Peter Kirby

Radorth writes: The puzzle is not solved, and even Carrier admits that a rebuttal done right could tip the scales.

If the puzzle is not solved, doesn't it follow that it would be premature intellectually to adhere to the opinion that there was a historical Jesus? It seems to me that one would most rationally withhold judgment until one sees a substantive rebuttal.

Does anyone want to show that Doherty is wrong and not just call him insane? It would sure be nice to know for a fact that Doherty's arguments all fail and that there is some evidence behind the much-touted consensus. I would be happy to support any project to attempt a review of Doherty's book with scholarly methods, not least by prominently hosting such a review on Early Christian Writing's home page for at least a month (<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">link</a>), which would mean thousands of eyeballs. I would also be able to offer suggestions on any rough drafts, as I have followed the debate over Doherty's work for a few years now. So far, one guy expressed interest but then failed to respond to my posts or private messages. Are there any takers? (And if not, why not?)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Edited to add the link.]

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

offa

Offa;
Peter Kirby writes, "Does anyone want to show
that Doherty is wrong and not just call him
insane?"

Offa, here is an excerpt from "The Decline
and Fall of the Roman Church" p.31


It is October 28 in the year 312. The Pope, the
undersized Miltiades with his chocolate-brown
face and coal-black eyes, emerges timidly from
the back of a small private house in an obscure
street of the popular Trastevere district of
Rome. With him is his chief priest, Silvester,
fifty-nine. Outside in the bright sunshine
stands the six-foot Emperor Constantine with his
pale, square face, blue eyes, and a bull neck,
his horse by his side, his guards around him
with drawn swords. Emperor, guards, horses, are
all stained with blood, dust, and sweat sweat.
They have just fought and won a key battle at
one of Rome's principle bridges, the Milvian.
The victory assures Constantine's crown. And
Constantine's first action even before taking
possession of the city, is to persuade the
Christians he knows to take him to this obscure
little man, the head of Rome's Christians, their
bishop.

Offa, "The above reference (yes, I know it
expresses an author's imagination) gives a
valuable date, that is, the year 312. Until this
time the Christians were a secret society
whose leaders, when discovered, were often put
to death. For this very reason we are not going
to discover references to their activities. This
is "one" of the reasons that the authorship of
the gospels are given such a late date."

"Doherty's book relies on the conviction that
the "Gospel of Mark" was written first. It was
not, the "Gospel of John" was written first and
by J.C. (See "The Book that Jesus Wrote"*) A
main argument against the dating of the gospels
are the "Little Apocalypses" with Jesus
predicting the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of
the Romans. The Biblical Scholars assume
that this prediction was about the Jewish War of
AD 70 and they are wrong ... millions of them.
The locations in the gospels have pseudo-
identities and Jesus was not crucified at the
current Jerusalem but at another Jerusalem
several miles away. The Roman's committed the
destruction described by Jesus at this location
(called Jerusalem) in AD 33 before Jesus wrote
John." These same millions of Biblical
Scholars think that the Egypt that Joseph
fled to was the Egypt as we know it today,
whereas, this Egypt was actually a locale to
Jerusalem (Egypt was the location of the
crucifixion)."

Thanks, Offa

*Do not jump in and read this book unless you
read and follow up on Jesus the Man. You
have to get your mind out of "our Egypt".

Radorth

If we are going here, I should be more clear. When I said "tip the scales" I meant in the minds of skeptics who are convinced by Doherty's arguments. I doubt many scholars (even "liberal" ones) are ready to do that UNTIL they see a scholarly rebuttal. I think the intellectually honest thing to do is withold judgement (at a minimum).

Of course I personally do not think Doherty has made a case especially worthy of a scholarly rebuttal because his case is not especially scholarly to begin with. e.g. if there is even one clear reference to the Gospel story, his case is severely weakened, and there is such. (not to mention the "Acts" dating problem). Nevertheless I recognize that this controversy will be around for a long time.

Radorth

Gregg

Where is this one clear reference to the Gospel story?

Gregg

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hmm... Doherty's case relies on the conviction that Mark was written first. And most of Doherty's opponents likewise rely on the conviction that Mark was written first. But what if Mark wasn't written first?

So, being pretty sure myself that our canonical Mark wasn't written first, perhaps I may be forgiven for perceiving this whole debate as quite on a par with those fascinating medieval debates about how many angels can dance on a head of a pin...

