Roland

I think this site makes a compelling case for Doherty's argument that the information contained in Mark is largely fictitious. Much of his argument rests on the fact that the biographical details of Jesus' life are slow to show up in the written record. That is exactly - in graphic detail - what the info. on this site shows.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...ity/Table.html

Metacrock

Meta=>biographical details can be slow to show up for a lot of reasons. That's not proof that he didn't exist.

my beef with Doherty is not just that he doesn't believe the Gosples. the following points are the ones that drive me up the wall:


1) That Jesus didn't exist.

2) That he was thought of as an etherial being until the second centruy


3) that Paul didn't believe in a flesh and blood Jesus

4) invents his own brand of Gnosticism based upon Neo Platonism and Alexandrian christianity of three centuries latter


I looked over the site. I don't see that it adds anything new to the discussion. Another thing that bothers me is that Doherty is flying in the face of the vast conensus of scholarship in all fields relivant; history, textual criticism, biblical theology, archaeology, ect. His groupies act like he's some great authority himself, when in fact he has credentials in the field and no one in the field will give him the time of day. Now i think he's bright and learned, but he's not an authority.

that about does it.

Vorkosigan

What consensus from archaeology does Doherty ignore?

What text critical consensus does Doherty ignore?

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

Meta =>The Real Scholarly community: academics, professors, people who teach in universities. Those who publish in the scholarly journals and who go to conferences. Ph.D's. These are the real scholars. Almost none of them accept the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Most of them would see Doherty's theory as a crack pot conspiracy theory.



In Fact, Martin Smith, who himself is regarded as a crack pot by many (because, he is the one who discovered secret Mark, and there is a question about fabrication) even he has said (of WElls) that the theory is not worth wasting time refutting.

lpetrich

Metacrock, have you asked them?

And what archeological consensus is contrary to Earl Doherty's views? Seriously.

Vinnie

My own attempted refutation of material like that:

http://www.acfaith.com/marcaninvention.html

Vinnie