Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Some nostalgia! I just came across this old post on FRDB from Jun 2013. This is from a period where I'd banned myself from the old FRDB board 'because I wasn't going to spend time on mythicist ideas and move onto something else'. In my defence, I did do that for a while. I took down my old website, which contained reviews of various mythicists' works, including Carrier's OHJ, Doherty, Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, and have no plans to put them back up.

The thread was created by Earl Doherty and called "Gakusei Don and Old Tricks"
https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... 469&page=7

Doherty was commenting on my review of his book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" which I had posted on Amazon. Doherty started that thread with:

Earl Doherty wrote:Well, GDon is up to his old tricks. He has finally published a review of my Jesus: Neither God Nor Man on Amazon, under the moniker of "Don Gakusei". Instead of presenting his own analysis, he gleefully channels Richard Carrier's recent dubious opinion that JNGNM is "90% speculation." It would appear that historicism's defenders--along with my own self-styled nemeses (like the late Roo Bookeroo)--are become more and more desperate and even more despicable.

Bernard Muller kindly posted my response on my behalf. My comment (highlighting added by me today):


I've kept to that commitment of not debating on Doherty's theories since then. Admittedly Doherty retired (which I genuinely hope he is enjoying) soon after so hasn't posted any new material, thus there has been no impetus for me to do otherwise.

I think I was correct that his theories have become irrelevant, at least as a point of discussion on the Internet. No-one cites Doherty anymore, despite points of difference from Carrier, like his views on Q (which personally I found very interesting) and on how nearly all the extant Second Century apologists didn't believe in a historical Jesus.

However, I was wrong to think that Carrier's book would be a game changer, and that it would force the historicist side to re-examine assumptions and (finally) come up with a case that doesn't presume historicism in the first place. That's a shame. Carrier's book is terribly written and full of bad arguments, so that may be why it has gotten little engagement. But I'd hoped at least it would force scholars on the historicist side to make a considered response. That hasn't happened.

I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at all of his arguments in his book that contribute odds to his case for mythicism, neither by his supporters or his critics. Most people tend to focus on the 'big ticket' items of the Rank-Raglan class, Cosmic Sperm Bank and Ascension of Isaiah. As far as I know I will be the first one to look at all the other arguments in his book that contribute odds to his case for mythicism, as useful or useless that exercise may turn out to be.

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?

And has Carrier's books (as well as his blogs, appearances at conferences and Youtube interviews) made a difference within the scholarly community, even if indirectly?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:05 pm 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?

Not at all. I've always had a great deal of respect for Doherty, and OHJ feels like a regression in many respects.

G. A. Wells is also oddly neglected, most likely because his "conversion" to a Q-based HJ. Up to the end, though, IRRC, he maintained that the "Jesus of the early Christians" (e.g. Paul) was different.

In many ways, Wells could be said to have the most defensible thesis from a mainstream perspective because it doesn't differ that radically (the main differences being the lack of a particular setting and known disciples in the letters of Paul).

One thing I appreciated about Doherty is the way he focused on one big idea of ancient Christians with a non-earthly Christ. It was woven all through the website and the Jesus Puzzle book. Perhaps also JNGNM but I don't think I've finished that one.

By comparison, as you've pointed out extensively in your review, Carrier is all over the map. He gets himself into trench warfare across many fronts, with hard-to-defend positions, while Doherty has more of a focused offensive on one major point.

Happy Anniversary, lol.

I think you have a fine idea to look at Carrier's whole argument rather than just the highlights.

And has Carrier's books (as well as his blogs, appearances at conferences and Youtube interviews) made a difference within the scholarly community, even if indirectly?

Compared with what? I think well-conducted poll results in some developed countries showing 20% (+/- depending on where) of adults who say their beliefs about Jesus are better described as a "mythical or fictional character" than as a "real man who actually lived" pack more whallop. The economic basis of any discipline is widespread or well-heeled voulntary acceptance that the field is doing something worthwhile. Erosion for NT studies is already visible, and unless new evidence changes the game, there's no particular reason to think the erosion will abate.

Just my personal opinion.

Is Carrier responsible for the current apparent respectability outside the academy to acknowledge that Jesus may not have been a real person? Carrier is due some credit, sure. A lot? I don't know. He stands on the shoulders of giants, as the saying goes. I think those giants get some credit for what seems to be a multi-generation scale social change.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:22 pm G. A. Wells is also oddly neglected, most likely because his "conversion" to a Q-based HJ. Up to the end, though, IRRC, he maintained that the "Jesus of the early Christians" (e.g. Paul) was different.

That's true. His Paul thought that Jesus lived in the remote past, while Q was based on an itinerant preacher that lived around the time that Jesus purportedly lived, but no connection to Paul.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:22 pmIn many ways, Wells could be said to have the most defensible thesis from a mainstream perspective because it doesn't differ that radically (the main differences being the lack of a particular setting and known disciples in the letters of Paul).

Yes, I've also thought that his has been the strongest mythicist theory out there.

It is a mere modern (American?) vice to consider Doherty as an innovator in the field.

Really, a great majority of mythicists of the past place the crucifixion in outer space.

For a list.


Therefore, by definition, there is not eclipse at all for Doherty since the mythicism is to place the Jesus's death, for Paul, in outer space.

Other mythicist views are absolutely marginal in the field. The consensus among mythicists is a key-word: outer space.

...Continuing from the previous post:

To claim that the silence about Doherty is a silence about mythicism is a bit obtuse. It is equivalent to the false inference that the silence about E. P. Sanders is a silence about historicism.

It is more rational to think that if one agrees with E.P. Sanders after the reading of a book of E.P.Sanders then he/she has to place himself/herself in the school of thought that goes from Reimarus to E. P. Sanders.

Idem with Doherty: if one agrees with E.Doherty after the reading of a book of E.Doherty then he/she has to place himself/herself in the school of thought that goes from Edwin Johnson to E. Doherty (going through all the mythicists who placed the death of the Jesus of the early Christians in outer space).


To do otherwise, i.e. calling himself/herself a "fan of Doherty" or a "fan of Sanders", is equivalent to deny his/her own place in the history of the last two centuries.

The same is not true for G. H. Wells, since, to my knowledge, there were not many mythicists, in the past, who anticipated the his same view.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:27 pmTo claim that the silence about Doherty is a silence about mythicism is a bit obtuse. It is equivalent to the false inference that the silence about E. P. Sanders is a silence about historicism.

I don't know if you are referring to me there, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Doherty's theories have become irrelevant. 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. All that has gone into the bit bucket of history. If any of his ideas circulate today, it is only because Carrier has taken them up (and all credit to Doherty there for that). But Carrier is the main man now. All of which I predicted ten years ago.

I certainly wasn't saying there was a "silence about mythicism". Carrier's theory means mythicism has become more popular than ever.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:31 pmIs Carrier responsible for the current apparent respectability outside the academy to acknowledge that Jesus may not have been a real person? Carrier is due some credit, sure. A lot? I don't know. He stands on the shoulders of giants, as the saying goes. I think those giants get some credit for what seems to be a multi-generation scale social change.

That's true, good point. I'm probably being a bit unfair to Doherty for not acknowledging his contribution in convincing Carrier that there was something to mythicism.