it before you criticize it.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

King Arthur

I've read it, thanks. His remarks on methodology are not much different than those of his more religious counterparts like John Meier. In other words, all that is being said is that we just can't know anything for sure. Duh! BTW, if you cite a book, page quotes are good since I'd imagine you doubt I have the book or have read it.

I have read chunks of The Jesus Puzzle. I saw many arguments from silence. I saw many inflated claims. I saw his theories presented almost as fact.

If one actually implemented Carrier's suggestions, Doherty's argument would be much less biased and have much less of an impact on the less learned.

Would you? Oh, goody.

I grew up a Christian. In college, I had problems with the church I was in. It was big, very conservative, and the people were plastic and insincere. At this vulnerable time, a hardened atheist friend at school got ahold of me. He stated much of the same junk I've seen around here and shattered my already fragile belief in God. I didn't know where to go or what to do without God. I hated it. I still hate it.

You know the worst part? I can't say for sure that God doesn't exist. There's no way for me to know. So, in the mean time, I'll spend the rest of my fargin' life wondering whether some stinkin' God has "hardened my heart" so that I just can't see because he thinks I didn't want to!

So, that's what other atheists have given me, Vorkosigan. A wonderful gift. Therefore, I suppose I happen to have some feelings for Christians and other theists. They have a wonderful dream (or at least what seems to *me* like a dream, who really knows).

As a result of all this, I don't by into a lot of atheist spin. I don't agree with a lot of conservative Christian stuff either. I simply want the truth from *someone* if not God him/her/itself!

How's that, Vorkosigan? Did I pass your little litmus test??

Peter Kirby

Is Meier really more religious than Crossan? While there is no doubt that Meier is more conservative and has an imprimatur, I have seen less theology from Meier than I have from Crossan. Meier does not talk about seeing God present in the peasant Jesus rather than the emperor Caesar. Which is not to say that Crossan's religion is unpleasant, only that it is there.

best,
Peter Kirby