Layman

Actually this is not really true.

Some respected scholars have responded to the Jesus-Myth argument from time to time. R.T. France and I. Howard Marshall are two that come to mind. And informed laymen have also criticized the idea on the web. But neither the scholars nor the laymen respond to every new book that comes out on the issue. Nor is it reasonable to expect them to.

So the fact that some scientists and informed laypersons attack creationists ideas is equivalent to the fact that some historians and informed laypersons have attacked the Jesus-Myth idea.

And while scientists do take more time to respond to ID theorists like Doherty and Behe, that's because they take their claims more seriously -- either because of the force of their arguments or their standing in Academia. Most Jesus-Mythers lack such standing (and IMO lack forceful arguments).

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Radorth

I'm sure a few have to some extent, but Carrier raised the issue, and I was simply suggesting a reason why. I wouldn't bother arguing difficult engineering problems with people who think I'm incompetent to begin with or not "serious" because I disagree with them. It would be a waste of time.

Thanks for the references. I will try to read them, although Carrier must not think much of them. He isn't biased is he?

Radorth

Layman

I think you were right to explain why there are not so many scholarly responses. Just like very few scientists spend much time attacking Young Earth Creationists -- they just aren't interested in stooping so low when respected-scholar-colleague X is focusing on Y and you want to respond to X's new argument.

FYI-France's book is more recent, and focuses on G.A. Wells. It's also in paperback and fairly inexpensive.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Well, I imagine that would depend on what the "minimally well-read" person thought of Doherty's arguments. The mere fact that no one has responded to them in full could reasonably be viewed as 1) and indication that his points are so extreme they are not taking serously, or 2) that everyone is terrified of them.

I think a combination of factors could be in force -- this is based on my own experience in disregarding Doherty's ideas after my own first glances at his web site. There is a wide spread assumption that the Jesus myth theory is a crackpot idea, which is typically backed up by scholarly disregard of the idea plus reference to Josephus or Tacitus. This thought of "this is crackpot" races through a person's mind as one reads the arguments that Doherty makes. People are "terrified" in a sense (if I have to use that word), not in the sense that they grok the arguments and know they are convincing but won't admit it, but rather in the sense that they have a degree of fear that they might start taking the arguments seriously -- in which case, they might be "crackpots" too. To reinforce this process of pre-judgment, people are constantly reminded that the scholarly consensus does not support Jesus myth ideas, which consensus becomes self-perpetuating and circular, not based on a candid evalutation of all the evidence.

Layman writes: I think there is plenty of territory in the middle of the two positions you offer that does not require agnosticism on the existence of the historical Jesus.

Well, once a person has looked into an issue extensively, that person no longer should need to rely on consensus but should be able to explain precisely why an opinion is right or wrong.

Layman writes: I never said nothing would be served by a rebuttal. But how do you draw the line? Should Acharya S also get a full rebuttal? Dr. Stein? Jesus and the secret mushroom cult? fringers churn these books out at a pretty quick pace. Come to think of it, I still haven't seen a refutation of the book about early Christainity really being a mushroom drug cult. Are you agnostic on this idea until you see a full-blown scholarly response?

I haven't read too much on the mushroom drug cult idea, so I might be able to claim ignorance and rely on scholarly agreement against the idea. I have read too much on the Jesus myth idea as presented by Doherty and predecessors, so it would not be kosher for me simply to refer to a consensus. I should be aware of actual evidence, one way or the other.

Layman writes:

Besides, there have been occasional responses to the idea. For example, someone already has responded in detail to Dr. Wells: R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.

Also, I. Howard Marshall took an early crack at the Jesus-Myth idea in his, I Believe In the Historical Jesus.

I have yet to meet a skeptic who has read either one of these books.

Well, I will go you some better: I read and reviewed the book by Habermas that discusses Wells, in addition to buying France's book from a bookstore in the UK (also got his commentary on Matthew) and having read Marshall's book procured on interlibrary loan, which also helped me obtain and read these titles:

Fred. C. Conybeare, The Historical Christ (London: Watts & Co., 1914)

Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926)

Herbert G. Wood, Did Christ Really Live? (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1938)

A. D. Howell-Smith, Jesus Not a Myth (London: Watts & Co., 1942)

Archibald Robertson, Jesus: Myth or History? (London: Watts & Co., 1949)

I also plan to read The historicity of Jesus by S. J. Case, which I spotted at the CSUF library.

