Earl Doherty

[Jax]

He is obviously a fictional construct from multiple and disparate sources

A good example of the second life of the word "obviously" as a stand-in for "presumably."

I don't have to be PC. I can say it like it is.

LOL. You can also act like a fool. Looks like you've made your choice.

How exactly is not dancing around the issue acting like a fool?

[Peter Kirby]

He is obviously a fictional construct from multiple and disparate sources

A good example of the second life of the word "obviously" as a stand-in for "presumably."

I don't have to be PC. I can say it like it is.

LOL. You can also act like a fool. Looks like you've made your choice.

How exactly is not dancing around the issue acting like a fool?

If you truly believe you know the truth of what you're saying, then this foolishness is, specifically, in the category of everyday delusion.

[MrMacSon]

Wikipedia references -

3 Jesus, Neither God nor Man, 2009, Preface p. ix: "I will end here on a personal note that was lacking in the original book [1999, reprint 2005]. My formal education consisted of a B.A. with Distinction in Ancient History and Classical Languages, (Greek and Latin, the former being essential in any research into the New Testament). Unfortunately, I was forced to suspend my M.A. program due to health reasons and did not return."

4 Jesus, Neither God nor Man, 2009, Preface p. ix: "Unfortunately, I was forced to suspend my M.A. program due to health reasons and did not return."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty#References

It alludes to Bart Ehrman having referred to Doherty's qualifications -

5 Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.

Earl has alluded to his qualifications on-line -

The idea that Christianity may have begun without an historical Jesus was first floated near the end of the 18th century by certain philosophers of the French Revolution. In Germany a few decades later, D. F. Strauss and Bruno Bauer laid a groundwork for the theory by labeling much of the story of Jesus "mythology" and the Gospels "literary inventions." Bauer came to doubt the historicity of Jesus. But it was at the turn of the 20th century that detailed examination of the issue began in earnest. Since then a handful of reputable scholars in each generation have denied outright any historical existence for the Gospel Jesus: among them J. M. Robertson in Britain, Arthur Drews in Germany, Paul-Louis Couchoud and Prosper Alfaric in France, followed by several others. Most recently, G. A. Wells, Professor of German at the University of London (now retired), has published six books on the subject, a telling dissection of Christian literature, especially the Gospels, which reveals just how wispy and elusive is the historical basis that lies behind the story of Jesus of Nazareth. My own research in this field goes back almost 20 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 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. To this I have added a study of Philo of Alexandria, Middle Platonism and other philosophies, relevant ancient historians, Hellenistic mystery cults and the general religious thought of the era.

My investigations have led me to a fundamental disagreement with Professor Wells. (He is the only prominent writer on the "Jesus-as-myth" theory in the past generation; earlier proponents are difficult for the average reader to come by, so I will not address them.) Wells postulates that Paul and other Christians of his day believed that "Jesus" had lived in obscurity at some unknown point in the past, perhaps two or three centuries before their time. The problem is, there seems to be no more evidence in the epistles that Paul has such a figure in mind than there is for his knowledge of a Jesus of Nazareth who had lived and died during the reign of Herod Antipas. Rather, everything in Paul points to a belief in an entirely divine Son who "lived" and acted in the spiritual realm, in the same mythical setting in which all the other savior deities of the day were seen to operate. No Greek or Roman believed that the god Mithras had lived in an identifiable period of earthly history, or that the bull he slaughtered was "historical," and the mystery myths at the time of Christian beginnings tended to be moved to a supernatural sphere under the influence of current philosophy. With this view, Christianity can be seen to fit nicely into its surrounding milieu, a child of its time. It also enables us to read and understand Paul in all his spiritual richness—from an historical interest point of view—and to gain a thorough picture of what his faith constituted ...

Today we face two principal impediments to understanding Paul's belief in Christ as an entirely spiritual figure. One is the fact that it is based on views of the universe which are alien to our modern outlook. The second is our failure to grasp how the Jewish scriptures, as they were interpreted by certain circles in Paul's day, could confer features on the heavenly Christ which we perceive as "historical" ... Not once does Paul or any other first century epistle writer identify their divine Christ Jesus with 'the recent historical man' known from the Gospels. Nor do they attribute the ethical teachings they put forward to such a man. Virtually every other detail in the picture of the Gospel Jesus is similarly missing. If Jesus was a "social reformer" whose teachings began the Christian movement, as today's liberal scholars now style him, how can such a Jesus be utterly lacking in all the New Testament epistles, while only a cosmic Christ is to be found?

