Kosh

Nor was Einstein a member of the scientific
community when he started dabbling in physics
as a patent clerk.

</Devils Advocate>

sidewinder

Amos, with all due respect (once again), can I have some of that weed you smoke? It seems like good stuff.

CX

You comparison is both absurd and misinformed. I won't even address the ridiculousness of your comparing Earl Doherty to Albert Einstein. I will however correct the impression you give with the cavalier statement about him "dabbling" in physics. Einstein was obsessed with science and particularly physics from a very young age. He attended secondary school in Switzerland at the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zurich and graduated despite being unpopular with his instructors (mostly for his revolutionary thinking and ideas) and recieved a Doctorate in physics in 1905 from the University of Zürich for a theoretical dissertation on the dimensions of molecules. In that year, while he was as you correctly stated, a patent clerk he published three other theoretical papers one of which entitled, " On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" contained what became known as the special theory of relativity. His general theory (pubished 10 years later & for which he became famous) as well as his work on the photoelectric effect (for which he recieved the Nobel Prize) both occured after he left the pattent office at a point where he was a highly regarded theoretician in the academic community.

"His first academic appointment was in 1909 at the University of Zürich, then in 1911 he moved
to the German-speaking university at Prague, and in 1912 he returned to the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zürich. Finally,he was appointed
director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin in 1913." (Jessica Whitten
© Microsoft Encarta.)

All of this goes to say that comparing Earl Doherty to Albert Einstein is like comparing Peewee Herman to Sir Lawrence Olivier. Earl Doherty is a very intelligent, articulate and well read Dilletante who has achieved some noteriety with his website on a mythological Jesus (and the eventual publication of the material there into some kind of book). He is definitely not, however, a well respected, academically qualified biblical scholar who publishes critical monographs or articles in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies. He's more like ID proponent Phillip E. Johnson than Albert Einstein.

</end rant>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CowboyX:
He is definitely not, however, a well respected, academically qualified biblical scholar who publishes critical monographs or articles in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies. He's more like ID proponent Phillip E. Johnson than Albert Einstein.


Well, Doherty DOES have some kind of graduate training in classical languages, as I recall......while contributions to scientific and scholarly fields by outsiders are rare, it nevertheless does occur. If Doherty were attempting to contribute to a field that is less rife with ideological positioning than NT studies, one might be tempted to dismiss him. But given that NT studies takes ideologues like Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright seriously as scholars, and is dominated by people with faith commitments to the historicity of the largely mythical stories of Jesus, it is hard to take rejection of Doherty's thesis as a serious commentary on the quality of his work.

Michael

Logan

[quote]Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>Where? Was the institution accredited?

Toto

It was probably not a good analogy to compare Doherty to Einstein. A better analogy might be some of the amateur astronomers who are the first to sight new comets, etc. Astronomers with degrees did not refuse to look at the sky because Hale and Bopp didn't have the right "credentials".

NOGO

I agree with what you are saying here but not with the force with which you are saying it.
Einstein was certainly one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. However as a physicist he was honoured to a degree which escapes ALL other physicists. People like Niels Bohr, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Heisenberg, Planck to name but a few, are largely unknown to the general public. Comparison is not my point here but relative credit for contribution is.

But religion is not physics. Seeing the worth of Einstein's contribution to physics is much more evident than any contribution to Biblical studies and FAR LESS subject to arbitrary rejection by the establishment. Einstein is a perfect example since his paper of 1905 was so contrary to established theories.

We probably will never know if people like Earl Doherty who come up with marginally accepted theories are closer to the truth than the religious and/or scholarly establishment.

Vorkosigan

Sorry! Don't remember. He posted his CV to JesusMysteries, though, as I recall. You might be able to track it down there.

Michael

MortalWombat

Again, it depends on how one defines "critical monographs or articles in peer-reviewed journals of biblical studies."

He has published in the Journal of Higher Criticism:

Earl Doherty
"The Puzzling Figure of Jesus in John Dominic Crossan's Birth of Christianity: A Critical Discussion" Journal of Higher Criticism, Fall 1999

Earl Doherty
"The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins " Journal of Higher Criticism, Fall 1997

Here is the editorial board of JHC:

EDITOR: Robert M. Price, Institute for Higher Critical Studies,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Darrell J. Doughty, Drew University

BOARD OF ADVISORS AND CONTRIBUTING EDITORS:

Andres van Aarde, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Margaret Barker, Oakbrook School, England
Hermann Detering, Institute for Higher Critical Studies
Earl Doherty, Institute for Higher Critical Studies
Robert Eisenman, Institute for Jewish-Christian Origins, California State University at Long Beach
Günter Lüling, Institute for Higher Critical Studies
Andrew J. Mattill, Winebrenner Theological Seminary (retired)
Merrill P. Miller, Pembroke State University
Andrew Q. Morton, University of Edinburgh
J. C. O'Neill, University of Edinburgh
Terrence Tice, University of Michigan


for whatever that's worth.

boneyard bill

Turtonm writes:

That's good. I'm not claiming that Mark was written in the Midrashic tradition. I'm suggesting that it was written in the Talmudic tradition. What I borrowed from Goulder was his claim that the descriptions of the Passover celebrations actually describe the feast of Tabernacles. This, in my view, is the strongest evidence that there was a historical event behind Mark's gospel. Why would anyone conflate these two feasts deliberately?

I am disagreeing here with Doherty. I am suggesting that there was an oral tradition behind the gospel of Mark. But what I'm suggesting is that there wouldn't have to have been a whole lot to it. Basically you need a teacher, a violent death, and a resurrection experience by the followers. The Pauline tradition and the Old Testament would have imposed themselves on that oral tradition where most of the details were concerned so that we would have few other details of the oral tradition although I do speculate that Judas may have been the assassin.