James McGrath is doing an ongoing project to review Earl Doherty’s book (website here) about an alternate vision of Christian origins, one that negates the existence of Jesus. One unlinked blog that had criticized James McGrath belongs to Neil Godfrey (links here and here). Another possible source were the comments on the blog of John Loftus (here). A bit of context.
When others had already commented on an apparent disregard, in their minds, to make a best-attempt to represent the opponent’s argument accurately before preceding to rebuttal (accusing Dr. McGrath of demolishing “strawman” arguments), I was a bit eager to see that the latest post addressed this criticism from the outset. But instead of dealing with the actual objection that was raised to James McGrath, he made a strawman of the objection, raising the very same problem again in his reply. Instead of the troubling accusation made against him being given response, that of wrongfully representing Doherty’s work, that argument itself is facilely represented as an objection about a failure to point out the good parts of the book, as if it were a mere matter of charity to give the argument a fair shake. The review does indeed attempt to dismantle the arguments and doesn’t take the approach of presenting solid evidence against the proposed hypothesis, the logical course which would be suggested by the analogical reply about homeopathic medicine and young-earth creationism. Just disprove it instead of addressing the arguments themselves? OK, go ahead. But he doesn’t. He has his cake and eats it too, using an appeal on the basis that he doesn’t really need to engage the material because it’s fully bunk and that can be proven, but hey, he’s going to go ahead comment on several individual points of the argument anyway… just in a fashion that’s allowed to be lax about ideas like representing the opponent’s arguments properly because, hey, he’s just reviewing nonsense today. Hence this reply.
Dr. McGrath,
You are reviewing Earl Doherty’s book. I will admit that I haven’t read the most recent edition, and I last read the original edition some eight years ago or so. So I am not completely fresh on all the arguments. Nor do I particularly care which way you believe in Jesus, or not – what I care most about here, is seeing someone who participates actively in academics writing at a level that shows nothing but disdain for the intelligence of his audience when presenting his views to the people outside universities.
You explain your program in one paragraph, in response to those who claim that he has misrepresented Earl Doherty’s arguments: “When someone offers a homeopathic remedy as a solution to an illness, I don’t see the need for a defender of mainstream medicine to point out that it is water and staying hydrated is a good thing, and can represent a positive effect of ingesting it. When someone defending mainstream science focuses on the flaws in a book promoting young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design, I won’t particularly mind if the one criticizing the work fails to highlight the occasional good point the author made.”
You seem to have completely forgotten that you might be writing to an intelligent audience, one which will cross-examine your own statements just as much as they will examine the statements of the one you wish to impugn. Not only do you unapologetically admit that you are less interested in a balanced portrayal of the work that you purport to “review,” but you insult your own readers by misrepresenting the very feedback you receive from your audience. They tell you that you are not representing the substance of the argument but instead using a strawman. You say that it’s okay to leave out praise of positive points when you are making a review with a negative emphasis. I’m stultified enough to stop reading after that paragraph.
What I don’t get is this – how do people who are trained both in exegesis (reading what people write) and apologetics (supporting what you say with reason) so flagrantly disregard them with regard to the text that they are reading right in front of them, in their native language, their native culture, and their very own field of research… and then proceed to tell us all that they are credible experts on the writings that have been handed down in copies, that are in a foreign tongue, from a foreign culture, at a remove of two thousand years? Where is the self-criticism? Where is the introspection? Where is the plain old honesty?
I made a comment along similar lines (but from a separate starting point) on JesusMysteries dsicussion group recently. The emotional investments that “taking a stand” on an issue in public press upon of us, can make us do some very weird things, when viewed from the perspective of an academia whose goal is the dissemination of knowledge. Such as pretend to be a lot more sure than we reasonably can be (perhaps in fact -are-), pretend that the opposition’s argument is a lot weaker than it is (perhaps weaker than even -we see it to be-), and in general cave to a lot of social expectations. Standards get let by the wayside.
