Peter Kirby

Toto writes: Peter - I realize you think that it would be interesting to hear a good historicist try to refute Doherty. But that was what I understood Carrier to be doing. Carrier started off assuming that there was a historical Jesus, and ended up deciding that the weight of the evidence lay on the mythicist side (with all the scholarly hedging and provisions.)

I do believe that Carrier at one time held that a HJ was most likely. I am not sure that reading Doherty is what caused an about face, though it might have acted as a sort of confirmation. I got the impression that Carrier was leaning toward the Jesus Myth idea after reading Dennis R. MacDonald and Alvar Ellegard. I do not think that Carrier was trying to show Doherty to be wrong from the outset but rather to create a balanced review.

Toto writes: I gave up discussing Doherty's thesis a while back because I knew that Carrier was reviewing Doherty's work, and that this review would be more useful than anything I could do. I figured that if there were any basic flaw in Doherty's thesis, Carrier would let us know, and we would move on to some other topic.

I don't see either "side" on this topic giving up the ghost any time soon.

Often, the judgment of whether there is a basic flaw in a position will vary from expert to expert. Certainly, Carrier would have noted any very significant errors of fact, but basic flaws are just as often errors of method instead of errors of fact, which can be difficult to point out as errors to the satisfaction of everyone. If Carrier (like Doherty - who is also astute as a scholar) did not perceive an important argument as containing a methodological error, then it is possible that such a potential error would not come forth in Carrier's review. (I do not have any particular alleged error in mind--I am just responding to the idea that Carrier would have seen all the possible flaws.)

Toto writes: I don't think that the late dating of Luke is very important for Doherty's thesis. If Layman thinks so, he hasn't read enough of Doherty.

I agree with this. (Although, an extremely early date for Acts would mess up Doherty's timeline.)

Toto writes: Most of the Christian authors I have read (tending toward the liberal side) admit that there is not very much secular evidence for Jesus' existence, but seem to be content to grab at a few straws and fill in the rest by faith. I can't see any of them upsetting that delicate balance by actually taking a hard look at the evidence. It's like those quotes you cited from Crossan on methodology. He said he wasn't interested in the subject of the historical Jesus. He admitted that most of the evidence could be attacked as fraud or forgery, implying that nothing could be proven anyway.

If nothing can be proven on the matter, that is worth knowing too. (It is worth mentioning that Doherty does think that there is sufficient evidence for the affirmation of a Jesus myth theory.) I am not sure that Crossan was saying that the evidence is insufficient for a historian but rather that, as a matter of course, a certain approach to the evidence could end up marginalizing what evidence exists for polemical purposes. (Not that I was satisfied with Crossan's reponse.)

Toto writes: Besides, what exactly would you be arguing for? If there was some shadowy, basically unknown and unknowable figure who started the Christian movement before Paul came along, maybe 100 BC, would this qualify as a refutation?

I have been tossing around the word "refutation" without much consideration to its nuances. Certainly an orthodox Christian would consider a review of Doherty's work to be a refutation because such a person would argue for much more than "some shadowy, basically unknown and unknowable figure" -- perhaps an 80% synoptic gospel Jesus, to pull a number out of my arse. So it is appropriate to call such a fundamental rejection of the Jesus myth theory that would posit a super-sized Jesus to be nothing other than an attempted refutation.

If I were the person who wrote the thing, it would be a review and not a "refutation" with the heresy-hunting that the latter word implies. If I did write something (in addition to my 2000 review <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/jesuspuzzle.html" target="_blank">here</a>), it would be an overview of the evidence and a statement of the conclusions that can be drawn, without worrying about whether such conclusions support or refute Doherty's theories. But I do have a lot of other things that I am doing right now and so would not be willing to undertake such a huge project on my own--certainly I would not want to botch it up and do a poor job, as that would help noone and discredit myself.

That is why I have been asking if anyone else would like to attempt a critical review of Doherty's ideas. I would be able to provide hosting and proofreading for any substantive and historically-based discussion of Doherty's work. I am interested in doing this because I think that Doherty's case has many virtues and should be discussed.

best,
Peter Kirby

Gregg

I disagree. Scientists and laypersons who respond to creationist claims actually demonstrate why those claims are false or poorly reasoned, and provide evidence and arguments for the theory of evolution. I've yet to see an attack on Doherty's Jesus-myth theory that consists of a point-by-point rebuttal, demonstrating the flaws in each area of his argument and making a persuasive case, via evidence and logical argument, for the existence of Jesus.

<strong> You probably meant Dembski and Behe, eh?

Well, I definitely wouldn't say that scientists take them seriously because of the "force" of their arguments. They have but one argument--the argument from personal incredulity ("I just can't see how the cell could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed.")

