Rating: 
Summary: An excellent book, but...
Review: ...it will never convince a Christian to change his (or her) stripes. If you visit Mr. Doherty's website, you'll find the reasoning behind his studies of the Jesus figure. He is a humanist. He loves reason, and he wants to see people use their minds. If you can accept those premises, then you will love his book.
If, on the other hand, you only read "faith-based" Bible commentaries, then this book is simply not for you. Is it because the author's conclusions are ill-formed? No. It's because you start from such an alien perspective that you will never see things eye-to-eye.
As for me, I like Doherty's point of view. I think the word "belief" is often synonymous with "ignorance", and really means this: "belief is the assertion that something is true, in spite of a complete lack of evidence (or, evidence to the contrary)." Doherty's "argument from silence" is not without problems, but if you applied Occam's Razor to it, and then to the Christian view of Jesus, which one would fare better? Doherty would suffer a couple of scratches, but the Christian view would be ripped to shreds.
All this said, I would not go out and buy this book for my Christian friends... it would just end up in their trash cans (and that would be a waste). Christians are not convinced by reason, because they have been conditioned (brainwashed?) to place belief ahead of reason. Rather, buy it for your agnostic, atheist, and wiccan friends... they will absolutely love it.
Rating:
Summary: Very interesting and scholarly
Review: Earl Doherty presents the best Christ-myth case that I've read yet. He proves that Jesus' existence is not contemporaneously verified by any written documents and successfully argues that the earliest Christian writings depict Jesus as a spiritual saviour, instead of an earthly one. Now, it can be argued that this spiritual saviour as described by Paul's epistles (the earliest Christian documents available) can also apply to an earthly figure that Paul simply did not find reason to mention the specifics of. Perhaps, but perhaps not. When Paul does seem to mention an earthly figure, he is strangely ambigious, leaving room for alternate explanations of at least equal validity. Additionally, there are countless times when it would have made sense for Paul to mention something about Jesus' life and ministry, but curiously, he does not. When you factor in that other religions and cults from that time period had similar ideas about their gods, it becomes even more plausible that Paul is not speaking of a man that recently walked the earth, but a saviour who operates in some mysterious spiritual realm. And when you further take into consideration the fact that Paul definitely borrowed at least some elements of his theology from Pagan religions (the Lord's Supper is straight out of Mithraism), this theory is boosted considerably.So, the first definite mention of an historical Jesus seems to be the Gospel According to Mark, which was written no earlier than 66 CE (though probably at least a little bit later). While the date assigned to Mark by mainstream NT scholars is around 70 CE, Doherty argues that somewhere around 90 CE is more likely. He does present a decent case, though I still feel more inclined to accept a date closer to the Jewish War that chapter 13 of Mark alludes to. Regardless, it is not important to Doherty's case. He argues that the Gospel of Mark is, at least in part, a product of "midrash" - a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages to reflect new beliefs. He presents a plausible case for this, so I find it rather likely to be true. Additionally, Dennis MacDonald expands on this in his book "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by arguing (successfully, in my opinion) that in addition to drawing information from the Old Testament when writing his gospel, Mark also pulled ideas from the Homeric epics that he would have been intimately familiar with (anyone who learned to read and write Greek in ancient times learned from the Homeric epics). When we take out the midrash and Homer from the gospel of Mark, what are we left with? Not very much, it seems. However, the fictional elements of Mark could have been attatched to a real man that walked the Earth, much like Bram Stoker did to Vlad Dracula. But they could not, we do not know for sure. Aside from the gospels and epistles, the hypothetical Q document must be examined to effectively argue that Jesus might not have existed. Doherty argues that the sayings from this document were pulled from other sources, not from the mouth of Jesus. This idea is agreed with, in part, by many scholars, including the ones in the Jesus Seminar. I think Doherty is on the right track here. It is just as likely as not that the sayings originated from the followers rather than the leader, and this idea is made even more likely by the fact that we know at least some of the sayings definitely came from other sources (i.e. Greek traditions). Contrary to what dishonest apologists like J.P. Holding would like to believe, the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc are not valid references for proving Jesus' historicity. Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is, as Albert Schweitzer wrote, "...either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be presented as credible evidence" (page 359 of "The Quest For the Historical Jesus", published by Fortress Press). The second Josephus reference to Jesus and later Roman references can be dismissed because the writers do not mention that they have original or independently verified evidence. They were only reporting what the Christian communities from the time (90-120 CE) believed. I found Doherty to be very scholarly and for the most part reliable. Occasionally he'll say something like "many scholars believe [such and such]" when the idea is rather unorthodox in NT scholarship circles, so I doubt that there are many prominent scholars supporting that particular idea. But, he does not do this often, and when he does it is hardly relevent since NT scholarship should not be about popularity, but about validity. His writing is unbiased and free of personal attacks on Christianity and Christians - unlike the writings of other Christ mythicists (particularly Acharya S., the author of that terrible book, "The Christ Conspiracy"). So, when the earliest Christian documents seem to point towards a spiritual non-earthly saviour (Paul's epistles), and the earliest mention of an historical earthly saviour (Gospel According to Mark) reeks of fiction, it becomes hard for a rational person to fully believe that an historical man was behind all of this. Jesus may have existed, but he also may not have - I do not know. Doherty presents an excellent case that cannot be ignored.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of the issues of a historical Jesus
Review: For perspective, I am an atheist. I found this book a good source to examine the existence of a historical figure Jesus. It is analytical in style, detailed and presents intelligent, cogent observations. I have recommended this book to friends who are looking into a historical Jesus as a well researched work on this issue. My only criticism is that Mr Doherty's style is so scholarly, it gets a bit dry at times.
As a separate issue, there are, of course, polemic reviews of this work. A typical example, one reviewer discounts Doherty's entire work in one quote. He quotes the blatant christian forgery interpolated into the work of historian Flavius Josephus. (Doherty actually addresses this issue in his book.) If you wish to think for yourself and make up your own mind, this book is a place to start.
For the intelligent reader, looking for a thoughtful and well researched perspective, Doherty is an excellent source.
Rating:
Summary: Consider me a convert!
Review: I didn't enter into the world of Earl Doherty to discover whether or not Jesus existed. I merely came across the online version of what would become his book, Challenging the Verdict. However, as I found his critique of Lee Strobel accurate and insightful, I took a chance and examined his primary thesis, that Jesus never existed. On his website, he has a short twelve part summary of his argument, listing twelve bits of a larger puzzle one has to solve with any theory of Jesus and Christian origins. As I agreed these were problemmatic, I committed to reading several of his online articles. Before I was finished, I'd read every scrap of material he offered on the web. This was no ad hoc nor amateurish theory. It had merit. Finally ordering and reading the book, I evaluated the strength of Doherty's theory for over a year. I'm now fully of the opinion Jesus likely didn't exist. And that's what individuals who are unaware of how history works dismiss Doherty out of hand. History is a weak discipline as far as surety is concerned. One can only speak of probability. Can Doherty *prove* Jesus didn't exist? No. But neither can one prove Jesus did exist 100%. An argument can be made, however, especially in examining the documentary evidence, that early Christianity couldn't not have been based on the teachings of one itinerant Galilean preacher. Doherty lucidly lists the problems and then evaluates the evidence. Most scholars take Jesus' existence as axiomatic and then go from there, often fashioning a theory of Christian origins which suit their own biases. Doherty, however, leaves it open until he exposes what must be the obvious but difficult truth: many Christianities existed and the winners wrote the history books. Enough clues, however, were left to expose the myth of the Christ and Doherty has thankfully presented us with a cogent and affable work with which we can join him in examining this mystery.
