Carrier, Doherty and GDon's 10th year anniversary of not posting about mythicism!

[maryhelena]

The problem with Carrier, in my view, is that he is offering oranges while the debate over the gospel Jesus requires apples. Jesus from Outer Space might sound clever but it does not address the basic question about the gospel Jesus figure. Have as many up and down sky gods as one wants - all reflecting nothing more than a vivid imagination. This ancient fascination with sky gods holds no value for a modern scientific world. Carrier needs a reality check - to face the music, to face the problems, on the gospel Jesus story rather than flying to outer space - because its not outer space he is reaching - it is a concrete wall. And that is where the ahistoricist/mythicist position currently rests. It will be a difficult u-turn for Carrier if he wants to further the ahistoricists/historicists debate - but that is what he has to do - u-turn.

[Giuseppe]

I'm saying that Doherty's theories have become irrelevant.

note that when Carrier talks about anti-mythicist claims in Tryphon and in Ignatius, he is indirecly based on identical arguments found in Doherty and, before Doherty, Louis-Gordon Rylands and Salomon Reinach.

[Giuseppe]

So what do you think? Has Doherty's ideas as a viable theory disappeared into history and joined the other dead mythicist theories of the past?

Well: no.

Insofar all the "mythicist theories of the past" assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space as the original belief of the early Christians, Doherty's ideas as a viable theory is not at all disappeared into history.

At contrary....

[GakuseiDon]

So what do you think? Has Doherty's ideas as a viable theory disappeared into history and joined the other dead mythicist theories of the past?

Well: no.

Insofar all the "mythicist theories of the past" assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space as the original belief of the early Christians, Doherty's ideas as a viable theory is not at all disappeared into history.

At contrary....

Are you yourself using Doherty's research at all? Citing passages from his books? Promoting Doherty's own views of a celestial crucifixion? Is anyone? I think that if anyone refers to Doherty at all, it is indirectly through the works of Carrier.

I'm not saying that Doherty has been dismissed as wrong and people have moved onto Carrier. I'm just saying that he has now become irrelevant, as I predicted 10 years ago this month.

In fact, for years many of us on these boards encouraged Doherty to try to push to get his work, or parts of his work, published in peer-reviewed publications. He always said that it couldn't happen so there was no use trying. I remember telling him years before that that once someone got some of his ideas into a peer-review journal, his theories would become irrelevant.

[Giuseppe]

So what do you think? Has Doherty's ideas as a viable theory disappeared into history and joined the other dead mythicist theories of the past?

Well: no.

Insofar all the "mythicist theories of the past" assumed a celestial crucifixion in outer space as the original belief of the early Christians, Doherty's ideas as a viable theory is not at all disappeared into history.

At contrary....

Are you yourself using Doherty's research at all? Citing passages from his books? Promoting Doherty's own views of a celestial crucifixion?

Try to search for all my posts where I mention 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (they are very many): it is obvious that I assume Doherty's view of a celestial crucifixion in all such quotes. Should I specify every time my debt to Doherty for that? Isn't it more simple to assume that an entire school of mythicists, from Edwin Johnson until to Richard Carrier, has always assumed a celestial crucifixion in heaven as the best explanation of the epistles ?

Is anyone? I think that if anyone refers to Doherty at all, it is indirectly through the works of Carrier.

if you are interested in explicit mention of individual people, then I can secure you that on a facebook group Doherty and Carrier are mentioned.
My point is that there is no need of an explicit mention. As I have said, you are under the false assumption that a Canadian guy named Earl Doherty has a kind of copy-right on the view that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in heaven.

Nothing of more false. That copy-right is still of property of the Christ Myth Theory from the earliest expressions (Edwin Johnson and J. P. Bolland) until today.

In fact, for years many of us on these boards encouraged Doherty to try to push to get his work, or parts of his work, published in peer-reviewed publications. He always said that it couldn't happen so there was no use trying. I remember telling him years before that that once someone got some of his ideas into a peer-review journal, his theories would become irrelevant.

My prophecy is that the general theory of a celestial crucifixion will appear again and again in future. My certainty derives from the fact that the great difficulty for Carrier and Doherty, i.e. the need of explaining a davidic "birth from woman" as a birth in heaven, will be automatically removed once the Apostolikon will be proved to be the best reconstruction of the genuine Pauline epistles. I assume that you know that the Apostolikon is without Romans 1:3, without 'born by woman, born under the law', without even the 'brother of the Lord' of Galatians 1:19.

The process is already in act: see for example what the Christian dr. Bilby says about the Apostolikon.

[Peter Kirby]

Citing passages from his books? ... Is anyone? I think that if anyone refers to Doherty at all, it is indirectly through the works of Carrier.

I'm not saying that Doherty has been dismissed as wrong and people have moved onto Carrier. I'm just saying that he has now become irrelevant, as I predicted 10 years ago this month.

