tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post1802114314377076634..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' -- An Exercise in MythmakingBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-715221705167196732008-09-10T06:34:00.000-07:002008-09-10T06:34:00.000-07:00Quoting from the bible to "prove" Jesus existed is...Quoting from the bible to "prove" Jesus existed is like quoting Sherlock Holmes to prove he existed. It is a scientifically flawed proof process.<BR/><BR/>We can prove Sir Auther Conan Doyle, Holmes' creator, existed because there is imperical evidence.<BR/><BR/>Tacitus only mentions "Christ" a title not a man. A title given to more people than Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Josephus has been so obviously interfered with by later christians it is embarrising for people who still resort to quoting it. <BR/><BR/>Why would a Jew (Josephus) writing for a Roman audience even contemplate using the term "messiah" when referring to Jesus? It makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>Surely he would have referred to him as "the one that some Judean Jews referred to as the messaiah" rather than stating himself that Jesus was the messiah?<BR/><BR/>Even many of Pauls letters are now generally accepted to be not of his hand due to differences in writing style and prose.<BR/><BR/>And eminent scholars such as John Dominic Crossan are very firm on the fact that there is not one single eye witness testamony in the New Testament gospels. <BR/><BR/>In fact the Gospel of John is so obviously plagerized and contrived its obvious he just read the preceeding three gospels and added his own bits and bobs to make the story more dramatic.<BR/><BR/>The issue of Jesus' existance would appear to be on shakey ground when one considers these facts.<BR/><BR/>However, the story exists even after all these years. <BR/><BR/>Why?<BR/><BR/>Well.... some people still believe that Elvis still lives and works in a gas station in Texas. They adore him, dress up as him and listen "religiously" to his work.<BR/><BR/>There is a need in humans to have something to believe in.Hemingwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088753644133669032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-16193800040599945922008-03-14T05:21:00.000-07:002008-03-14T05:21:00.000-07:00GForce:I was not offended by your post. I know I m...<B>GForce:</B><BR/>I was not offended by your post. I know I may sound passionate sometimes, but it's only because of the frustration I feel when confronting the magnitude of stodginess I encounter sometimes. <BR/><BR/>It's like boxing an infallible glacier. One of the things that actually gives me hope in all of this is that more and more non-Christians are taking up the field of study. Things can only get better as a result (I have faith in the future).<BR/><BR/>Please accept <B>my</B> apology instead . . . for giving off the impression that I was angry at you specifically. In fact, you seem to be the only person here asking real questions, not cheerleading. Please accept my apologies for my mispelling of the two names as well. I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>JD Walters:</B><BR/>Thanks for correcting me on Pervo's name. I was using some lecture notes and obviously got it wrong. Second-hand or not, my point was that the dating of Acts is by no means "settled", not that I am better read than anyone.<BR/><BR/>And . . . . I also got Dr. David J. Trobisch's name wrong (see his <A HREF="http://www.bts.edu/TROBISCH/CV/trobisch.htm" REL="nofollow">website</A>—he really IS an NT scholar.)<BR/><BR/>Sorry about the mixups of those two names there . . . I was citing from my notes . . . and as I have terrible handwriting, I often get names not quite right. But while the citations were faulty, the kernel of the argument remains.<BR/><BR/>Anyway . . . I will leave you guys alone now. <BR/><BR/>Happy preaching!<BR/>(cue the choir)<BR/><BR/>ÓQuixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-6498745919794546292008-03-14T04:22:00.000-07:002008-03-14T04:22:00.000-07:00There are perhaps about 10% of all Acts scholars t...There are perhaps about 10% of all Acts scholars that think it is a second century book, and this requires they ignore the internal evidence of Lk. 1.1-4 which is the intro to both books since they are linked and the evidence of the 'we passages' in Acts which indicate the author was present during these events.This also entirely ignores the recent textual evidence I mentioned.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for Goren and Ayalon, Quixie, neither of these men are experts in epigraphy and their own IAA epigraphers refuted their work!!