From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Monday, March
31, 2003 9:32 AM
To: Skeptic11@aol.com
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.