Earl Doherty

[archibald]

Does anyone know

Yeah. Doherty knows.

where he got it?

A few people have asked. Doherty didn't respond.

Don't believe in it if you don't want to! It doesn't change anything.

Carrier has a Ph.D. from Columbia, and that doesn't change anything either.

Academically speaking, saying you have a Bachelor's is a bit like saying you wear underpants. The opposite is the shocking thing.

Sure.

I don't mind if someone doesn't have formal, relevant qualifications. I thoroughly enjoyed Daniel Unterbrink (retired forensic accountant) and am currently enjoying Lena Einhorn (ex-medical researcher).

I was just curious about potential dishonesty.

[neilgodfrey]

I was just curious about potential dishonesty.

People who lie about their credentials or misrepresent them in some way normally do so in order to gain something as a result. Earl has gained nothing from any potential dishonesty over his educational background. As has been pointed out, he has presented it in such a way as to make absolutely no difference to his work. His discussions on Greek terms with scholars have demonstrated his competence in that area. Simply saying he studied classical languages at an undergrad level adds nothing whatever to anything he has presented. As Peter said, it would be more surprising if he did not have some such degree given the calibre of his work.

Such a question relating to dishonesty on Earl's part smacks to me of gratuitous hostility.

[lsayre]

I hate to be trite, but this smirks of "If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.".

[archibald]

I was just curious about potential dishonesty.

People who lie about their credentials or misrepresent them in some way normally do so in order to gain something as a result. Earl has gained nothing from any potential dishonesty over his educational background. As has been pointed out, he has presented it in such a way as to make absolutely no difference to his work. His discussions on Greek terms with scholars have demonstrated his competence in that area. Simply saying he studied classical languages at an undergrad level adds nothing whatever to anything he has presented. As Peter said, it would be more surprising if he did not have some such degree given the calibre of his work.

Such a question relating to dishonesty on Earl's part smacks to me of gratuitous hostility.

He would not have known, when he claimed it, that he would not gain something. In fact, it is very difficult to see how or why he would have claimed it for any other reason, whether it later gained him credibility or not.

As to gratuitous hostility, I assess his (imo ropey) thesis independent of his qualifications, as I always do with any other thesis. Rightly or wrongly, Unterbrink's was and Einhorn's is, currently and provisionally (I am only halfway through her book) among my favourite 'alternative/controversial' theses and neither of them has any relevant formal qualifications. That said, I am not so keen on Unterbrink's as I once was, because of one or two flaws in the case. But I could equally suggest that your responses are borne out of an overt willingness to apologise for and defend Doherty (and his crankiness online). Neither matters in the end in any crucial sense.

Personally, I am happy to say that if it was a lie (and I don't assume it was) that it (the lie, not the lack of formal qualifications) would be a valid character point against him. You can take that personal opinion to the bank and cash it. If this was a court case, it would matter a lot. If untrue, it was at the very least an unwise fib. End of, imo.

[archibald]

Ok so I have my answer. That it is not known for sure one way or the other. Thanks to respondents. I don't intend to get into an extended argument about whether or how much it matters.

I might also add that personally, I think Carrier was unwise, especially for a qualified ancient historian, to dogmatically and with (imo) obvious bias, follow Doherty's lead, not least because there are other theses that would not be so difficult to argue for using established historiographical methods and without speculatively positing as many supposedly missing evidences and particular sorts of covert or supposed shenanigans on the part of christian writers, and some of these theses could arguably be at least as satisfying to those keen to argue that the Jesus of the NT 'didn't exist'. So I think that in his enthusiasm, Carrier missed a trick and opted for a comparatively poor choice of case. The phrase 'polishing a turd' springs to mind. As to the apparent popularity of Doherty and Carrier explanations on online forums that I have frequented (mostly of the secular/atheist variety) the word 'meme' springs to mind also.

Personally, I see their essential theses as relatively lacking in terms of applying reasonable standards of rational skepticism. That's not to say they aren't correct. Only a fool wouldn't add that ass-covering caveat.

[Jax]

You know, I never saw Earl Doherty as in it for the money. It was always obvious to me that what he was doing was because he had an honest interest in the subject. I personally am grateful for his contributions, not because I agree with all of his conclusions (I don't) but rather for presenting arguments for a different point of view and pointing out problems with the accepted view of Christian origins. He is an important source for me in my education relating to this subject. I also appreciate Lena Einhorn, not for her conclusions (which I almost completely disagree with) but for pointing out problems inherent in the system.

As for Carrier, all he has to do is do basic competent historical research relating to early Christianity to outshine most of the competition and therefore sell lots of books. Again, I read him and not for his conclusions but rather because his research is head and shoulders above most of the rest.

[neilgodfrey]

I was just curious about potential dishonesty.

People who lie about their credentials or misrepresent them in some way normally do so in order to gain something as a result. Earl has gained nothing from any potential dishonesty over his educational background. As has been pointed out, he has presented it in such a way as to make absolutely no difference to his work. His discussions on Greek terms with scholars have demonstrated his competence in that area. Simply saying he studied classical languages at an undergrad level adds nothing whatever to anything he has presented. As Peter said, it would be more surprising if he did not have some such degree given the calibre of his work.

Such a question relating to dishonesty on Earl's part smacks to me of gratuitous hostility.

He would not have known, when he claimed it, that he would not gain something. In fact, it is very difficult to see how or why he would have claimed it for any other reason, whether it later gained him credibility or not.

As to gratuitous hostility, I assess his (imo ropey) thesis independent of his qualifications, as I always do with any other thesis. Rightly or wrongly, Unterbrink's was and Einhorn's is, currently and provisionally (I am only halfway through her book) among my favourite 'alternative/controversial' theses and neither of them has any relevant formal qualifications. That said, I am not so keen on Unterbrink's as I once was, because of one or two flaws in the case. But I could equally suggest that your responses are borne out of an overt willingness to apologise for and defend Doherty (and his crankiness online). Neither matters in the end in any crucial sense.

Personally, I am happy to say that if it was a lie (and I don't assume it was) that it (the lie, not the lack of formal qualifications) would be a valid character point against him. You can take that personal opinion to the bank and cash it. If this was a court case, it would matter a lot. If untrue, it was at the very least an unwise fib. End of, imo.

Now you finally declare your malicious intent behind your question.

So you suspect Earl of character flaws even though you say you assess his thesis independently of the action of that suspected character flaw. So I can only assume your interest in suspecting Earl of his character flaw has nothing to do with your assessment of his thesis. So what is your point? He cheats on his tax? He lies to save face to a lover? He declares an educational background that does nothing to advance his status but that is exactly what anyone would infer from the quality of the work we all independently assess of his character?

If it were a court case then his details would be declared by subpoena but the question arose in nothing remotely comparable to a court case.

Would you care to point to where he first claimed it so we can check the context and establish the truth of your accusation? Would you care to explain why it is so important to you to raise suspicions about Earl's character if you assess his thesis without regard to his qualifications?

There are any number of reasons why someone might not want to declare the institution where they obtained their qualifications. That you cannot see that suggests a very limited imagination, perhaps blinded by a gratuitous hostility.

[Peter Kirby]

where he first claimed it

In print: Neither God Nor Man (2009), p. ix.

My own research in this field goes back 14 years, when I first encountered a serious presentation of the theory in Professor Wells. Although my university training was not in New Testament studies, I have a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, giving me a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, which I have supplemented with some of the basics of Hebrew and Syriac. In addition to the New Testament (along with many parts of the Old), I have thoroughly investigated all the non-canonical Christian documents, the 2nd and 3rd century Apologists, all the relevant Jewish Pseudepigrapha of the era together with the Dead Sea scrolls, plus much of Christian and non-Christian Gnosticism.

There may be some earlier things online.

[neilgodfrey]

where he first claimed it

In print: Neither God Nor Man (2009), p. ix.

My own research in this field goes back 14 years, when I first encountered a serious presentation of the theory in Professor Wells. Although my university training was not in New Testament studies, I have a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, giving me a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, which I have supplemented with some of the basics of Hebrew and Syriac. In addition to the New Testament (along with many parts of the Old), I have thoroughly investigated all the non-canonical Christian documents, the 2nd and 3rd century Apologists, all the relevant Jewish Pseudepigrapha of the era together with the Dead Sea scrolls, plus much of Christian and non-Christian Gnosticism.

There may be some earlier things online.

Yes, it was certainly prior to NGNM. He was challenged about his qualifications back in crosstalk days, I'm pretty sure. The question of his qualifications has been a point of personal slur against him from the beginning of his engagement in public discussion.

[archibald]

You know, I never saw Earl Doherty as in it for the money. It was always obvious to me that what he was doing was because he had an honest interest in the subject. I personally am grateful for his contributions, not because I agree with all of his conclusions (I don't) but rather for presenting arguments for a different point of view and pointing out problems with the accepted view of Christian origins. He is an important source for me in my education relating to this subject. I also appreciate Lena Einhorn, not for her conclusions (which I almost completely disagree with) but for pointing out problems inherent in the system.

As for Carrier, all he has to do is do basic competent historical research relating to early Christianity to outshine most of the competition and therefore sell lots of books. Again, I read him and not for his conclusions but rather because his research is head and shoulders above most of the rest.

I'm afraid that when it comes to Carrier, it's precisely his methodology which stinks most of all, imo. I have elaborated on this on other threads so won't repeat myself here.

Yes, different, radical and/or challenging points of view are good, in principle. I certainly don't decline to subscribe to any of them just because of that.

It might even be the case that (what I at least consider to be) extreme theses, to the point of being almost untenable if not outright daft theses, at least make other radical theses seem less controversial by comparison, and thus perhaps pave the way for a wider acceptance of 'non-mainstream' alternatives.

As to Einhorn, I have just finished her book and thankyou for recommending it because I found it extremely interesting. Unlike you, I am (currently at least, fresh from being in thrall to the book as I am) not inclined to necessarily disagree with her conclusions.

That said, and here might not be the place to discuss it, I do have a couple of queries. The first is that if she is right in saying that the NT is essentially a covert tale about a militant/rebel (as she put it, a tale that the writers felt needed to be preserved, but could not be told overtly), then where did all the love and pacifism come from? Was it purely invented as a foil? Was it an aspect of the man himself? Or was it derived from somewhere or someone else? I believe for example there are those who think there was a gnostic Chrestus ('good man') whose noble spirituality was plaigirised by Christians. Dunno. I have not, as yet, come close to being convinced that 'Chrestian' was anything other than a translation issue.

My second query was to wonder who Einhorn thought 'Paul' was, or how he fitted into her picture, since she didn't seem to get into this.