GreggLD1

I refuse to read his stuff anymore, much less respond to it. It's chock full of bald-faced lies, half-truths, and distortions.

Gregg

Tercel

Sorry, my bad.

I was thinking primarily of his explanation of the evolution of the gospels. eg his assertions about how Mark was meant allegorically. His assertions about the degree of Matthew and Lukes reliance on Mark. His assertions about the non-existence of independent traditions. His assertions about the entirely fictional nature of the redactions. His assertions about John's complete dependence on Mark.
Every single one of which as far as I know contradicts the majority scholarly view on the subject, and some of these assertions find virtually no support even among the most liberal scholars.

Ironically, that last sentence would in my opinion serve as an adequate description of Doherty's presentation of his thesis in his 5 main articles.
Perhaps it's just me though - one of the things I value in the presentation of an argument is the clear separation of fact from hypothesis from opinion in such a way as to leave the reader in no doubt of the actual facts and capable of deciding the case themselves. Doherty's style merges the three without distinction and I found this method of presentation extremely irksome.

Iasion

Greetings,

Radorth wrote :
Hmmm...
This comment shows you have no idea what Earl's argument is - I suggest you go read his work.


What?
Titus was FORGED in the early-mid 2nd century (as Ignatius may have been). Much of Paul's alleged writings were actually deliberate FORGERIES, like many other early works of Christianity.

This comment shows you are ignorant of the background, and/or following in the tradition of Christian lieing.


Acts was unknown until mid 2nd century. Attribution to Luke is conjecture. This comment shows you are ignorant of the evidence.

Furthermore,
Earl does NOT argue "conspiracy" - his use of the phrase "Conspiracy of SIlence" is IRONY, as many have pointed out to you numerous times - yet you still think he argues conspiracies!

This comment shows you have not read Earl's work, or simply cannot understand English properly.


But there is NO evidence it was common knowledge! You merely assume this as your starting point.

And,
once the Gospels HAVE come to light, Christian writers repeat endlessly, ad nauseum, the same common knowledge that they totally FAIL to mention before then.

Your comment amounts to special pleading - you are merely arguing from faith, not evidence.


In sum Radorth, your posts are :

• ignorant and/or false
• irrational
• rude and insulting
• based on faith.

Quentin

Tercel

Er, as I understand it, it's generally agreed that Titus is late 1st century.
Your use of the word "forgery" isn't very charitable either.
Your idea that Ignatius' letters may be forgeries is new to me. Who theorised that and on what grounds?

Your comment that Acts was unknown till then is also conjecture. A lack of mention in extant documents does not equate to "unknown".

This is not true as Doherty's article on the "silence" of the 2nd century apologists demonstrates. Doherty accepts a late 1st century dating for the gospels, accepts Ignatius' letters which show belief in the HJ to be standard across Asia Minor by c107AD: And yet a half century later Doherty can still find these same "silences" in the writings of the Christian apologists.

Radorth

I did read it and he says (or implys so no one will doubt) that if there was a Jesus as described in the Gospels, we would find Paul talking more about the miracles, crucifixion, etc. of the Gospels. He also "says" the Gospels were written after Paul's letters, and implys that Paul invented Jesus through visions, etc. . I don't know how you could read it any other way.

Fine Toto, I will edit out my questions about Q. My point stands that Paul's letters make no sense without a historical Jesus, as described by the Gospels, and that there could have been all sorts of info about Jesus, verbal and written lost to us. In fact it is more likely than not, based on Lukes opening assertion. (Yet another lie, I suppose) Hebrews makes no sense either, whoever wrote it. And I am hardly the only person who has ever asserted such.

Rad

Iasion

Greetings Vinnie,

Thanks for your comments

Er, as I understand it, it's generally agreed that Titus is late 1st century

I disagree, and so do others -
( from http://home.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html )

Mack, Page 206:

Remsberg, Page 41:
Robertson, Page 129:

Till

Your use of the word "forgery" isn't very charitable either.

Not charitable maybe, but true - it is generally agreed Titus (and the other Pastorals) was not written by Paul, yet they are explictly written in his name - this is the very DEFINITION of forgery.


Your idea that Ignatius' letters may be forgeries is new to me. Who theorised that and on what grounds?

Well, the claim goes way back -

The 1911 Encyclopedia :

Dr Mike Conley has a fascinating view on the forging of Ignatius - I recommend this site to skeptics :
Conley on Ignatius etc.


Your comment that Acts was unknown till then is also conjecture. A lack of mention in extant documents does not equate to "unknown".

There is no evidence of any Christian writer knowing Acts till mid 2nd century, even when it is in context - the evidence we have now argues that Acts was unknown, because it was un-mentioned in the first few DOZEN documents of Christianity.

The conjecture is YOURS - that Acts WAS known but was not mentioned - there is NO evidence for this view - its just like the silly idea that Paul did mention details of HJ, but somehow we only have the documents which DON'T - mere special pleading of an apologetic kind.


Ignatius' letters which show belief in the HJ to be standard across Asia Minor by c107AD:


No it doesn't.

These letters were unknown to any Christians till a few decades later at least, and they do NOT show HJ belief to be widespread - they show ONE PERSON who believed in a HJ TRYING to CONVINCE others, rather as if the idea is NOVEL :


Ignatius specifically warns against those who speak at variance with Iesous Christos - i.e. he is arguing against Christians who DON'T accept his views.