Having read all these books, I am certainly not convinced that this is the 'open and shut' case as which it is often portrayed. Some of these books do not do a good job of interacting with Jesus Myth arguments, such as that by I.H. Marshall, which mostly (as I remember it) maintains that we should be able to say stuff about Jesus assuming that he existed. Goguel does the best job in the lot of responding to the silence of Paul argument as advanced by Couchoud, and I plan to put Goguel's book online sometime in the future (which I purchased after reading on loan).

But advances have been made since Couchoud, and indeed since Wells, in presenting the Jesus myth case. Most notable, I think, are Doherty's attempt to situate the early Christians in the syncretistic context of the religious Platonism of the age, Doherty's comprehensive treatment of the alleged silences and references in the NT epistles, and Doherty's reconstruction of the history of the Galilean Tradition exemplified by Q. These arguments deserve consideration.

Layman writes:

Well, I got started on just this project many months ago. But my discussion parnter attempting to defend Doherty bowed out:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000526&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000526&p=</a>

The more detailed discussion is in the first link.

So it seems that you consider some of Doherty's ideas worthy of discussion.

Layman writes:

But Doherty is not the only one that raises some of those "interesting questions." Paul's alleged silence is often discussed. Doubts about the TF are often expressed and discussed. Hebrew's relationship to Platonic thought is discussed by Johnson, Bruce, Guthrie and many others. Knox and a few others have already argued for a second century date for Acts. In other words, you don't need to be a Jesus-Myther to make these claims.

Right. But Doherty tries to tie these thoughts together into a cohesive theory that excludes a historical Jesus. That is not discussed often enough.

Layman writes: As I explain at the end of the post, I think it'd be fun to see someone othan than Tektonics.org respond to Doherty. But that was not what I was responding to. If you had said, "Wouldn't it be great if J.P. Meier unloaded on Doherty directly?" I would have said, "Yes, Peter, that would be great."

OK. So, instead of arguing about whether it should be done, why don't we just do it?

Layman writes: This is a tiny, tiny sum. Faced with a broad and devirse contrary scholarly community.

How many scholars do you know who have read Doherty's book?

Layman writes: I would be more worried if "scholarly opinion" was tilted to one side or controlled by one perspective. But the scholarly opinion is diverse and broad. Liberal and conservative. Religious and secular. I think it is more than enough to give people confidence that Jesus exists -- whether anyone pays attention to Doherty or not.

There really is not much motive for the scholarly establishment to take the Jesus myth idea seriously. For the conservative wing, it is just too far out, and for the liberal wing, they are taken off guard by someone who goes further and states that Jesus may be a myth because they have grown used to dealing with conservatives. Witness the lackluster response of Crossan to the myth theory during his "Method & Materials" discussion.

Layman writes:

Needless to say, arguing that we must not reach a conclusion that Jesus exists until someone (other than Tektonics.org I guess) makes a "substantive rebuttal" to Doherty is a lot more than saying that such a rebuttal would be useful.

But speaking of Tetoniks.org. Did you read their responses to Doherty? Is there some sort of back and forth between the two sites?

I have read the entire response of J. P. Holding to Doherty. I think that Holding makes the occasional good point but that it is not wise to bury it under feckless satire. I would not be adverse to borrowing a few arguments from Tektonics, but I would be interested in seeing a more, um, equable response to Doherty.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

Not sure I would describe someone who calls the issue "maddening" as dispassionate himself. I wonder if many skeptics would not reject any suitor, simply because they believed in Jesus as Savior. It's like asking someone who has believed in the (to them) amazing and unique figure of Jesus to just act and talk like one who believes in no such person or God.

Radorth

Layman

Well, as my monicker makes clear, I do not claim to be a historian or New Testament scholar. So when I say most scholars and historians have better things to do, I'm not including myself.

Besides, Luke/Acts is one of my favorite areas of discussion.