Their standing in the academic community probably does play into the level of response, but you left out another, very important factor--the widespread dissemination of their theory via their books and the popular press, and the fact that a number of well-funded organizations are attempting to get it taught in science classrooms even when not a single paper has been published about it in any scientific journal (Doherty, incidentally, has actually published his theory in the Journal of Higher Criticism). This serious, immediate threat to the integrity of science education obviously demands attention and a forceful response.

A couple of other points...I question trying to draw a parallel between the scientific community's response to ID and the response (such as it is so far) of Bible and historical scholars to Doherty. It seems to me there is a different dynamic at work here, and that in the field of Bible and historical scholarship--not exactly the purest of sciences--you're more likely to see confessional interests, subjectivity, fear of "rocking the boat," etc. coming into play. A consensus that "Jesus probably existed" is a "safe" consensus, less likely to draw ire from major funding sources.

Also, I think in another post you said something like "am I supposed to rebut every non-scholarly ahistoricist case that comes down the pike?" Well, no, but I would say that Doherty's case qualifies as an exception. He has, as I said, been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (which is more than can be said for Dembski and Behe) and his work has been praised by at least a few respected scholars, such as Robert M. Price.

Gregg

Bede

Peter,

I would love to review Doherty using historical methods but I would be wasting my time. Despite getting good marks at school, I am assumed to be incapable of scholarly work due to my religion even though I have almost never attempted apologetics on any discussion board here or anywhere else.

Even so, godfry, one of the JM boards dishonest moderators, rubbished my Alexandria work (which was praised by my supervisor among others) simply because I was an apologist. My methods essay, given a distinction by a senior secular professor, was described as garbage by Vork.

Given this reaction, plus the fact that we are banned from boards like JM simply for sticking to mainstream theories, is it a surprise that those of us who happen to be Christians do not bother put huge amounts of work into something simply to see it dismissed as apologetics? The only reason I would do Doherty would be for school where I could expect to get credit if I deserved it but addressing pop theories is the kiss of death in a Masters. One fellow student was savagely marked down for referencing to non-academic sources.

You, CX and others could help change this by coming down hard every time a headbanger claimed so and so should be disbelieved because they are theists and keeping a level playing field, but I cannot really see that happening. Until Dohertys fans start to show a little more maturity and stop lying about people, I doubt his opponents will bother spend weeks refuting him.

Yours

Bede... who is really, really angry right now.

Amen-Moses

Ah but you are beautiful when you're angry.

Amen-Moses

Steven Carr

Your methods essay was very good. Best thing you've written in my inexpert opinion.


If you can back up your back up your claim that Michael Grant is an atheist, that would go a long way to refuting charges that certain people are lying about certain others.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Bede

"Your methods essay was very good. Best thing you've written in my inexpert opinion."

Thanks.

"If you can back up your back up your claim that Michael Grant is an atheist, that would go a long way to refuting charges that certain people are lying about certain others."

From Germany that will be hard. I first read it in Holding and reserved judgement and then saw it somewhere else and thought I could go to press. Forgotten the somewhere else but I am keeping an eye out.

B

Steven Carr

I'm not saying your are deliberately lying. Please don't think that. I'm just curious about your claim, and I also think, that if you are going to imply that sceptics should believe X because X is a Y, it is hard to complain about sceptics who reject what A says because A is a B.

Actually, it is easy to complain! Sceptics should not reject what a theist says simply because they are theists.

Gregg

Bede, suppose scientists all waited until all creationists and IDers started to "show a little more maturity" before they bothered stating the case for evolution and addressing creationist/ID arguments. Given all that they have to deal with, they'd certainly be justified in picking up their toys and going home, but they just keep plugging away, on the T.O. site and elsewhere.

Besides, who said that JM is the only forum where you can present your case? You can create your own forum or Web site, say anything you want on it, and moderate the discussion/feedback, if you offer this option, to your heart's content. And you don't even have to do all the work yourself--you can invite all your fellow historicists to pitch in.

You almost make it sound like historicism is the beleagured, minority position, not the mainstream, "consensus" position it is. Sorry, but you're (meaning historicists in general) the top dog here, and if you want to stay there you may have to be prepared to get into a scrap or two. Evolution is a mainstream, consensus theory in the scientific community, and many scientists think it's absurd that they should have to defend it over and over and over again, but some of them do it anyway.

Gregg

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

Gregg

Thought I was editing my previous post, not replying to it...

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Why should you be angry? Perhaps because that chip on your shoulder keeps hitting you in the eye? <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000343&p=" target="_blank">Here is what I actually said</a>:

I respect the effort you put into this piece, but for crying out loud, Bede. You've questioned our sanity, called us creationists, wrongheaded and a hundred other terms. And then you give us this stuff that is easily shown to be inadequate to the task at hand, as Crossan has already shown in a landmark work that explores this very topic (a fact not mentioned in your essay, as I recall).

Nowhere else in that thread do I refer to your work as "garbage." This comment was made when, about what and in what context?

Vorkosigan

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>