There are four citations of Doherty in Simon Gathercole's 2018 article "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters."

[Peter Kirby]

No-one argues that Tatian was a non-historicist anymore, for example. Or that Justin Martyr originally converted to a Christianity that didn't have a historical Jesus. Or that Q was written by a Q community who were basically a group of Jesuses.

Were any of these things a primary focus of people who talked about Doherty's ideas in the fifteen years circa 1999-2014 when Doherty had written on his website and first book and before Carrier had published? If not (and I think not), neglect of these ideas doesn't show that "he has now become irrelevant, as I predicted 10 years ago this month."

Why did you predict this anyway? You did so before Carrier even published.

[GakuseiDon]

Are you yourself using Doherty's research at all? Citing passages from his books? Promoting Doherty's own views of a celestial crucifixion?

Try to search for all my posts where I mention 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (they are very many): it is obvious that I assume Doherty's view of a celestial crucifixion in all such quotes. Should I specify every time my debt to Doherty for that? Isn't it more simple to assume that an entire school of mythicists, from Edwin Johnson until to Richard Carrier, has always assumed a celestial crucifixion in heaven as the best explanation of the epistles ?

I do mean explicit references to Doherty though. He proposed more than just a celestial crucifixion in J:NGNM. I take your point that more people than Doherty has raised the topic of a celestial crucifixion, and the fact that he convinced Carrier that there was something to mythicism is an achievement that is to Doherty's credit; but I am talking about explicit references.

Is anyone? I think that if anyone refers to Doherty at all, it is indirectly through the works of Carrier.

if you are interested in explicit mention of individual people, then I can secure you that on a facebook group Doherty and Carrier are mentioned.

That would be evidence against my claim, certainly. It may be that Doherty's works are still being explicitly referenced in other parts of the Internet.

In fact, for years many of us on these boards encouraged Doherty to try to push to get his work, or parts of his work, published in peer-reviewed publications. He always said that it couldn't happen so there was no use trying. I remember telling him years before that that once someone got some of his ideas into a peer-review journal, his theories would become irrelevant.

My prophecy is that the general theory of a celestial crucifixion will appear again and again in future. My certainty derives from the fact that the great difficulty for Carrier and Doherty, i.e. the need of explaining a davidic "birth from woman" as a birth in heaven, will be automatically removed once the Apostolikon will be proved to be the best reconstruction of the genuine Pauline epistles. I assume that you know that the Apostolikon is without Romans 1:3, without 'born by woman, born under the law', without even the 'brother of the Lord' of Galatians 1:19.

That's interesting! Almost as though "born by woman, born under the law" and "brother of the Lord" was an indication of earthliness, so had to be removed or added for some reason.

Good luck with your prediction! You may well be right.

[GakuseiDon]

Citing passages from his books? ... Is anyone? I think that if anyone refers to Doherty at all, it is indirectly through the works of Carrier.

I'm not saying that Doherty has been dismissed as wrong and people have moved onto Carrier. I'm just saying that he has now become irrelevant, as I predicted 10 years ago this month.

There are four citations of Doherty in Simon Gathercole's 2018 article "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters."

I'm glad to hear it, honestly. But that's evidence against my claim. Taking into account Giuseppe's comment about Doherty's works still being discussed on Facebook, perhaps my claim was wrong.

[GakuseiDon]

No-one argues that Tatian was a non-historicist anymore, for example. Or that Justin Martyr originally converted to a Christianity that didn't have a historical Jesus. Or that Q was written by a Q community who were basically a group of Jesuses.

Were any of these things a primary focus of people who talked about Doherty's ideas in the fifteen years circa 1999-2014 when Doherty had written on his website and first book and before Carrier had published? If not (and I think not), neglect of these ideas doesn't show that "I'm just saying that he has now become irrelevant, as I predicted 10 years ago this month."

The first two (on Tatian and Justin Martyr) were discussed extensively here, usually with Doherty's direct involvement. I think his view on Q came up, though I can't remember a lot of discussion here. But then again, maybe my experience is limited since I don't visit many forums and I stay off social media. Perhaps I should have qualified my claim to "Doherty would become irrelevant on this forum".

Why did you predict this anyway? You did so before Carrier even published.

True! People on the old forum had been telling Doherty for years he should try to get parts of his theories published in peer-reviewed publications. I told him more than once that when someone finally did do so, even with Doherty's own theory, that Doherty himself would no longer be relevant. Something like that.

The other prediction I remember making that turned out actually happened was that Ehrman had "painted a big red circle target on his back" when he announced he was going to write a book about mythicism. Up until then, he was referenced positively a lot by mythicists for his views on the corruption of scripture. After that, he was dumped on as just another apologist.

Still, I'm probably batting about 1 in 100 for successful predictions. I thought Carrier's book would be the game changer that brought non-historicity into the scholarly space. Nope. I also remember predicting that Carrier would 'convert' to historicity once he'd had a good luck at the evidence. Nope.