Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 39 (659021)
04-11-2012 10:59 PM


I still have some pages left to go in Did Jesus Exist?, but I ordered this book from Amazon and have started reading it as I finish Ehrman's.
As I already posted over at FRDB, the very first two paragraphs of the introduction are leaving me with serious worries about the rest of the book. Have a look for yourself:
quote:
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2005):
Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God.
We don't know who that someone was, or where he wrote his story. We are not even sure when he wrote it, but we do know that several decades had passed since the supposed events he told of. Later generations gave this storyteller the name of "Mark," but if that was his real name, it was only by coincidence. (p. 1)
Say what!?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 04-11-2012 11:12 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 3 by Theodoric, posted 04-12-2012 1:20 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2012 1:31 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 04-12-2012 3:36 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 39 (659046)
04-12-2012 8:46 AM


Earl's Early Mistake(s)
I'm very glad to see that there are members here who not only are able to spot Earl's mistake but are also genuinely troubled about finding it in a supposedly serious piece of scholarship.
As to those who haven't spotted it yet, the issue is this: In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not God.
At best this opening statement is a misrepresentation of Earl's sources; at worst it shows us that Mr. Doherty hasn't even bothered reading the texts he is reviewing.
Later in the intro Earl gives a definition of 'Christian' that rests on the very thing he is trying to prove:
quote:
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2005):
This book will continue to use the words "Christians" and "Christianity," but in that initial period before the Gospels bestowed a new meaning on them, such terms will refer to the wide variety of groups, Jewish and gentile, that believed in a Christ or a Son of God who was a divine Savior, but who was not yet regarded as having been on earth. (p. 3)
It would appear that with this definition, Mr. D's got himself quite the easy road ahead. All he'll have to do in the rest of the book is prove that there were early Christians living in 'that initial period' and he will, by definition, have proven that they did not believe in an historical Jesus.
I wish I could have gotten away with this kind of malarkey when writing papers in school. Man, life would have been good.
Jon

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2012 12:09 PM Jon has replied
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 04-12-2012 12:16 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 39 (659048)
04-12-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
04-12-2012 8:44 AM


To refer to Jesus as the Son of God and then launch into a discussion of Mark seems an unlikely mistake for a true Biblical scholar.
Well; that might have been excusable. But Earl didn't just refer to Jesus as the 'Son of God'; he referred to him as 'God'; and this is inexcusable: Mark does not make such a declaration anywhere in his Gospel.
John does.
Many later Christians do.
Mark doesn't.
Earl's gotten his sources twisted and mangled (at best) or hasn't even read them (at worst).
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 04-12-2012 8:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 39 (659107)
04-12-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
04-12-2012 12:09 PM


Re: Earl's Early Mistake(s)
Jon writes:
As to those who haven't spotted it yet, the issue is this: In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not God.
Except that, as I just showed, he is.
You showed no such thing. Don't be ridiculous.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 04-12-2012 12:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 39 (659108)
04-12-2012 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jazzns
04-12-2012 12:16 PM


Re: Earl's Early Mistake(s)
I confess ignorance.
What is it about the divinity or lack of divinity of Jesus in Mark have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus?
If Jesus is god in Mark, how does that help Earl show the lack of historicity?
If Jesus is NOT god in Mark, how does that refute Earl or alternativly, show proof of historicity?
It has to do with the quality of Earl's scholarship and his misuse of sources.
Mark does not talk about Jesus as being God. Earl needs to do a better job evaluating and analyzing the information in his sources.
A first good step would be to actually read them.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 04-12-2012 12:16 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 04-12-2012 2:07 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 39 (659121)
04-12-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jazzns
04-12-2012 2:07 PM


Re: A few more questions...
You seem to be rather incensed that he doesn't have his ducks in a row for a reason that doesn't seem at all obvious. Even if he is wrong about Mark, what does that have to do with anything regarding his scholarship other than that he is being sloppy on this one issue. Sloppyness seems to be something that is common for people who wade into this arena.
I'm merely pointing this out.
I'm not claiming that sloppiness is unique to Doherty. The Mythicist camp, however, does seem rife with it. Earl's mistake here doesn't help their image.
Some people DO believe that Mark points to Jesus' divinity and on those terms is is very much a theological issue.
People can believe what they want to believe. But the text still says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. The mental gymnastics required are just too much for taking the position seriously.
Yet even taking all of that into consideration, we must still conclude that Earl has assumed as fact something that is highly debatable; making this is D- scholarship at best.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 04-12-2012 2:07 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 39 (659194)
04-13-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
04-13-2012 7:55 AM


