Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 09-19-2002, 05:16 PM

Yes, Doherty is a Jesus Myther. But this quote, about which your are very much vexed

Quote:

"They are constructing careful and elaborate pieces of symbolism, and story lines will be crafted, details invented, sources altered, to create that theological or educational statement. It is important to make ourselves aware of this, and to counter the naivete that is regularly brought to these documents which appeals to an analysis of their content as though they represent a log of actual happenings, down to the smallest detail."

is very much in line with mainstream NT scholarship. The only real difference between Doherty and most NT scholars is that the latter believes that the gospels are mostly myth, while Doherty believes it is all myth. A significant difference, I'll grant you, but Doherty is an extension of, not a radical departure from, present-day NT scholarship.

And please, I am not saying Doherty is right. I'm saying your characterizations of his arguments are so off-the-wall that you are only discrediting yourself.

Family Man · 09-19-2002, 05:40 PM

Here is an example of what Doherty (and other mainstream scholars) are talking about. Here is Mark's version of Jesus's Baptism:

Quote:

It happened at this time that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and as baptized in the Jordan by John. At the moment when he came up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice spoke from heaven: "Thou art my son, my Beloved, on thee my favour rests."

Now the same episode from Matthew:

Quote:

Then Jesus arrived at the Jordan from Galilee, and came to John to be baptized by him. John tried to dissuade him, "Do you come to me?", he said. "I need rather be baptized by you." Jesus replied, "Let it be so for the present; we do well to conform in this way with all that God requires." John allowed him to come. After baptism Jesus came up out of the water at once, and at that moment heaven opened; he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove to alight upon him; and a voice from heaven was heard saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favor rests"

Note the similarities between the two accounts: Jesus comes to John for baptism, the heavens open, a dove-like Spirit descends, Jesus is praised by God. But also note the differences. Here's how Stephen Harris, in his standard college text Understanding the Bible (p.386), analyzes the passage. Though certainly not a Jesus Myther, note how his analysis follows exactly the same tack as Doherty's:

Quote:

In comparing the two accounts of Jesus' baptism, the reader will note that Matthew inserts a speech by John into the Markan narrative. Recognizing Jesus as "mighter" than himself, John is reluctant to baptize him. By giving John this speech, Matthew is able to stress Jesus' superiority to the Baptist. Matthew also changes the nature of Jesus' experience of the "Spirit" after his baptism. In Mark, the heavenly voice is addressed directly to Jesus and apparently represents Jesus' own private mystical experience of divine sonship at the event. Mathew changes "thou art", intended for Jesus' ears, to "this is", making the divine voice a public declaration heard by the crowds. (Emphasis added)

Let's see:
sources altered? Check
details invented? Check
theological points made? Check

Exactly the same as Doherty's point of view in that famous quote of yours, but from a mainstream NT text. That's not to say that Doherty is right that there never was a Jesus, but on this issue Doherty is right with mainstream NT scholars.

I'm afraid, Radoth, is that in attempting to smear Doherty all you have done is to paint yourself as a crackpot. Next time, try producing an argument insteading of going directly to character assassination.

Vorkosigan · 09-19-2002, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
<strong>This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying. This means that for the basic story of Jesus' life and death we are dependent on a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark.

He says "LIFE AND DEATH." It is not I who extended it, and while I should not have applied the term "slavishly copied" to the whole story, ED doesn't seem to believe much different, and now says even John's story of Jesus' "life and death" is copied from earlier accounts, so he is not independent. We know this because one or two scholars think so. No evidence, no nothing. Just assertions like "is thought to have been.." Innuendo must suffice for the skeptics here.

To put teeth in his bogus theory he starts talking about how even Q went through many changes, redactions, etc. When did this start? In 75 CE? First he tells us the fist Gospel was written very late, about 80, then tells us there were all kinds of changes and redactions made to earlier accounts. Man those guys were on one tight schedule. In fact, the Mormons are starting to look pretty slow on the draw.

Radorth

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</strong>

Actually, to a certain extent, I agree with the thinking behind of this analysis, though not its churlish tone or shallow misrepresentation of Doherty's thinking. I agree with Doherty that GJohn is clearly dependent on the Synoptic storyline, but The Jesus Puzzle would have been greatly strengthened had it presented the arguments and the scholars who supported them (many scholars, Radorth, not just one or two). I realize that would have lengthened the book, but I do not see that as a negative. One aspect Doherty's book lacks is this sort of thoroughgoing review, with the exception of Q, where he provides much more material. This gives it a sort of triumphalist tone I do not like. Carrier identified this as a problem in his review.

To put teeth in his bogus theory he starts talking about how even Q went through many changes, redactions, etc. When did this start?

The idea that Q comes in layers has been around for quite some time, Radorth, so I am a little surprised that you are unaware of it. See Mack's The Lost Gospel for an accessible summary, although I thought Doherty's was quite clear.

Vorkosigan

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.