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61905623299667692942008-03-14T03:22:00.000-07:002008-03-14T03:22:00.000-07:00Quixie,I in no way indicated in my post that I bel...Quixie,<BR/><BR/>I in no way indicated in my post that I believed you "made up" these scholars. I am a layman, a layman with very little time on my hands. And so, I was merely asking the one of us in this forum who is an expert in these matters what his opinion was. It seems I might have made you a bit agitated, I'm sorry. That truly was not my intention. From what I have read however, it is still more probable than not to place Acts in the first century. Alas, this is not the place for a mini-debate on Acts. :) <BR/><BR/>I do however wish to apologize again. i did not mean to call your integrity into question. I hope you did not take it that way. I believe I will seek these books out though. Thanks for the info.<BR/><BR/>blessingsGforcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463718929412019166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65098269877985160282008-03-14T00:15:00.000-07:002008-03-14T00:15:00.000-07:00Re: 2nd Century dating for ActsHis [Quixie's] info...Re: 2nd Century dating for Acts<BR/><BR/>His [Quixie's] information is obviously second-hand, because there is no one called "Richard L. Pearl" arguing for a late date for Acts. He is referring to Richard Pervo, who did write a new monograph called "Dating Acts" which argues for a 2nd Century date. Joseph Tyson argues similarly in his new monograph "Marcion and Luke-Acts: The Defining Struggle". Both are indebted to the much earlier work of John Knox (I think he's actually dead?). I have no idea who Eddie Trobisch is, but he's not a recognized New Testament scholar. The only other contemporary scholar I am aware of who pushes a late date for Acts is (or was) J.C. O'Neill. He wrote quite a long time ago.<BR/><BR/>There does seem to be a new upsurge in arguments for a late date, but they are certainly not in the majority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91716094973682503582008-03-13T18:48:00.000-07:002008-03-13T18:48:00.000-07:00It was not a diatribe. In fact, I specifically wen...It was <B>not</B> a diatribe. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to make sure that nothing in it was an attack of any kind. So I resent that accusation for the reason that it's not true. I disagreed strongly with what I see as misinformation on your part, but nowhere in it was I abusive.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it was no longer than "speaker for the dead"'s post, so length wasn't the issue either, was it?<BR/><BR/>But as no one will ever read it now . . . the point is moot. Ain't it?<BR/><BR/>You bring up Ada Yardeni of the IAA and Andre Lemaire, but you conveniently fail to mention Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon of GSI. What do <B>they</B> say? This is precisely the sort of selective tunnel vision that I've been complaining about all along in this thread. You mention the people that agree with you and completely ignore the people (equally "expert") who disagree.<BR/><BR/>So to borrow your own frequently used phrase:<BR/><BR/>In short . . . <BR/>shame.<BR/><BR/>signing off . . . <BR/><BR/>poofQuixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19127510310279645222008-03-13T18:10:00.000-07:002008-03-13T18:10:00.000-07:00Quixie: You have not been a regular commentator on...Quixie: <BR/><BR/>You have not been a regular commentator on my blog, and so you do not realize that I do not allow long diatribes from any point of view. I find they do not in any way promote dialogue or discussion, indeed they close off and prevent such discussion off. <BR/><BR/>As for the James ossuary, I am pleased to say that every single epigrapher, including Ada Yardeni of the IAA and Andre Lemaire, that affirmed the authenticity of that inscription five years ago, still does--- and so do I. <BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89183561088963608282008-03-13T16:47:00.000-07:002008-03-13T16:47:00.000-07:00Okay . . . now I'm really confused.Why publish th...Okay . . . now I'm <B>really</B> confused.<BR/><BR/>Why publish this last comment and not the previous one?<BR/><BR/>(scratches head)<BR/><BR/>I give up . . . . <BR/>(sighs)<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>GForce:</B><BR/>I didn't just make those names up; go to a good library . . . . find out if what I'm saying is true or not. <BR/><BR/>On a side note, I read the book that Dr. Witherington co-wrote with Hershel Shanks about the James Ossuary when it was first released (in fact, I must say that I enjoyed the book very much at the time), in which he showed just as much confidence in the authenticity of the ossuary and its inscription as he shows in the early dating of this fragment of Acts.<BR/><BR/>Here we are, some time after, and the ossuary inscription seems to have been a forgery after all.<BR/><BR/>hmmm . . . . <BR/><BR/>(Just a thought.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>ÓQuixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-42174006041338342432008-03-13T14:31:00.000-07:002008-03-13T14:31:00.000-07:00Sir;I noticed that you authorized a new comment on...Sir;<BR/><BR/>I noticed that you authorized a new comment on this post after I had submitted one earlier today, which tells me that you received mine but chose to decline it for publication.