2012-04-08

Earl Doherty’s response to Bart Ehrman‘s Did Jesus Exist?

[1.] Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Introduction

Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Chapter 1
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Chapters 1-2
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Chapter 2 continued
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: A Roman Trio
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: What Did Jews Have to Say?
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Telling the Gospels Like It Is
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Existence of Non-Existent Sources for the Gospels
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Form Criticism and the Sources of the Gospels
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Listening to the Sounds of Silence
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 1: Papias
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 2: Ignatius
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 3: 1 Clement (with Addendum on the Epistle of Barnabas)
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Non-Pauline Epistles – Part One
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Part One)
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Part Two)
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Jesus Tradition in the Acts of the Apostles
Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: The Pauline Epistles – Part One

19. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: The Pauline Epistles – Part Two

20. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: The Brother of the Lord

21. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: “Key Data” in Proving Jesus’ Historicity – The Crucified Messiah

22. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: A Crucified Messiah

23. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Mythicist Claims: Problematic Record

24. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Mythicist Claims: The Gospels Are Interpretive Paraphrases of the OT

Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Is Jesus Based on Pagan Precedents?

26. Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism: Mythicist Inventions: Part One – Creating the Mythical Christ from the Pagan Mystery Cults

* * * * *

13 thoughts on “Earl Doherty’s response to Bart Ehrman‘s Did Jesus Exist?”

Pingback: Den fortgående debatten kring Bart Ehrmans ”Did Jesus Exist” « Jesus granskad
Lowen Gartner says:

2012-05-18 16:11:58 GMT+0000 at 16:11

I just got notified of part 12……what happened to parts 9 – 11. How do I find an index page if this is not it?

Reply
1. Neil Godfrey says:
  
  2012-05-18 16:55:47 GMT+0000 at 16:55
  
  Ah, I’m slack. Will update this soon.
  
  Reply
2. Neil Godfrey says:
  
  2012-05-18 17:08:47 GMT+0000 at 17:08
  
  Updated now. I try to keep this updated as the posts come through. Sometimes real life gets in the way and it’s not always current.
  
  Reply
  1. Lowen Gartner says:
    
    2012-05-19 03:33:22 GMT+0000 at 03:33
    
    Thanks – I guess there are other ways to keep up to date. I just don’t know them.
    
    Reply
Lowen Gartner says:

2012-06-27 13:57:34 GMT+0000 at 13:57

I don’t know if anyone can help. In an online discussion, after I recommended this page and paying attention to Doherty, all of Doherty’s ideas were dismissed with a single statement: Doherty;s whole thesis is founded that Paul’s Jesus resided in a fleshly sub-lunar realm, which he asserts was a common feature of Middle Platonic thought. This idea is met with a universal “What? Do you know anything about Middle Platonism? It doesn’t say that at all.”

Has this been addressed and does anyone know of a link or book I can read to understand how to respond to it?

Reply
1. Neil Godfrey says:
  
  2012-06-27 22:59:53 GMT+0000 at 22:59
  
  To see what Doherty does in fact argue have a look at http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/ehrmans-most-bizarre-criticism-of-all-against-doherty/ where I quote Doherty’s words against Ehrman’s attack with a similar dismissal.
  
  To show what were the common ideas at the time of Paul I have posted:
  
  http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/ancient-beliefs-about-heavenly-realms-demons-and-the-end-of-the-world/
  
  http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/demonology-the-basics-of-middle-platonic-beliefs-as-a-background-to-early-christianity/
  
  http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/doherty-the-sublunar-realm-and-paul-correcting-some-disinformation/
  
  and the archive on the Fallen Watchers: http://vridar.wordpress.com/category/religion/fallen-watchers/
  
  Reply
2. GakuseiDon says:
  
  2012-06-27 23:21:44 GMT+0000 at 23:21
  
  Lowen, you won’t find Doherty’s “World of Myth” theory in any books or scholarly essays on how people thought back then. It is missing from John Dillon’s comprehensive “The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220”. It is missing from the primary sources of pagan literature like Plutarch, as well as secondary sources. You can’t open a scholarly book and read a chapter about “the World of Myth” theory, because it doesn’t exist.
  