Rating: 
Summary: Visited his website before - Not sure if I should go further
Review: I have not read this book but I did visit his website a few times and I am not sure if his book can really add to anything that he has said there which is somewhat problematic. The first thing you should know is that trying to "prove" someone existed 2000 years ago is a quite a difficult task in the same way that proving YOU existed in 2000 years time is going to be an equally difficult task. If you take what is being said here you can also apply that to Julius Caesar or Pontius Pilate. Here is something you might like to know though: The Writings of Flavius Josephus In Rome, in the year 93, the Roman historian Flavius Josephus published his extensive history of the Jews. In discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included this revealing account that shows that not only did Jesus of Nazareth live, but that He rose from the dead: " About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. " - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 ยง63 (Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.) Do a search on the internet and you find a lot more about the scientific "evidence" for the reality of Jesus Christ. Using that alone you can make up your mind if you want to read this or not. I am sure he can make some valid points, like in his website, but they may flutter away when you unearth much more about Jesus. Earl Doherty website is not exactly scientific. It is more about the context of the writings and their contradictions.
Rating:
Summary: Read it yourself and make up your own mind
Review: I notice the reader from Nagasaki, Japan (review Feb 19, 2002) sure makes it sound like Doherty is off in left field. But I don't think so and here's why. In a nutshell, Doherty believes that the Jesus Christ that Paul believed in is not the same Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. In Doherty's view, Paul saw Jesus Christ as a purely spiritual being in heaven with God, not a human. The Gospels hadn't been written yet. And when they were written, they were initally only intended to be allegorical. As an atheist, even I at first thought that Doherty's theory was a "crackpot" theory. "Everybody knows" there was at least some historical figure of Jesus Christ, right? That's what I thought at first, but Doherty makes a credible case for his theory. Part of Doherty's evidence is the absence of reference to an earthly Jesus Christ in the epistles. I will grant that perhaps evidence of silence isn't by itself completely compelling. But on the other hand, you also have to admit that Paul was teaching about a new religion. Don't people teaching Christianity talk about, well, Christ? Yeah, I think they do. People say that Paul didn't need to reference the events in the Gospels because "everybody" knew of those events. Did they really? This was a new relgion. Paul cavalierly assumed that everybody knew Jesus had been crucified and rose from the dead? Also, the reviewer from Japan says that Doherty ignores the vast evidence in favor of Jesus' being the true Messiah. I'm wondering what exactly that vast evidence he is referring to. He seems to say that just reading the Gospels reveals a genuine historical Messiah. To counter that argument, perhaps Doherty's other book, _Challenging the Verdict_, a critique of Lee Strobel's _Case For Christ_, is a better choice. In _Challenging the Verdict_, Doherty shows that even if there was a real Jesus Christ, there is little evidence that he actually was a prophesized Messiah that rose from the dead. Finally, note that the evidence of silence is not the only evidence Doherty provides. Read the book for yourself and then decide on your own.
Rating:
Summary: Doherty's explanation of Josephus
Review: I provide this quote because other reviewers have used Josephus to refute Doherty's assertion that early non-christian sources knew nothing of Jesus. Doherty thinks the Jesus references were planted in Josephus later. Here is his evidence: "The famous passage about Jesus in chapter 18 of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (published around 93 CE), the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum," is widely acknowledged to be, as it stands, a later Christian interpolation. It speaks naively and devotionally of Jesus and declares him to have been the Messiah. Origen in the third century tells us that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, a remark likely prompted by the fact that Josephus declared Vespasian the object of the messianic prophecies (in Jewish War 6.5.4). This remark by Origen shows that the declaration in Antiquities 18 did not exist in his copy".
Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: I recently finished reading this book and was quite impressed with the quality of the author's argument.
Many people have already provided good and useful comments, but I would like to make some rebuttals to a review by C.Price.
1. C.Price wrote, "The book's use of purported Middle Platonism to undercut seeming references to Jesus' human life in Paul's letters and Hebrews is especially clever (not the least because so few readers will have any understanding of what Middle Platonism is)."
