"Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?" This is the operative question in one of the largest and most comprehensive arguments advanced in favor of the thesis that Jesus did not exist, as promulgated by one Earl Doherty.

Doherty's work in progress - it currently occupies well over 250 pages between its various extensions, and has now apparently been graced with actual publication by a book publisher - comes as something of a surprise. The standard skeptical paradigm, that Jesus was a normal human being that somehow became divinized, is here reversed: Rather, it is argued, the spiritual Christ of Paul and his thought-cohorts was somehow made into a man that walked the earth. This rather radical departure into the Christ-myth signals a need to overcome a significant scholarly consensus. Does the effort succeed? You know from the title what my own reckoning of the matter is.

Let us begin with a few general observations, and then proceed with an accounting of the contents of our reply to Doherty.

It may first be observed that in Doherty we have an author who professes impeccable academic credentials. We will allow Doherty himself to offer the vitae:

My own research in this field goes back 14 years, when I first encountered a serious presentation of the theory in Professor Wells. Although my university training was not in New Testament studies, I have a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, giving me a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, which I have supplemented with some of the basics of Hebrew and Syriac. In addition to the New Testament (along with many parts of the Old), I have thoroughly investigated all the non-canonical Christian documents, the 2nd and 3rd century Apologists, all the relevant Jewish Pseudepigrapha of the era together with the Dead Sea scrolls, plus much of Christian and non-Christian Gnosticism. To this I have added a study of Philo of Alexandria, Middle Platonism and other philosophies, relevant ancient historians, Hellenistic mystery cults and the general religious thought of the era...

All of these things I do not doubt; however, I am rather surprised that a scholar of such professed credentials would regularly resort to certain decidedly "unscholarly" methods. Doherty's citation and range of sources is overall rather poor. This situation is better in his "supplementary" articles than it is in the general articles which head his page; even so, it is rather disturbing to find such "outrageous" arguments given comparatively little in the way of supporting documentation, and to so seldom see direct quotations offered. Certainly a scholar of such professed caliber can do better than this.

Related to the above, Doherty's interaction with opposing points of view is severely limited. Opponents and commentators are as a rule addressed in highly generalized terms, as unfortunately are opinions called upon for support. Even worse, the dreaded "Most/The majority of scholars say...", "Scholarship says...", and "Scholars like X say..." routine, which I personally hoped had died a painful death long ago, here resurfaces with a vengeance. Who this amalgam of "scholars" is, of course, is seldom mentioned, and thus such introductory formula and the data offered behind them have about as much authority as "4 out of 5 dentists recommend" !

These factors above make source criticism extremely difficult - but not impossible. I have also found in some cases that Doherty has badly misreported his source material, and we shall expose those instances in due course.

Now to Doherty's basic premises, as offered in his introductory material. Citing G. A. Wells as the most prolific recent supporter of the Jesus-myth, Doherty writes:

Wells postulates that Paul and other Christians of his day believed that "Jesus" had lived in obscurity at some unknown point in the past, perhaps two or three centuries before their time. The problem is, there seems to me to be no more evidence in the epistles that Paul has such a figure in mind than there is for his knowledge of a Jesus of Nazareth who had lived and died during the reign of Herod Antipas. Rather, everything in Paul points to a belief in an entirely divine Son who "lived" and acted in the spiritual realm, in the same mythical setting in which all the other savior deities of the day were seen to operate.

Here, then, are our walking papers. Here, now, is our path in response.