Re: Wait, what?
I don't see that it's inconsistent with Mark, where Jesus is referred to by the divine appellation "Lord." Obviously the later gospels do much more to flesh out Jesus's divinity but you can't say that a seed of the idea isn't present in Mark. It's right there at the beginning - the whole gospel is the story of how the "way was laid" for "the Lord"; I.e. God in the person of Jesus.
Mark keeps Jesus and God separate. Nowhere does he identify them as one and the same, and at times he even draws attention to their distinction. Here are two clear examples:
quote:
Mark 1:24 (NRSV):
and he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.'
quote:
Mark 13:32 (NRSV):
'But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
quote:
Mark 14:62 (NRSV):
Jesus said, 'I am; and
"you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power",
and "coming with the clouds of heaven." '
In all of these instances Jesus is clearly set apart from God as being a separate entity; first he is the 'Holy One of God'; second he is the 'Son' who, being independent of the 'Father', does not know the time of the apocalypse; third Jesus is the 'Son of Man' sitting separately at the 'right hand of Power [= God]'. Nowhere in Mark is Jesus equated with God and in many places (such as those I quoted) he is clearly described as a separate entity.
No wonder repeated requests here and at FRDB for evidence that Mark wrote about a Jesus who was God have been met with nothing but silly excuses and apologetics of a quality below even the most insane fundamentalists.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2012 7:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2012 3:01 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 39 (659197)
04-13-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
04-13-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Wait, what?
And, what? You're surprised that an editorial turn of phrase that begins with "once upon a time" doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy?
Earl's apparently been in trouble over this already, as he admits:
quote:
EarlDoherty in The Jesus Puzzle thread at FRDB:
I'm not saying that it's a slam-dunk exactly what Mark had in mind for his Jesus character. I've also taken flak from a couple of others, notably James McGrath, for my opening sentence. It was basically meant to be "pithy" as one supporter suggested. But as a general statement (hardly meant to identify Jesus as identical with God), I maintain it's valid if you don't insist on trying to take it apart on uncertain technicalities. The very fact that we're debating the point here at length, shows that it's not a clear-cut case.
This opening statement is a troubling thing to see in a scholarly work about early Christianity.
Doherty's claim that "it's valid if you don't insist on trying to take it apart on uncertain technicalities" is just a copout for "I did a sloppy job and don't want to admit it".
In a work such as this, nobody wants to read stuff that "doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy"; the audience isn't looking for poetic language or turns of phrase or any other such nonsense. The author is expected to be straight and unambiguous with his claims; and if he fails to do this he must suffer the consequences from his critics.
'Poetic license' is never an excuse for a factual error in a piece of academic writing.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2012 8:59 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2012 3:07 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 39 (659268)
04-13-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
04-13-2012 3:01 PM


Re: Wait, what?
Okay, Crash. What gives? Why do you keep quoting that passage from Mark where he doesn't say that Jesus is God?
I don't see the separation. God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are the three aspects of the Triune Christian God. That doesn't mean that they're in any way separate from each other.
Too funny, Crash. Triune Christian God? What does that have to do with the gospel of Mark?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2012 3:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2012 8:28 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 39 (659269)
04-14-2012 12:10 AM


Earl Does it Again?
I confess that my knowledge about Paul's letters is not as extensive as my knowledge on the gospels; and I haven't read his letters in as much detail as I have the gospels. However, I cannot recall any instances of Paul claiming that Jesus is God, though Doherty makes the assertion that he does:
quote:
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):
If Paul were preaching a man who was God, his listeners and converts would demand to know about the life of this man, his sayings and deeds. (p. 25)
In fact, this appears to be a key piece to Earl's argument against an historical JesusJesus couldn't have originally been a man because he was thought of as being God and no one, Paul included, would have fallen for such malarkey as claiming a mere man was God; therefore Jesus, believed to be God by early Christians, could not also have been seen as having been a flesh-and-blood human.
But for this line of argumentation to carry any weight at all we have to see in the writings of the earliest Christians (this is a restriction set up by Doherty for reasons there isn't time to mention here) an identification of Jesus as God.
But do we see this? I cannot find any instances. The closest reference I can find occurs in Philippians 2:5—11, yet even here we do not have a declaration of Jesus being God, only a claim that Jesus was in the same form as God (Magic ether? Holy Spirit juice? We don't really know what that form would be...) and even then he was not equal to God, and he certainly wasn't claimed to be one and the same as God.
So where does Paul say that Jesus is God?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2012 1:21 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 39 (659301)
04-14-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Huntard
04-14-2012 1:21 AM


Re: Earl Does it Again?
Really? Where does he claim that Paul claims Jesus was god? Notice the "If" in the beginning of the sentence? That usually indicates a hypothetical.
Out of curiosity, have you read the book? The 'if' statement has to do with Paul's knowledge about the historical Jesus. Doherty is saying that: If this God Paul was talking about had actually been a human, Paul should know more about his human life; Paul doesn't know much about his human life; therefore this God (Jesus) Paul is talking about most likely had not been a human.
It is a difficult thing to point out on a forum since the argument involved spans several pages; what I'm trying to point out is that Doherty's argument rests on the assumption that Paul was declaring Jesus God. But I cannot find evidence that this was going on.
Making things even more difficult is Earl's sloppy use of terminology; he uses things like 'Son of God' and 'divinity' and 'God' as though they are interchangeable in the early Christian writings. They are not. He seems completely okay with viewing the letters of Paul through the lens of a modern Christian, using Trinitarian terminology to talk about Pauline theology. For example, he says:
quote:
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):
Those who derive their view of Jesus from the Gospels might be startled to realize the highly elevated nature of the Jesus preached by early Christians. He is party of the very Godhead itself. His nature is integral with that of the Father. (p. 19)
...
All this is Paul's world. God and the heavenly Christ have been working through the Holy Spirit on men such as himself, and on believers who respond to them in faith. (p. 30)
Paul does talk about having the Spirit working inside people, but not in the way Doherty describes things. And to even introduce the word 'Godhead' in describing Pauline Christianity shows, in my opinion, a serious lack of attentiveness to his sources and too heavy a reliance on modern Christian theology in building his view of the early Christian movement.
But the question remains: Where does Paul call Jesus God?
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2012 1:21 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 04-14-2012 5:32 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024