<BR/><BR/>On my own blogs, I moderate comments also. I allow anyone to comment whether they agree with what I post or not, as long as they are not overtly vulgar or unduly belligerent or otherwise hostile or malicious.<BR/><BR/>My comment earlier today was neither of these things, so I am left with two other possibilities:<BR/><BR/><B>1</B> - My comment was so sophomoric that it doesn't deserve to be read by your fans (in which case my response would be to assure you that I am not above correction, should you be kind enough to provide it. I am not committed to the mythicist position. I have no stake in these matters, so if I am demonstrably in error, I would welcome some data — but it's got to be better argued and presented than in your original post.<BR/><BR/>or . . . .<BR/><BR/><B>2</B> - The fact that my comment points to error on your part and generally disagrees with your position is enough to merit its censoring (in which case my response would be to say that you should be ashamed of yourself, for that reveals that you are not interested in dialogue at all, but in accolades and laurels and cheerleaders).<BR/><BR/>If there is a Santa Claus (and that's a big IF), and if it <B>is</B> true that he knows when you've been bad or good, then I suspect that you will be getting a lump of coal in your stocking come that holiday.<BR/><BR/>peace be with you<BR/><BR/><B>Ó</B>Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-70775097037507285302008-03-13T14:06:00.000-07:002008-03-13T14:06:00.000-07:00Dr Witherington, I was wondering if you might brei...Dr Witherington, <BR/><BR/>I was wondering if you might breifly answer a point raised on quixie's responce to this blog. <BR/><BR/>"mounting analyses (John Knox, Joe Tyson, Richard I Pearl, Eddie Trobisch and Mikeal Parsons to mention just a few)which posit a later dating of Acts, sometimes even as late as the mid-second century."<BR/><BR/>Not to turn against him or anything, but are scholars now pushing Acts into the 2nd century?<BR/><BR/>I know you said, <BR/><BR/>"I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY)."<BR/><BR/>Just curious.<BR/><BR/>ThanksGforcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463718929412019166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64387799052270400122008-03-13T09:07:00.000-07:002008-03-13T09:07:00.000-07:00As ever you put things so clearly and succinctly. ...As ever you put things so clearly and succinctly. Thank You! (please no more caps?)<BR/><BR/>I'll definitely be saving the text and keeping it handy for when it's needed.Finnie Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422106811132238755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-46115772438244280562008-03-12T22:59:00.000-07:002008-03-12T22:59:00.000-07:00Thanks for the breakdown. Even though it might ha...Thanks for the breakdown. Even though it might have been brief. This is a book and subject that has interested me for some time. <BR/><BR/>I do not believe the way they read Paul is fair. They don't take into account that Paul's culture was not like ours. Background info was taken for granted in ancient high context societies. None of Paul's epistles were written with the intent of passing on the whole story. Rather he was responding to specific issues and questions to the particular churches. These guys were already Christians, so it’s likely they already knew the Jesus stroy. Paul didn't just walk around his whole life screaming "Jesus and Him crucified". They had to have some background info there in order to interpret what he was saying. His point was we are not saved by Jesus walking on water or raising the dead, but by HIS resurrection from the dead. This is what Paul emphasizes and why we hear so little of the Gospel narrative. These skeptics usually say things like, "pretend we don't have the Gospels, or that we're in the 60's AD and all we have are these letters. Now what can you know of Jesus?" To be sure, if we choose to take up this challange, we would know less, but we could still be able to see the basics of the Gospel story spread out in bits and pieces. Only when we assume, as Doherty does, that there was a Christ-Myth cult (one there is no historical evidence for) can we filter through it things like Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 and say Paul didn't mean a human man. The point is, the reader not looking through these epistles with a heavy bias (in either direction) might come away from Paul's letters believing Paul cared little for Jesus' life. But they will NOT, find some kind of ethereal savior god who Paul believed lived and died in the spirit world. This is Jesus mythers importing ideas from a "cult" that we don't even have any evidence existing outside of their own minds. <BR/><BR/>In any event, what kind of responsible historical inquiry asks people to ignore huge pieces of evidence like the Gospels? Not one interested in truth. <BR/><BR/>Since I'm still a student, I'm interested if you think this is a fair assessment Dr. Witherington. <BR/><BR/>Blessings all!