As I said, my problem is time, energy, and interest. I find Josephus and Luke/Acts interesting and have spent much time researching them. Although I don't have a website or publication about my ideas, I have expressed them here on this site, including some thoughts on some of Doherty's arguments. If I make a strong case for the authenticity of the TF, which refutes some of Doherty's arguments, then I've responded to him. If I make a strong case against Doherty's case for late-dating Acts, then I've responded to him. But my own personal efforts do not, and are not likely to, amount to a comprehensive, point-by-point, refutation. Would it be cool if I could do one? Yeah. Would it be cool if me and some buddies could do that? Yeah. But most of my buddies are not interested in doing it and I lack the time and desire to do it myself.

I have no idea.

But I have no idea how many have read Acharya S, G.A. Wells, or Robert Stien's books either.

Thank you for your opinion -- which I do consider valuable. But should we all wait for a comprehensive response to Tektonics.org before judging Doherty's case? Or is it enough for yourself to justify your opinion that you have read Tektonics stuff and found it less than compelling?

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Thank you for your opinion -- which I do consider valuable. But should we all wait for a comprehensive response to Tektonics.org before judging Doherty's case? Or is it enough for yourself to justify your opinion that you have read Tektonics stuff and found it less than compelling?

I would like to distinguish between what I'm saying and what I think Carrier has said.

I'm saying that a level-headed review of Doherty's theories could be interesting, informative, and even fun. I am like the mountain climber -- I'd like to do it because it is there to do. And, besides, many people would enjoy seeing it done.

Carrier seems to me to be advocating a type of "Best Case Analysis" approach (my term). That is, one should take the best case made by one side and compare it to the best case made by the other side before coming to a conclusion. For example, if one were evalutating the Farrer theory versus the Two Source Theory, one would compare the arguments of Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre against the arguments of Streeter, Neirynck, Stein, and Tuckett. (Please, no replies concerning this analogy from the peanut gallery.) In this case, one would take the arguments mounted by Couchoud, Wells, and Doherty and then compare them to -- what? Marshall, Habermas, and France? While I did like parts of France's book, I hope that this is not all that the HJ theory can bring to the discussion. Carrier seems to be saying, until such time as something approximating the best case for the HJ theory is made, the scholarly jury is still out.

Carrier's approach is not the same as saying that each individual presentation of a case must be answered before holding a contrary opinion. Carrier seesms to be saying that the near-best case for each side generally should be made before making a final evaluation. (I do not know whether Carrier would permit preliminary evaluations--I know that Doherty would urge him to do so.) So, it is not strictly necessary for a point-by-point refutation of Doherty to be made, but it could hardly be called a best-case presentation if too many of Doherty's points went unanswered. Obviously, one does not have to chase down all the derivative tracts that merely regurgitate the arguments made by the real thinkers involved. But one does have to address all the key points before one can say, "and that's all I have to say about that" and rest your case. Carrier would seem to think that such a best case has not been made for historicity, thus preventing him from being able to perform a Best Case Analysis.

It is possible that I have misunderstood Carrier. But the important thing is to return to my first point--I am not necesarily advocating a Best Case Analysis approach. I would just like to see an attempt at refuting Doherty's ideas be done because I am interested in the matter.

best,
Peter Kirby

joedad

Yes, physicsguy did say as much.

I think it is fair to say that Doherty was initially put off when Nomad simply ignored his argument and evidence, and that in the end, neither participant's evidence was ever really addressed.

And what "pet theories?" Such a statement certainly doesn't advance dialogue. Rather, it fosters and encourages emotionalism. Pauline silence is a specific enough line of evidence to discuss, however.

Why the religious triumphalism? I actually see your point, but I think when you use the phrase, "stooping so low," you do yourself and perhaps others who hold your position a disservice. Such characterization is not necessary and impedes dialogue.

I don't want to sound overly pious, but thanks for pointing out my own stupidity and emotionalism. Feel free. I do tend to be less "stimulated" these days. Hopefully I'll experience less of those regrettable outbursts.

joe

Toto

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 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 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.

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.

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?

Radorth

I hardly meant it as a cut, joe, though I can see how you might have taken it that way. Let me put it like this: If you believed you that there was a God who personally cared about you and you truly believed the evidence for his existence was as good (or as Klausner affirmed, even better) as for Julius Caesar, and that he was very God come in the flesh might you not have a certain irrepressible passion? So when you ask of a Christian Scholar that he refrain from using the term "He" in order to prove his scholarly integrity, how will ever find such a person? The very depth of knowledge needed to refute Doherty would excite passion of some sort. I would certainly hope so!

Radorth