This missing dimension in the early Christian record cannot be shrugged off, as New Testament scholarship has had a habit of doing. Timeworn "explanations" such as that the early church "had no interest" in the earthly life of Jesus, or that Paul's theology did not require it, are simply inadequate ...

http://jesuspuzzle.org/preamble.htm

[MrMacSon]

The Jesus of the NT is an eclectic moving target. He is obviously a fictional construct from multiple and disparate sources which is why he eludes classification.

I would say -- 'He strongly comes across as a mythical construct from multiple and disparate sources ..'

[Jax]

He is obviously a fictional construct from multiple and disparate sources

A good example of the second life of the word "obviously" as a stand-in for "presumably."

I don't have to be PC. I can say it like it is.

LOL. You can also act like a fool. Looks like you've made your choice.

How exactly is not dancing around the issue acting like a fool?

If you truly believe you know the truth of what you're saying, then this foolishness is, specifically, in the category of everyday delusion.

I'm not sure that I follow you. That the Jesus of the Gospels is a fictional construct is a well established working model of quite a few well respected scholars. It is the best fit for the available evidence.

Do you support the idea that the Jesus of the Gospels is in fact an accurate account of a real man?

[arnoldo]

The Emperor Julian called it "the fabrication of the Galilaeans. . a fiction of men composed by wickedness."

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

Yet at times he appears to be arguing for the historicity of the gospel events. . .

[neilgodfrey]

To you, or to academics generally, it may not be much of a claim at all (and I liked your analogy with wearing underpants) but it's still a claim, even if a small one, and not a disclaim, imo.

Presumably you have found evidence in Earl's writings that belies his claim to have a working knowledge in classical languages as a result of basic undergraduate training.

Or if you haven't, presumably you believe Earl to be a liar about his qualifications. So tell us exactly how that changes anything at all about his arguments in either of his two books on mythicism.

Congratulations. People like you have won and you have pressured Earl to retreat from public engagement. And you didn't need to address his arguments to do so. You only had to constantly attack him personally, like raising suspicions about his character over a point that has no relevance to the arguments he presented. Nice.

[neilgodfrey]

Earl is a very private person. I have no idea why he chose not to identify the institution where he studied. I said before that there could be any number of reasons. Perhaps the institution fell into some scandal or disrepute for some reason. Maybe there are personal details about Earl or people that he was connected with that he does not want to be made public and that might be traceable through a knowledge of his past enrollments. Or there might be some ideological or controversial political/religious association with the institution that he does not want to be associated with in the public arena. Or.... or.... or .....

No-one can be faulted for choosing not to make public any particular details about their past where knowledge of the details makes no difference to anything the person wishes to present to the public.

On the crosstalk forum he certainly more than held his own in discussions about Greek words with the scholars and, apparently surprised at his competence, asked him what his background was. He simply said he had a basic training in classical languages and ancient history by way of reply. It was evident that people wanted to know that much so he included mention of it in his second book to preempt questions that would otherwise resurface.

Some people perversely imagine Earl to have been somehow boasting about his credentials. Rubbish. He downplayed them, not even mentioning them on his website or his first book and only mentioning the minimum when asked.

I have known people who lie about their credentials. I have known one person personally who actually forged documents to appear to be from a certain university in order to get a prominent job at a university. It fell to me to blow the whistle on him -- a memory that still makes me shudder a little. My job has involved monitoring systems that ensure integrity of academic claims because academic fraud -- false claims about educational background, research outputs, teaching appointments -- does exist. And what Earl has said about himself has nothing in common with what fraudsters do. To think so otherwise is simply laughable. It suggests the mind of an ignorant person thinking he can do all he can to attack the character of someone he does not know personally on the understanding that the person is just as ignorant and stupid as he is.

[archibald]

He is obviously a fictional construct from multiple and disparate sources

A good example of the second life of the word "obviously" as a stand-in for "presumably."

I don't have to be PC. I can say it like it is.

LOL. You can also act like a fool. Looks like you've made your choice.

How exactly is not dancing around the issue acting like a fool?

If you truly believe you know the truth of what you're saying, then this foolishness is, specifically, in the category of everyday delusion.

I agree. If there's one thing that de facto isn't warranted here, it's expressions of certainty. Or arguably even anything approaching them. Apart from the expression of certainty that expressions of certainty aren't warranted, of course.

Here's a question. Does anyone know of a reliable method to tell the difference between 'partly mythologised' and 'completely mythological' when it comes to, for example, Jesus? I've never seen such a method. Nor one that can reliably tell differences of degree.

That said, 'to me, he is obviously this or that' would include a decent caveat.

Or should I say that to me, 'to me he is obviously this or that' would include a decent caveat?