Peter Kirby

Eudaimonist writes: 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.

Thank you! This is precisely why HJ proponents should attempt a detailed rebuttal.

If anyone is interested in contributing to such an undertaking, please let me know either on this thread or through e-mail.

best,
Peter Kirby

galiel

What difference does it make?

If you are a believer, then you do not believe based on analytical evidence, since you don't accept the scientific method as an way of determining the validity of an hypothesis.

If you are a non-believer, then the question of the existence of a person named Jesus is irrelevant. First of all, if you follow rational analysis and the scientific method, then the extraordinary claims of a fictional work do not constitute evidence of the miraculous, and secondly, whether or not there was a man named Jesus has no relevance to the supernatural claims of religion.

So I ask, what difference does it make?

Layman

As you know, there are dozens of reconstructions of the historical Jesus out there. And I for one do not think that I must withhold judgment about the historical Jesus until I have read and offered a detail refutation of each one.

Well, such a project would take an immense amount of time. And I -- like others -- have my own ongoing projects and interests. And I have yet to see any reason to take Doherty seriously. When he can't even get the attention of liberal and secular scholars, why should I devote so much time to a point by point refutation? Why should I ignore the broad, overwhelming, diverse, scholarly opinion to the contrary because a guy with a website says Jesus didn't exist?

Sorry, I think its unreasonble to demand that we all hold up our collective opinions on the existence of Jesus because historians and New Testament scholars find Doherty and the Jesus-Myth too laughable to take seriously.

Peter Kirby

galiel writes:

If you are a believer, then you do not believe based on analytical evidence, since you don't accept the scientific method as an way of determining the validity of an hypothesis.

If you are a non-believer, then the question of the existence of a person named Jesus is irrelevant. First of all, if you follow rational analysis and the scientific method, then the extraordinary claims of a fictional work do not constitute evidence of the miraculous, and secondly, whether or not there was a man named Jesus has no relevance to the supernatural claims of religion.

So I ask, what difference does it make?

This is a good question.

For some believers, they claim to believe based in part on historical evidence. Thus, showing that a Jesus is known to history is important to these believers.

For some non-believers, they claim that Christianity is wrong, in part, because it is shown that Jesus did not exist. Thus, showing that the Jesus Myth arguments hold up can be important to these non-believers.

Finally, for some, the question happens to be interesting.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Layman, it looks like I will have to explain the nuances of my take on the argument from authority in this regard. I do think that it is rational for the average layman (no pun intended) to accept the existence of Jesus based on the academic consensus. However, I also think it is rational for the minimally well-read interested person to withhold judgment on the existence of Jesus - say, after reading Meier, Crossan, and Sanders in addition to Doherty and not seeing where Doherty's theory is shot down. So, I think it is appropriate to say, "I haven't looked into this extensively so I will have to follow the scholarly consensus," but it is inappropriate to say, "You are a biased ignorant fool for giving any consideration to Doherty's ideas, for the consensus clearly affirms the existence of Jesus."

The reason for the rebuttal is so that people who dabble in the subject -- and, let's face it, the scholars too (many of which have given the subject less thought than many laymen) -- know exactly why they should reject Jesus Myth ideas. It would advance the discussion, in a way that is much more scholarly than the current stonewall stance of derision.

Layman writes: Well, such a project would take an immense amount of time.

Collectively, that is true, but no one person would have to bear the brunt of the burden. The project could be delegated among contributors, with each taking that which seems interesting to them. For example, you expressed in interest in Knox's ideas on Acts, so you might want to do a part in showing why Doherty is wrong in his evalutation of Acts.

Layman writes: And I have yet to see any reason to take Doherty seriously.

Well, I take Doherty seriously. Is that not reason enough?

Doherty writes: "Ironically, what tipped the scales in my favor in the publisher's eyes was the fact that The Jesus Seminar, on its Rutgers site in early 1999, had made a link to my website, calling it something to the effect that it was a significant work requiring a serious response. That response has yet to come from anyone in the Seminar, or indeed any other mainstream scholar (if the no-HJ position is so easy to discredit, why not do so?), but this evaluation and link persuaded CHP that my work deserved being put into print. So, my thanks to the Seminar. (And to a site reader who called my attention to it.)"

There are also plenty of people, including laymen and professors, who have read Doherty's book and certainly thought it was serious. Moreover, responding to the issues that Doherty raises would advance scholarship simply because they are interesting questions that cut to the heart of New Testament studies. Why isn't this enough to merit a substantive response? As I said, there is much less reason to take creation science seriously, but there are many detailed explanations of why is is wrong nonetheless.

Layman writes: When he can't even get the attention of liberal and secular scholars, why should I devote so much time to a point by point refutation?

Well, if nobody takes the time to show in detail that Doherty is wrong, then some people might get the impression that there is no point by point refutation because such a refutation is not easy to accomplish successfully. I am not saying that you have to be the one to take on such an endeavor, but I think it would be great if somebody would do so. Wouldn't you think it would be cool if some people did so?

A few professors and scholars have taken Doherty's theories quite seriously. These include Darrell J. Doughty, Robert Price, and Hermann Detering. I haven't compiled an exhaustive list because I am not a big fan of the argument from authority.

Layman writes: Why should I ignore the broad, overwhelming, diverse, scholarly opinion to the contrary because a guy with a website says Jesus didn't exist?

Who said that you should ignore it? Nobody is ignoring it. Some people just don't think it is the end all and be all of all conversation on the subject. Plus, scholarly opinion that reinforces itself solely in reference to other scholarly opinion is like the dog that returns to his own vomit. Most often, when the subject is broached, the scholar simply denounces the idea, suggesting it is absurd or insane, perhaps citing a consensus, and then moves on as if the issue were settled. That doesn't inspire my confidence.