My comment: This sentence implies that Middle Platonism as discussed in this book and how it's applied to resolve certain issues is somehow misleading. Now, I don't know much about Platonism (other than what was discussed in this book), but C.Price's comments don't bother to enlighten us with an example - they just accuse the author of misrepresenting the concept. Rather than making such an unexplained statement (regarding such an important part of this book), a supporting example that shows this misuse of Platonism would have been nice. I wonder if one could be provided?
2. C.Price wrote, "On style, the writing is uneven and at points amateurish and simplistic. The chapter titles and subheadings are often of no help in understanding what any particular chapter or section is about."
My comment: Whatever - now you're just looking for things to complain about.
3. C.Price wrote, "There is no scripture or ancient writings index, though some of these are in the general index."
My comment: So, what you're really saying is that Doherty DOES have a scripture index, but that it's just part of the general index. Some might say that this makes the relevant information more accessible.
4. C.Price wrote, "The use of endnotes instead of footnotes (or even endnotes at the end of each chapter rather than lumped together at the end of the book) is particularly unhelpful because so much of the argument rest on the supporting references or discussion."
My comment: I think the use of endnotes in scholarly books these days is far more common than footnotes. Again, this is just another vain attempt to find something wrong with the text.
I read every endnote and I, too, suggest that the reader read these. Not because I feel that the argument hinged much on small print, but rather because I enjoyed the added detail these provided.
5. C.Price implies that Doherty's explanation of the phrase "according to the scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is somehow lacking any serious thought. He points to an endnote, which Doherty supplies, with the implication that there is no further comment in the entire book.
My comment: Doherty supplied an entire chapter, number 8, "The Word of God in the Holy Book" (about 9 pages) that can be regarded an elucidation for his suggested meaning of the phrase "according to the scriptures."
I could go on with the rebuttal comments, but I think my point is made (I suggest that one take C.Price's review with a grain of salt).
Thanks!
Rating:
Summary: Problems abound in the text
Review: Jesus was a real person. This book argues differently. Here we see evidence presented that Jesus was a fictional character. But the evidence is simply to large to the contrary. The best evidence of Jesus is written by Josephus, a Jewish scholar who wrote in Latin and spoke of a man named Jesus, who created a `tribe' of Christians. Josephus served in the Jewish war in AD 70 and he would have been in contact with people that actually knew Jesus. Beyond this evidence is the biblical evidence. The Book of Matthew clearly traces the lineage of Jesus back to King David. Why trace the lineage of a person who was but a myth? The tracing of ancestry was a typical Jewish trait to establish the reliability of Prophecy and therefore it is normal that such would have been done for someone real, not a made up character. Beyond this evidence is the evidence from even the Qur'an which although it disagrees with the gospels nevertheless agrees that Jesus was a person. Thus is it just no logical to argue that Jesus was a myth. Certainly many of the acts of Jesus may be considered legend but the reality of a man named Jesus is an established fact. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: Problems abound in the text
Review: Jesus was a real person. This book argues differently. Here we see evidence presented that Jesus was a fictional character. But the evidence is simply to large to the contrary. The best evidence of Jesus is written by Josephus, a Jewish scholar who wrote in Latin and spoke of a man named Jesus, who created a 'tribe' of Christians. Josephus served in the Jewish war in AD 70 and he would have been in contact with people that actually knew Jesus. Beyond this evidence is the biblical evidence. The Book of Matthew clearly traces the lineage of Jesus back to King David. Why trace the lineage of a person who was but a myth? The tracing of ancestry was a typical Jewish trait to establish the reliability of Prophecy and therefore it is normal that such would have been done for someone real, not a made up character. Beyond this evidence is the evidence from even the Qur'an which although it disagrees with the gospels nevertheless agrees that Jesus was a person. Thus is it just no logical to argue that Jesus was a myth. Certainly many of the acts of Jesus may be considered legend but the reality of a man named Jesus is an established fact. Seth J. Frantzman
|