Now this sermonizing cannot finish here. In the Christian language, I am but a sinner, in the common language I’m just another schlub on the internet. But come on! Practice what you preach, be authentic, and do so -especially- when you have the opportunity to make an impact outside of your regular environment, on people you perceive as the “public.” They’re a lot more savvy than you give them credit for, each person wise in their own way, but every single one of them can eventually sniff out that which stinks… when first they get a whiff of it.
Perhaps that what is all the showmanship is about, pretending that the dissent doesn’t amount to an iota, so nobody might be inclined to read anything -but- opposition to the opposition, when they get an urge to read on the topic. You have managed to mention creationism in practically… Every. Single. Post. Its the hook you hope to sell to your reader – just as you disregard this kind of crank out of hand, so I disregard the other. Nice narrative, I think I read that story at least fifty times before, but maybe you could do us a favor and bring some objectivity to your purported effort to make a review? Think about the fact that not all of your audience may already agree with you, and thus not all of your audience disregards the question out of hand? [Editorial comment from myself: With another sitting, this one paragraph is far too conspiratorial. There are any number of reasons for this kind of display, one of which could simply be the idea that it is somehow persuasive writing. I choose to keep it for the sake of what an "open letter" is supposed to be, that which is republished for wider comment and reflection but is, in fact, a letter.]
Perhaps reviewing some example reviews in scholarly journals will refresh your memory on how you know they actually get written when they are published to peer review. Perhaps you could try to write for your audience and not just the segment nodding their heads. Perhaps you could try to use your wealth of knowledge, experience, and degree not as a club, when dealing with the riff-raff, but as a springboard for writing in a way that is both completely scholarly and also readable by the people you have specifically chosen to address.
Yes, this is confrontational. Its very genre is confrontational. It’s intentional. While the general tenor of academic debate is cordial and dignified, the very point I am making here is that this does not resemble academic debate. More importantly, it does not adhere to the ideals of such debate that we should want to commit ourselves in teaching and writing generally.
sincerely,
Peter Kirby
Peter, thank you so much for posting this. I have all along struggled with what the appropriate tone for my discussion of Doherty’s book ought to be. The challenge is that, like creationists (I know you don’t like the analogy, but it is apt), mythicists are not people who are interested in doing scholarship, but people who try to make their products resemble scholarship to the untrained eye so as to use scholarship, as creationism uses science, to boost it’s message and increase it’s predators, but without adhering in the process to the methods that make the natural sciences or historical criticism effective. I have been in conversation with mythicists for some time, and have already seen them use even the fact that I take the time to discuss their claims as supposed evidence that those claims have scholarly merit. And so I have been trying to find a way to bring scholarly rigor to bear on mythicism’s claims, without thereby giving the impression that both the view of the reviewer and the view being reviewed are the result of the application of scholarly methods, and so as in instances in which scholars disagree in significant numbers, one should simply choose one’s preference from among the options.
I have discussed the positive case for a historical Jesus on my blog on many previous occasions. Mythicists sometimes responded that if I just read the latest edition of Doherty’s book, I would change my mind. I am doing so, and am finding it to be full of illogical arguments, misrepresentations, and claims which time and again reinforce to me the sense that time spent reading it is time wasted. I regularly benefit from reading scholarly works that challenge my assumptions, even when they don’t persuade me to change my mind, because they are academically rigorous and stimulating. Doherty’s book is not any of the above. And so perhaps my resentment at feeling I have no choice but to read and blog through it if I am to address mythicist appeals to it is showing.
I would love to be more polite, more objective, and if nothing else, give a better impression of myself in the process of reviewing Doherty’s book. But unless I find a way of making clear that the contents are altogether lacking in scholarly rigor, then my polite review will become fodder for mythicist quote-mining in support of their claims. And so I would truly value further input from you and other readers on how to navigate the waters between those two concerns.
Thank you again for reading my blog and for taking the time to challenge me on my tone. I do appreciate it immensely.
McGrath’s arguments so far (in my opinion) have over-emphasized a two-prong strategy of dismissal: 1) All the Scholars Agree With Me! 2) Creationism! Homeopathy! Holocaust Denial! Magic Tricks!
The first–that mainstream NT scholarship and historical scholarship rejects mythicism–is a legitimate argument. Not many of us laymen, if presented with a Greek manuscript of gMark, could separate it into the developmental layers of Q1, Q2, Q3, M, and L. It could be argued (and may be so) that mainstream NT scholars have conclusively demonstrated through technical analysis that non-scholars can’t really duplicate, that there are, for example, sayings in the Gospels that are, or are very likely to be, authentic sayings of a Historical Jesus (HJ). Their argumentation and evidence may be laid out in book-length monographs that can’t be summarized comprehensibly in the space of a blog post. Unfortunately, McGrath doesn’t make this argument per se, he tends to just repeat the mantra that the scholars support historicism, without offering much elaboration as to why they do.
The second “argument” is (in my opinion) largely question-begging, until he can provide some examples of the overwhelming evidence for an HJ. Mythicists may be crackpots comparable to Creationists or homeopaths, but if that’s the case it ought to be fairly easy to demonstrate. One doesn’t have to be a scholar in cosmology or evolutionary biology to show that Creationists and homeopaths are crackpots. A reasonable level of layperson education can do the trick, because Creationists and homeopaths really are crackpots, and the evidence really is stacked up in huge mountains against them.
So far, in my opinion, McGrath has been too busy slinging zingers and dismissive comments to back up his disdain, for the most part. However, in his last post he did finally put out what I think is a pretty good example of evidence for historicism:
I wish he would do more of this and less mockery and insult. I think it would go a lot further toward persuading his audience that mythicists are crackpots, if he can “show, don’t tell.”
KevinC, I would love to know whether the impression I gave you is because of or in spite of the fact that I have been discussing mythicism on my blog for a long time. I took some things for granted, and treated my conversation about Doherty’s book as part of that ongoing conversation, I’m sure. I wonder whether your impression is because you are aware of that earlier blogging on this subject, or because you started with my treatment of Doherty. If you could let me know, I’d appreciate it, since it is always a challenge when blogging, to not bore long-term readers while also making what one posts accessible to first-time readers.
I’ve visited your blog before, but your review of Doherty is the first set of posts from you that I’ve seen addressing mythicism. If you have one or more previous posts that provide (at least some of) the evidence for your position, I would appreciate links to them.
A suggestion: for your next post, provide as many examples of the irrefutable evidence for HJ as you can, and/or link to posts where you’ve already done so–basically a blog-length Jesus historicist equivalent of Why Evolution Is True or The Greatest Show On Earth. Feel free to end the presentation with a coda that says, “See? This is why mythicists are tinfoil hat nutters.”
Then–find something more enjoyable to blog about. I don’t see how it would be anything but a waste of your time to blog your way through all of Doherty’s giant doorstop of a book if you consider it unworthy of a response. You’re going to get tired of saying “The consensus of mainstream scholarship rejects this stuff; it’s pseudohistorical claptrap” over and over again.
Pingback: Open Letter to James McGrath from Peter Kirby « Vridar
Pingback: Dealing Appropriately With Pseudoscience and Pseudoscholarship | Church Ministry Center
Greetings Peter,
It’s great to see you posting again
I hope to see more.
I totally agree with your comments about McGrath – I think his review is a sick joke. His whole point seems to be to spread the meme that MJ = creationism.
K.
KevinC suggests above that in his last post McGrath offered “good examples of evidence for historicism.” Unfortunately, he did only half the job; it’s really the other half that matters. It’s fairly easy to find a few passages (such as those Kevin quoted) which contain language that the historicism-disposed reader will think points to an historical Jesus. But the other half of the job is to take into account—and REBUT—how mythicism deals with those passages. And by that I don’t mean simply by declaring, oh, it’s all ad hoc (or worse)!
Usually those passages are anything but clear pointers to historicism, because they enjoy other, equally valid and often more supportable, interpretations. For example, the idea sometimes expressed that Christ recently “came” is readily seen as a reference to Christ being revealed by God/scripture/HolySpirit, and that he is now working in the world through his spiritual presence. Nor is this simply an alternate reading plucked out of thin air. It fits with the overall evidence. Unfortunately, Jim and many others do not open their minds sufficiently, if at all, to be able to recognize and grasp that overall evidence. (Of course, he hasn’t yet encountered it all.)
The diehard historicist is guilty of refusing to consider how mythicism deals with the evidence. He simply insults it or tosses it overboard, regarding that as enough to discredit it. When Jim gets to my discussion on a passage Kevin (like many others) points to, Gal. 3:16, he will find cogent arguments that in fact Paul is NOT saying that Christ is the “seed of Abraham” in any physical way. Will he engage honestly with those arguments, let alone try to refute them? I doubt it. He will simply call mythicist motivations and sanity into question. Such things are not counter-arguments.
Kevin quotes Gal. 3:24. I don’t know about Kevin, but I have to assume that Jim is proficient in Greek and hopefully familiar with more than one translation. Verse 24 is translatable, not just as “until Christ came”, but, as the KJV puts it: “The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” What honest reviewer will declare only the first option, claim it as some slam-dunk argument against mythicism, and ignore or be ignorant of the second? He would be either prejudiced or incompetent. And considering that the flanking verses (23 and 25) declare that what has ‘come’ in the present is “faith”, the second option actually makes more consistent sense: faith has come in that we have been brought to Christ.
Hebrews 10:5. This is an outright mistranslation from the Greek. It is not, “When Christ came into the world, he said…” The latter verb is actually in the present, “he says:” And the preceding participle is a present one, which places its understanding in the same tense as the main verb, namely present. The proper translation, then, is as the NASB (cf. NEB) gives it: “Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says:” Yes, there are translators who render it in the past tense, because they don’t know how else to understand it, although even there scholars fuss over whether this means at his incarnation or in heaven prior to it, or whatever. Paul Ellingworth suggests that the “he says” is “a timeless present referring to the permanent record of scripture.” This, inadvertently, is halfway to mythicism. And if Jim could let himself see the overall evidence, he would recognize that the epistles, as here, regularly quote scripture as the voice of the Son speaking to the world in the present time, fitting my earlier point that Christ has “come” in that sense. The case for mythicism is far more ‘all of a piece,’ spanning the entire record, than someone like Jim McGrath is able or willing to realize.
Jim’s “review” of my book will be a joke (it already is), because he is so blinded to any thought that historicism could be wrong, that mythicism might be a worthy theory to investigate, that he can only fall back on outright rejection and disdain. With a lot of fallacy along the way.
Earl, I think the problem is the reversed of what you suggest. The mainstream historicist position doesn’t claim that there is nothing legendary or mythical attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. And so if I have dealt with even one piece of evidence, never mind half of it, which strongly suggests that a historical Jesus existed, then that is significant. Lots of evidence that Jesus was understood mythically is perfectly compatible with mainstream scholarship’s understanding, whereas even one piece of strong evidence for a historical Jesus would seem to be enough to contradict the claim that Jesus was purely mythical.
Jim: “Earl, I think the problem is the reversed of what you suggest. The mainstream historicist position doesn’t claim that there is nothing legendary or mythical attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. And so if I have dealt with even one piece of evidence, never mind half of it, which strongly suggests that a historical Jesus existed, then that is significant. Lots of evidence that Jesus was understood mythically is perfectly compatible with mainstream scholarship’s understanding, whereas even one piece of strong evidence for a historical Jesus would seem to be enough to contradict the claim that Jesus was purely mythical.”
Problems in this one simple paragraph:
(1) You misunderstood my reference to doing only ‘half the job.’ I wasn’t talking about addressing half the evidence. I was saying that you only do half the job in regard to any single piece of evidence. The first half is what you do: point to such a passage as (allegedly) indicating the existence of an historical Jesus. The second half is what you do not do: address how mythicism offers a counter-interpretation which (a) points out the weaknesses in the claim that this is evidence for an HJ, and (b) offers a different interpretation of it which fits the mythicist theory. You can’t simply ignore how mythicism handles the passages you claim for historicism. You have to rebut it in a substantive fashion. And especially you ought not ignore how the mythicist interpretation of such passages in fact fits nicely with those passages which mythicism uses to demonstrate its case.
(2) You refer to “lots of evidence that Jesus was understood mythically,” but this begs the question. That ‘evidence’ you refer to is a range of passages which describe the epistles’ Christ in mythological/heavenly terms. Such as Hebrews 1:2-3, or Colossians 1:15-20. But this is simply ASSUMED to be a description of the Gospel Jesus figure in mythical terms. Nowhere is it indicated that such descriptions are meant to refer to, to be an “interpretation” of, that presumed historical figure. So it is “perfectly compatible with mainstream scholarship’s understanding” only given that undemonstrated assumption. Otherwise, you are simply appealing to mythological passages which actually support the mythicist case.
(3) You say that “even one piece of strong evidence for a historical Jesus would seem to be enough to contradict the claim that Jesus was purely mythical.” What “strong evidence” is that? Romans 1:3? Paul says right there that this is derived from scripture, not historical tradition about a human man. “Brother of the Lord”? We still haven’t resolved the debate over the meaning of “brother” which could very well refer to a fellow believer, or why there is no such sibling relationship referred to elsewhere in the early record. Jesus was “of the seed of Abraham”? On what basis, since Paul never identifies him as a Jewish descendant of Abraham, and gentiles are also “the seed of Abraham”. “Born of woman”? A passage that has been shown to have been a favorite for doctoring, so why not for interpolating in the first place, a phrase demonstrable as not present in Marcion’s version, and involving language neither Paul nor anyone else ever uses elsewhere to refer to human birth? Simple references to flesh, blood and crucifixion, as if such things could only exist on earth in human contexts, and which Paul strongly suggests were derived from scripture?
Strong evidence? I don’t think so. And especially when set beside all the passages which are supportive of a mythicist interpretation.
Pingback: American Online News- Feeds from the Freedom News Network | Blog | Dealing Appropriately With Pseudoscience and Pseudoscholarship
Hi there, I hopped over to your page from reddit. It is not something I would normally read, but I loved your perspective on it. Thank you for making a blog post worth reading!
I’m glad to hear that. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Hey, I found your webpage from reddit. This isn’t not blog post I would typically read, but I liked your spin on it. Thanks for creating something worth reading!
Hey webmaster, check out this WordPress plugin which can increase your search engine rankings and get you in the Top 3 (imagine the extra traffic that would drive)… SEOPlugins.org. You can also delete my comment here, just letting you know about this new plugin.
It is best to create a postpublish about this e-book obtain website that let’s you obtain ebooks for free of charge. Take a look at this Ebook Download website.
kkolkllpmllpmlmmqn Download Streamtorrent besbbfkd Stream torrent dhuedeimf
zdrbzbesbb Download Streamtorrent eesfeffkhf Streamtorrent Channels zdra
Your blog load time for me is actually very slow, not sure if it really is my internet connection or your hosting. Is everyone else experiencing a slow load time or is it just me?
Your site load time for me is fairly slow, not certain if it really is my internet connection or your hosting. Is everyone else getting a slow load time or is it just me?
I just found your website via Bing, nice study, heading to sleep now because it is extremely late but will check you out more in the morning.
First off, I want to thank Peter for providing great resources through his work in biblical studies. I wrote my masters thesis on the Kingdom concept within the Synoptics, and I made extensive use of Peter’s online compilation of Historical Jesus materials, as well as his online collections of early Christian and Jewish writings. So thanks man. Incidentally, through the process of writing my thesis, I lost my personal belief in Jesus, my trust in the historicity of most biblical texts, and any reason to consider seeing biblical studies (if not all theology) as relevant to life in the present day. So I was wondering where you, Peter, ended up after all your investigation.
Regarding this whole debate/debacle…I think it further shows the irrelevance of Historical Jesus studies to the wider field of ancient history. Dr. McGrath has repeatedly shown that he’s plays a different game, with different methods and rules, than historians of ancient history do. Things that constitute historical evidence for him do not for his secular historian counterparts. Same goes for proper rhetoric and argumentation. I can only be happy for him that Butler does not read/follow his blog, lest they see that he will not deign to engage in real critical thinking with someone at the other end of the academic spectrum than him.
I do not directly fault Dr. McGrath however. I think he’s the unwitting victim of a violent machine much larger than himself. That machine is the Theology Juggernaut. It’s primary focus, by nature, must be self-preservation, usually in the form of self-legitimization. Rather than step back outside of all interpretive traditions that came before and truly consider that this whole entity called Christianity was concocted with deceit at its core, the machine MUST continue to remove that one interpretive stance from the table of discussion. Pretty much all other hermeneutics are fair game, just not the one that questions the legitimacy or relevance of the field itself. I ultimately don’t know if there may have been a historical Jesus…there very well may have been, but one’s sensitivity to the implications of such a question CANNOT be allowed to change the way they address the question (at least not if they want to refer to their work as “scholarship”).
But let’s not be too hard on McGrath – let’s rather find creative ways to take down the Juggernaut. I, for one, will never allow it to tell me that I’m silly or ignorant or misguided, when I call the entire system into question.
The best P2P streaming freeware to watch sports with is Streamtorrent. The newest version of Streamtorrent is released at Streamtorrent.tv.
Pingback: James F. McGraths genomgång av Dohertys bok och förvrängning av dennes framställan « Jesus granskad
Well, since he couldn’t cope with me in the exchanges over his review of my book on his own blog, Jim McGrath regrettably has had to have recourse to a garbage review on Amazon. The following was the result of his reading 5% of the book, addressing none of the key chapters or issues involving my case, and ignoring the feedback arguments I gave him on the five chapters he did review. He also ignored all of the negative reactions from others on his blog who were less than sympathetic to his rabidly hostile, and usually irrational, treatment of mythicists and mythicism. What he wrote on Amazon he could have written—and would have—even before opening Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Instead of anything approaching a substantive criticism of my book or parts of my case, which might have given pause to those in doubt, this thoroughly condemnatory and arrogant dismissal has actually demonstrated where is coming from (his resume attached to the review helps make that clear) and the untrustworthiness of any review at his hands or others like him. I ought to thank him for making my point.
“This self-published book contains nothing that someone well-informed about the tools of historical scholarship, ancient Judaism, and/or the New Testament will be able to take seriously. Evidence that runs counter to Doherty’s predetermined conclusion is dismissed or dealt with unpersuasively, in much the manner that conservative Christian apologists deal with evidence that disagrees with their assumptions. Mythicism is to historical scholarship what young-earth creationism is to biology, and this volume is just one disappointing example of it.”
It’s too bad that Jim did not use his “well-informed” knowledge of the tools of historical scholarship to actually refute the arguments I made throughout the book. What he gave us for the first five chapters was simply laughable. (Paul’s readers already knew everything! was a good example. Talk about your “well-informed knowledge”!) Unfortunately, Amazon readers will assume that he read the entire thing, and that he could show that the totality of all the evidence is indeed “dismissed or dealt with unpersuasively.” (In fact, Amazon allows a thousand words, sometimes more, for a review; too bad he didn’t use some to actually demonstrate what he claims.) Jim ought to be ashamed of his own lack of honesty, but he’s in good company, and none of it ever shows any shame. Regrettably, authors don’t have the opportunity to comment or rebut on Amazon itself.
Earl Doherty
I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but I’m glad I visited. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.
Hey – nice weblog, just trying round some blogs, appears a pretty good platform You Are using. I’m presently using Drupal for just a few of my websites however looking to change certainly one of them over to a platform very a lot the identical to yours as a trial run. Something particularly you would recommend about it?