Ignatius emphasises :
truly born...
truly persecuted under Pilate...
truly crucified...
truly raised from the dead...

This is clearly the language of someone trying to argue against those who DON'T agree - those who DON'T beleive that Iesous was "truly born ... persecuted ... crucified ... died ... raised".

Ignatius is the FIRST to clearly show any of these beliefs, there is no evidence that this view was widespread.


And yet a half century later Doherty can still find these same "silences" in the writings of the Christian apologists.

There is a clear trajectory of belief :

1st century - no clear reference to HJ
early 2nd century - some fragments of the HJ story
mid 2nd century - HJ belief battles with spiritual Iesous belief
late 2nd century - vast explosion of references to HJ and the Gospels

The first 1/2 or so of the 2nd century shows BOTH arguments for a HJ, as well as documents whihc have NO mention of HJ - such non-HJ writings can be found even in mid or late 2nd century - so?

This merely shows the debate between the HJ and spritual J took much of the 2nd century to settle.


Quentin

Radorth

Well yeah, faith that 300 people didn't spend 50 years making up stories, lying, redacting, editing, and burning every piece of evidence everywhere in the world that proves they did. I also have faith the apostles (or even later "forgers") had absolutely nothing to gain except pain and suffering from their supposed fables. Do tell us why a popular, well-to-do Pharisee named Paul, decided to carry his fables all over the world, go to jail, be beaten and starved, and make tents for a living. So how is my faith any more irrational than Doherty's?

And you know, he doesn't even bother to tell us how the apostles (or even later forgers) managed to do all this without one of thousands of apostates in the 2nd century saying "They made it up." He doesn't trouble himself to answer why they made it up, given the suffering it brought upon them, and a hundred other fair questions which arise. He answers a few, by finding some obscure scholar with some theory he can point to. Or he makes some meaningless statement like "Liberal scholars think.." He doesn't bother to tell us how it is his argument that the Gospels are too similar to be believed is any more valid than the popular argument that they are too disparate. He just asserts things which contradict 50 other scholars, and leaves us there, knowing the faithful won't ask questions.

He just picks out what he thinks will support his case, and calls the rest a lie, in effect.


Rad

Gregg

Doherty's hardly alone in this. When it can be shown that practically all of Mark is based on Q and scriptural exegesis, what is one supposed to think?Are we reading the same Web site? As far as I can tell, Doherty pretty much goes along with mainstream scholarly opinion as to the dating of the Gospels and how they are dependent on each other. I don't see him going off on his own tangents very often on this score. Neither did Richard Carrier in his analysis of Doherty's thesis, IIRC. Even when he does diverge from mainstream opinion, he still cites scholarly support.[/b][/quote]And why shouldn't he make an assertion about the non-existence of independent traditions? As he points out, if you have a dozen apostles and dozens more Holy Spirit-inspired converts fanning out across the Empire to spread the gospel of Jesus, you certainly should expect that dozens, if not hundreds, of independent traditions--accounts of Jesus' life, teachings, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection that contain basically the same information but no telltale signs of copying--would have been generated, and that quite a few of these would have survived or at least be referred to in other extant writings.Overenthusiastic presentation? Probably. "Lies, half-truths and distortions? I think that's rather strong. Doherty is passionate, and he doesn't conceal his biases, but he does possess integrity. And as a layman, he certainly possesses a lot more than, say, the conservative scholars that Lee Strobel interviews in "The Case for Christ," or the liberal scholars who create historical Jesuses who just happen to suit their 1960's, idealistic, socialist, anti-establishment temperaments. Perhaps, but while the method of presentation would probably earn Doherty an "F" on his Master's thesis, it can't necessarily be used to discredit the argument itself. I realize you're not trying to suggest this, though.

Gregg

Radorth

So Doherty is WRONG again. Right?

Criminy. What are we supposed to start with here other than a bunch of contradictions?

Rad

Tercel

Mark is based on Q???
While definitions of Q vary slightly, the most common one seems to be that Q is the name given to the passages common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark which contain sayings of Jesus. By definition Mark is not based on Q since they contain no common material.
The idea that Mark is based to any significant degree on scriptural exegesis is a view that enjoys very minimal scholarly support, liberal or otherwise.

In each of the areas I pointed out, Doherty's assertions differ from mainstream scholarly opinion.

Does he? At the moment I'm doing an analysis of his argument. I'm currently researching on this piece:

Consider another great silence: on the teachings of Jesus. The first century epistles regularly give moral maxims, sayings, admonitions, which in the Gospels are spoken by Jesus, without ever attributing them to him. The well-known "Love Your Neighbor," originally from Leviticus, is quoted in James, the Didache, and three times in Paul, yet none of them points out that Jesus had made this a centerpiece of his own teaching. Both Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:9) and the writer of 1 John even attribute such love commands to God, not Jesus!

Why does Doherty give a reference for Paul but not 1 John? I believe he is referring to 1 John 3:23. I am currently researching it, but as far as I can tell it is very very ambiguous about whether it's God or Jesus giving the love command. (have a look for yourself - who is the second "he" in verse 23 referring to?)
I can only conclude that Doherty realises this and hasn't give the reader the reference in case they look it up and find he's overstated his case. I consider that to be deliberate lying.