  For me, Doherty distorts the thinking of the pagans and Jews in Paul’s time in order to jam his theories in. And that is a damn shame, because how they thought back then is fascinating. All rationalists need to resist that kind of agenda-ridden distortion, whether it comes from the bad apologetics of the fundamentalists, or the bad apologetics of the mythicists. Ask yourself: how would you go about proving or disproving Doherty’s theories?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven Carr says:
    
    2012-06-28 00:19:02 GMT+0000 at 00:19
    
    Why did Paul think there was a Jerusalem above us?
    
    Reply
    1. Steven Carr says:
      
      2012-06-28 00:20:39 GMT+0000 at 00:20
      
      Why did the author of Hebrews think there was a tabernacle above us?
      
      Where was the third Heaven that Paul claimed to have gone to?
      
      Reply
Pingback: Seriös eller oseriös debatt? « Jesus granskad
DAVAINE Bernard says:

2018-11-22 12:42:01 GMT+0000 at 12:42

Si vous pouviez jeter un coup d’œil sur ce blog qui bouleverse énormément d’idées reçues, trop peut-être.
http://roulel.blogspot.com
et peut-être votre commentaire,
Vous en remerciant par avance,
Bien à vous, et bonne fête du solstice.
Bernard DAVAINE 2 rue d’Infroy 59500 DOUAI France

Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

"For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org."

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015
Congratulations, Vridar, . . . I declare, Vridar, your own hard work translating Bruno Bauer will make a major difference in future studies of Bruno Bauer and the evolution of Hegel’s philosophy of religion.

-- Paul Trejo, - April 2023
"I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues."

-- Martin Lewadny, - March 2009
"Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments."

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
"I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!"

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now))."

-- Jim West, – September 2010
This is superb work, Neil, and reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s work from a century ago. . . . .

I commend you for being the first to even TRY to translate Bruno Bauer’s brilliant Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, which is now more than 150 years old.

. . . . .Thank you for your historic effort.

-- Paul Trejo, M.A., - November 2022
Editor, An English Edition of Bruno Bauer’s 1843 Christianity Exposed
"Neil, in my mature judgement (I am now an old man), this fine 4-part study is a brilliant reworking, an instructive restatement of Hayden White’s Metahistory (and his subsequent writings). Your critique of certain historiographic representations as imbedded in the case study of the “scientistic”, “empirical” Richard Carrier provides a solid starting point for the more honest “fictive” reading of the New Testament that you encourage. Your last paragraph is a very intelligent call to sensitive readers of these texts. I suspect a whole generation of biblical students has been educated without the insights provided by the incomparable White. Bravo!"

-- Timothy Bagley, - November 2024
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work."

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014
It is worth saying another word of appreciation here for Neil Godfrey's effort to make Bruno Bauer accessible in English.

-- Peter Kirby, - May 2023
"I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience."

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John"

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
"Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than 'Thank you' in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!"

— James McGrath, – June 2009
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019

Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I re-read my earlier reply and can see how you took it as “emotional” — but I can assure you…” Dec 18, 02:43
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I simply asked you to tell me what it is that you think I misunderstand or what, specifically, I am…” Dec 17, 20:26
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Neil, I have no interest to engage in an emotional discussion. I felt indebted to you, since I read many…” Dec 17, 19:21
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Why do you ask? What are you trying to argue? I agree and acknowledge that Bayes theorem is a valid…” Dec 16, 09:22
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “My sentence “I voice several assumptions, testing if we all agree on them:” was meant as a yes/no question; let…” Dec 16, 08:57
Clarke W Owens on Is Everything a Question of Probability?: “Well, the distinction between “public knowledge” and the knowledge of professional researchers is not always crystal clear. For example, western…” Dec 15, 22:34
Neil Godfrey on Is Everything a Question of Probability?: “I spoke of public knowledge but afterwards wondered if I missed your point. You may have been thinking of knowledge…” Dec 15, 22:05
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I don’t think the scholars who do this are engaging in “nonsense”. I think they are genuinely trapped in thinking…” Dec 15, 21:52
Neil Godfrey on Is Everything a Question of Probability?: “Empirical knowledge is different from Bayesian probabilism, but so is most all other knowledge, because knowledge is socially determined. I…” Dec 15, 21:31

2012-04-08

Earl Doherty’s response to Bart Ehrman‘s Did Jesus Exist?

Other posts on Bart Ehrman’s attempts to deal with mythicism

Neil Godfrey

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

13 thoughts on “Earl Doherty’s response to Bart Ehrman‘s Did Jesus Exist?”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply