“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

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.