Again, I am perplexed that a project aiming to refute Doherty is met with negative reaction by those who are convinced that Doherty is wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby

joedad

I can see that some have beat me to the punch with some observations, but I'll post anyway.
Part of the problem, Peter, might be in finding an individual who doesn't have what Doherty calls "confessional" interests. Perhaps it is just too early in the development of the idea of a Mythical Gospel Jesus for enough information to have become disseminated widely enough for a given person to be well informed, and still not have the confessional baggage. In a way, the historicity of Jesus is being put on trial, and the jury selection is underway. Trying to find sufficiently informed yet dispassionate jurors might just be impossible.

As you know, Doherty was here some time ago and began a formal exchange with Nomad on this issue. Doherty, finally leaving in frustration after a posturing, poisoning-the-well, non-starting beginning, expressed the thought that he would like to see such an exchange with an informed someone who does not refer to Jesus as He. At the time I disagreed with him, but not anymore. Only in such an exchange might the evidence be viewed as evidence.

I certainly would like to see a rebuttal of Doherty's evidence, but not of Doherty himself. Too much of the exchanges have degenerated into emotional exchanges over credentials and arguments from authority, as if this is terribly important at the outset of such an exchange. Obviously, any amateurish blunders would be professionally pointed out in such an exchange and the readers could make their own decisions.

I suppose that many people and probably most christians would not be very accepting of the possibility that their religion does not have an historical founder, when such has been taught by so many for so long, and I think this is naturally at the heart of the problem. Even to suggest so short circuits the intellectual process and causes people to refer to such critics as "insane."

Many people value <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_02.shtml" target="_blank">democracy</a> but democracy certainly doesn't have a "founder" per se. It is an idea that evolved and was developed over centuries and generations, and which has been practiced in varying degrees and forms for millennia.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the same others have made, namely, that christianity as a religion is real and has certainly had it's proponents and practitioners throughout the ages. It should not be so terribly difficult for at least some of these proponents and practitioners to allow their religious faith to flourish, despite discovering or the distinct possibility that one of it's supposed historical pillars is a myth.

joe

(And I finally ordered Doherty's book, after procrastinating faaaaaaaaar too long.)

galiel

And some believers claim that the Flood proves that evolution is a lie. It's a circular argument, and a disingenuous one, subverting the terminology of a system in which one does not believe (the scientific method) in order to prove things which that system does not prove. Since no believer is willing to abandon their faith should they be presented with historical evidence that Jesus did NOT exist, it is a fundementally dishonest argument.

As well, just because someone claims that science has proved that astrology is true (a claim made to me recently at a party), does not make it significant.
Huh? What non-believer makes that kind of claim? In other words, if proof surfaces that a human named Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, these supposed non-believers will suddenly become believers? And are you implying that they are non-believers only because they think Christianity is flawed, as opposed to other religions?

This seems to me to be a straw man, perhaps erected by theists to deflect the issue. I have never encountered a non-believer who bases their lack of faith in religion on the non-existence of Jesus.

No problem with that. I merely suggested that it doesn't make a difference. The existence of A Man Called Jesus (sounds like the title of a spaghetti western) does not impact the argument for or against theism. And, I maintain that using the scientific method and rational logic to argue with a theist (the topic originator did ask for amunition to argue the point) is a futile exercise, since the theist does not genuinely accept the premise of your methodology.

Doesn't mean you can't proceed to argue it ad infinitum, of course, merely expressing my opinion.

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

Peter Kirby

galiel writes: Since no believer is willing to abandon their faith should they be presented with historical evidence that Jesus did NOT exist, it is a fundementally dishonest argument.

I'll drink to that.

galiel writes: In other words, if proof surfaces that a human named Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, these supposed non-believers will suddenly become believers?

This is the inverse fallacy (confusing an if-then with its inverse). Yes, if Jesus did not exist, Christianity is false, according to these non-believers. However, it does not follow that, if Jesus existed, Christianity is not false.

galiel writes: And are you implying that they are non-believers only because they think Christianity is flawed, as opposed to other religions?

Actually, it is quite common for a person who becomes disenchanted with the religion of their parents to become an atheist (or 'agnostic') without any detailed consideration of other religions (not that they don't believe that other religions aren't also false -- just that their deconversion didn't depend on investigating these other religions).

galiel writes: And, I maintain that using the scientific method and rational logic to argue with a theist (the topic originator did ask for amunition to argue the point) is a futile exercise, since the theist does not genuinely accept the premise of your methodology.

Of course, after enough logic and evidence piles up for a theist, it is possible for a theist to do a paradigm shift and start taking science seriously in this area.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

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 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.

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?

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 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.

I respect you, but not the Jesus-Myth idea. At least not in any articulation I have seen yet.

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.

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."

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

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.

That was not what met with negative reaction. What was met with negative reaction -- at least on my part -- was this statement: It seems to me that one would most rationally withhold judgment until one sees a substantive rebuttal.

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?

Layman

This is an unfair representation of what happened. Even giving Doherty -- who ended the debate in a huff without responding to Nomad -- the benefit of the doubt, the problem was the scope of the argument. Nomad tried to argue the Josephus references and Doherty did not want to. Doherty only wanted to talk about Pauline silence and his other pet theories.

And if I remember correctly, the moderator or administrator responsible for the debate stepped forward and admitted that there had been no real discussion about the scope of the debate.