From: Brian Holtz []
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: A question re: Turkel response
BH: Paul's ability to be  confused/metaphorical/irrational/inconsistent/poetic/vague does not make the  evidence for Jesus' historicity disappear.>

What evidence for Jesus' historicity? 
Things (like the gospels) that lead e.g. the Encyclopeda Britannica to assert that Jesus was "born" and "died".
 [..] It isn't a question of Paul's utter silence making evidence disappear. There simply isn't any evidence until after the first Gospel story makes its appearance. 
I agree there's no evidence before the first evidence. ;-)
<If we discovered some new epistle that made odd statements about Paul, would you suddenly doubt Paul's  historicity?>

First, Paul's statements about Jesus are not simply "odd", they do not describe the same Jesus described in the Gospels.
The description isn't exactly the same, and it of course is not different enough to obviously rule out Jesus' historicity, but it is different enough to be considered somewhat odd.
Second, SOMEBODY wrote those letters [..]
I'll take your non-answer to my question as a "no". :-)
As far as I know, scholars haven't addressed Doherty's thesis at all let alone reached a consensus.
The fact remains that the mainstream view of academic historians is for the historicity of Jesus. If Doherty can change that, more power to him. Until he he does, I'm not going to be very interested in debating it. (That's why I'm trying to confine my remarks to answering your criticisms of my statements, and am deliberately trying not to answer your arguments for ahistoricity.)
I encourage you to read Professor Carrier's review of Doherty's book.
I already have, and I agree it adds serious weight to Doherty's case. (I admire Carrier immensely, but he's technically not a professor.)
BH: I don't debate Jesus ahistoricity for the same  reason I don't debate Creationism.  

Apples and oranges. If Doherty's arguments were as devoid of fact
Apples and apples, inasmuch as both are contrary to the mainstream academic consensus.
and as reliant on deliberate falsehoods as creationism
"Deliberate"?  I be surprised if you could substantiate that generalized and highly inflammatory charge. Questioning an opponent's sincerity is a sign of a closed mind.