All the best,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

Is nobody willing to contribute to a project of reviewing Doherty's book with scholarly methods? I am aware that plenty of people, even scholars, are at least suspicious about Doherty's case, but I won't know if those suspicions are grounded in anything concrete until those suspicions are developed into detailed criticisms.

Three criticisms have been attempted in this thread already. I will attempt to demonstrate the need for a detailed rebuttal by showing that this casual type of lazy criticism is not sufficient to show that Doherty is wrong.

Radorth writes: if there is even one clear reference to the Gospel story, his case is severely weakened, and there is such

Until we reach the last four words of this statement, this is actually a strength of Doherty's theory. It means that Doherty's theory is readily falsifiable if false. However, in order to falsify the theory, we would need a detailed consideration of these alleged references to match the detailed analysis provided by Doherty himself, in his book and on his web site:

<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/sil20arg.htm" target="_blank">http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/sil20arg.htm</a>

So, this demonstrates the need for a detailed rebuttal.

Radorth writes: not to mention the "Acts" dating problem

Unless it is soundly defended, the assertion that Acts is dated before 70 CE is not a great threat to the scholarly case that Doherty makes, as most of academia does not think that Acts is dated before 70 CE. Following John Knox, Doherty does place Acts in the mid second century, but it is not clear that a date of Luke-Acts as early as 80 CE would seriously affect the core theory offered by Doherty. Also, it would be nice to know in detail why Knox and Doherty err in dating Acts.

So, this demonstrates the need for a detailed rebuttal.

Yuri writes:

So, being pretty sure myself that our canonical Mark wasn't written first, perhaps I may be forgiven for perceiving this whole debate as quite on a par with those fascinating medieval debates about how many angels can dance on a head of a pin...

For one thing, we would need an explanation of why the alleged fact that the earliest gospel was a Jewish-Christian gospel with primitive features variously from Matthew, Mark, and Luke would show Doherty's fundamental theory that Jesus is a myth to be incorrect.

For another, we need a demonstration that your solution to the synoptic problem is correct.

So, this demonstrates the need for a detailed rebuttal.

If Doherty's case is so weak and non-scholarly, and given that many people have bought into it, why aren't more people willing to demonstrate in detail why it is so wrong-headed? Or maybe I speak too soon. Again, are there any takers? Does anyone want to contribute to a historical review of Doherty's theories?

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

Answer moved to other thread

Radorth

Given Doherty's misleading claims and hypebole used to bolster his case, and you have to ask yourself why no scholar has attempted a rebuttal. And since Doherty has already engaged in condemning the scholarly world "without a trial" perhaps they realize he would continue to do so, and the argument would not be worthwhile.

Radorth

Peter Kirby

Radorth writes: Given Doherty's misleading claims and hypebole used to bolster his case, and you have to ask yourself why no scholar has attempted a rebuttal. And since Doherty has already engaged in condemning the scholarly world "without a trial" perhaps they realize he would continue to do so, and the argument would not be worthwhile.

It is not a matter of dissuading Doherty from his position. It is a matter of letting the scholarly world and the popular world know precisely how and why Doherty's theory breaks down. The argument would be worthwhile if it meant that less people would follow Doherty in his (alleged) error.

Some HJ proponents like to compare the Jesus myth theory to creation science. They overlook a critical difference. While some scientists and educated laymen have undertaken to show precisely why creationists are wrong (see talkorigins.org for a whole web site as an example), nobody has undertaken a detailed review of Doherty's book with the aim of showing that there really was a historical Jesus. I think that a detailed refutation of Doherty's views ought to be undertaken if people want to show that there is something behind the consensus, or in order that people who are researching the reasoning behind the consensus would have something to turn to.

In fact, the idea that people who promote the historical Jesus theory should try to refute Doherty's arguments and argue for a historical Jesus on historical grounds seems so obvious to me that I am a little befuddled that there is any resistance.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Typos.]

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

Eudaimonist

For many years as a nontheist, I leaned in favor of an historical (though non-divine) Jesus. Doherty's arguments have caused me to question my assumptions, and now I lean in favor of a mythical Jesus.

I don't claim to be an expert on Bible studies, and I fully admit that I could be wrong about the strength of Doherty's arguments. So, please, someone convince me that Doherty is presenting a bad argument that is either illogical or overlooks important evidence or arguments. Present an argument; I'm not impressed by handwaving and vague accusations of poor scholarship.