<BR/>Derekspeaker for the deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614741697798713856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-90510510162048277022008-03-12T10:35:00.000-07:002008-03-12T10:35:00.000-07:00I find this post to be misinformative and commente...I find this post to be misinformative and commented on it <A HREF="http://leoquix.blogspot.com/2008/03/wutherin-witherington.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, spurred on by all the <I>amen</I> comments. I post it here just to be fair.<BR/><BR/>peace<BR/><BR/><B>Ó</B>Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-48230598521194037432008-03-12T10:29:00.000-07:002008-03-12T10:29:00.000-07:00thanks for breaking down his arguments.it's intere...thanks for breaking down his arguments.<BR/><BR/>it's interesting how the arguments change and take shape, in over time.<BR/><BR/>obviously, i hope this book is not wildly popular, or the concepts espoused don't get increasingly introduced into society.<BR/><BR/>It's as though Doherty (and similar people) are challenged by the message of Christ and will go to all lengths to attack it so that they can ignore what they are challenged to believe as truth.RChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11340006144797496514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71911407488192932522008-03-12T07:51:00.000-07:002008-03-12T07:51:00.000-07:00Doherty and other "mythical Jesus" advocates ignor...Doherty and other "mythical Jesus" advocates ignore the evidence from Paul's letters and focus attention on the missing decades from Jesus' crucifixion (~30) to the estimated date of the first Gospel (~70). They also ignore the most likely explanation for the dearth of written accounts predating the Gospels -- the destruction of Jerusalem and with it, in all likelihood, the Jerusalem Church and whatever it may have had in the way of an archive. The historian Donald Akenson has called attention to this disaster, which leaves us with only Paul's surviving letters as the earliest testament to Christianity.Ralph Hitchenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07405787771198956545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-36654620654301037752008-03-11T12:22:00.000-07:002008-03-11T12:22:00.000-07:00Thanks for the review. These ideas are always in c...Thanks for the review. These ideas are always in circulation on the Internet, so reading the refutation was helpful. (But, yes, the caps were annoying.) I going to save this one, for possibel future reference.Craig L. Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08351091412370400350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-3835395678636859932008-03-11T12:18:00.000-07:002008-03-11T12:18:00.000-07:00I'm surprised that Doherty is still causing any pr...I'm surprised that Doherty is still causing any problems at all. J.P. Holding took him down pretty hard years ago, and Glen Miller has addressed the so-called "Christ-myth" as well. <BR/><BR/>BTW Ben, Doherty does attempt to deal with the Pauline passages that refer to an earthly Jesus. His response is either 1) it's a late interpolation to bolster the human Jesus; or 2) it doesn't REALLY refer to a human Jesus.Monforthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13420961940431019790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-2769308728317203392008-03-09T23:15:00.000-07:002008-03-09T23:15:00.000-07:00I'm kinda with robert fisher on that one.Other tha...I'm kinda with robert fisher on that one.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, I enjoyed reading this post. I read your post about Zeitgeist, and found it interesting as well. I'll have to refer back to it in the section you indicated.<BR/><BR/>Reading your blog is pretty encouraging. I don't like seeing un-intelligent faith, and I know from what I read (digital or otherwise) that there's some one who knows his stuff teaching people out there.<BR/><BR/>Besides that, reading your critiques kind of puts me in perspective. I've got a lot of study to do in preparation for my future ministry, but it's nice to be able to say "I understand that!" more often in this post than the last. ^_^Rob Pennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02213274926132371888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22299057343072705362008-03-09T16:01:00.000-07:002008-03-09T16:01:00.000-07:00+1. There's a nifty "blockquote" tag in HTML whic...+1. There's a nifty "blockquote" tag in HTML which can be used to set aside the summary from your critique. The all caps hurts my eyes, and it puts into my head this kinda terrifying voice of you screaming.Robert Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15576124960718643532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-39120375568963172972008-03-09T13:02:00.000-07:002008-03-09T13:02:00.000-07:00I'm a loyal reader of your blog. Further, I love t...I'm a loyal reader of your blog. Further, I love to see poor scholarship revealed for what it is. But please consider doing away with the all-caps in red on pale background. It makes your words almost unreadable.Rich Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503690198186721573noreply@blogger.com