Doherty addresses each of my articles in turn. We begin with his remarks on essay #1, "Fairy Castles Built On Sand", which includes most of the material addressed above. This was a purely introductory essay, with little made in the way of argument; but here are some relevant comments:

Another comment is that he will not be examining my material on Philo, the Ascension of Isaiah and the Odes of Solomon (the latter two being documents from the so-called Jewish Pseudepigrapha), since "we deem them irrelevant." They are anything but irrelevant, of course, but these are complex documents and perhaps not within Mr. Holding's parameters of expertise-or rebuttal style.

However, in no way does Doherty in any sense go on to actually prove that these documents are relevant in the course of his reply - referring to them again only once (as we shall see). Our only issue, at any rate, was to assert that the NT itself does not support Doherty's position; but if it makes anyone happy, I shall gladly address the material in question - and may even do so at a future date one way or the other.

I should also point out that in his critique he never (that I can see) orients the reader to the specific location on my site for the quotes he uses, never provides the titles of the articles he is excerpting. He also never gives the URL of my site, let alone a link to it. Perhaps he would rather that his readership be shielded from such things and have access to my views only through his filter.

Re providing titles: Well, quite honestly, I found Doherty's site so disorganized that I resorted to a desperate tactic - I simply pasted them all into a single document and worked from there! So, in the process, all location-markers were lost. I regret any inconvenience to the reader, but to Doherty himself, I offer no regrets unless he can somehow prove that in doing this I misrepresented him. But I rather doubt that that has happened.

As for the other - alas, I must admit that I was indeed trying to make sure that no one would be able to find Doherty's site: Not providing an URL was the first step; presently, I am working on a computer virus that will cause anyone using a search engine and entering "Earl Doherty" to be referred to the county government page of Dougherty County in Georgia, and will refer entries of "Jesus Puzzle" to the Milton-Bradley corporate page. It doesn't work yet, but success is expected hourly. The final step will be to actually place my rebuttal articles on a page that is not accessible to the cybersurfing public!

In truth, the niceties of linking pages was something I left in the hands of the manager of my previous website residence years ago (whom Doherty, I perceive, does not realize was a person other than myself), and it is not surprising, given recent personal circumstances which we shall not delve into, that a link was not added. But even so, what of it? The readers of my rebuttal are assumed to have already read Doherty's material, and therefore would not need a link: Others are assumed to have no interest, since they do not know who Doherty is, and if they are of the closed-minded sorts that Doherty alludes to derisively elsewhere, then adding a link hardly makes any difference; and if they are "open-minded" (as he might say) then they certainly know how to use the search engines. As it is, I had plans to add a link to whatever reply Doherty might offer; but now, I think I will be contrary for a while just for the sake of it. I see no reason to salve a bruised ego of this magnitude.

Now to begin the meat market section of our reply, beginning with the replies to essay #2, "Foursquare Foundation". Let's begin with comments regarding 1 Cor. 2:8 -

My reference above to Paul Ellingworth's comment on "the rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8, relates directly to the subject matter addressed in Holding's first major article, dealing with my claim that in this passage Paul is speaking of the spirit forces who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world, and that it is they who were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus in the spiritual realm. Holding accuses me of the "Most Scholars . . ." sin, whereas in fact I discuss at length in my Supplementary Article No. 3, "Who Crucified Jesus?" (from which he has taken his quotations) several scholars who hold this position. As for one of the supporting documents I offer here, the Ascension of Isaiah, he has already, as noted above, dismissed it as irrelevant.

In his own defense, Holding quotes a long passage, 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16, highlighting all the phrases which have any reference to things 'human' in them, as though these, by some form of osmosis, render the "rulers" phrase automatically human, too. Unfortunately, he has failed to find, in Paul's discussion here about the wisdom of the world vs. the wisdom of God, any reference to a human Christ and the elevation of a human man to divinity. Rather than "supernatural rulers (being) out of order here," human wisdom, in the field of religion, has always been concerned about divine and heavenly things. (I might note that this first article does not start out in too hostile a fashion, but long before he reaches the end, Mr. Holding has slipped his rein and the rant mode is in high gear.)

Again, a bit at a time:

"Holding accuses me of the 'Most Scholars . . .' sin, whereas in fact I discuss at length in my Supplementary Article No. 3, 'Who Crucified Jesus?' (from which he has taken his quotations) several scholars who hold this position." Several, yes, but "several" is not equal to "most" without further verification. Furthermore, as I note, but to which Doherty deigns no specific reply:

As above, Doherty appeals to majority opinion, stating that: "...my tally indicates that over the last century a majority of commentators, some reluctantly, have decided that (Paul) is referring to the demon spirits." This is an interesting observation, but hardly reflects anything in and of itself: What was the "score" of this tally? How did the arguments fare pitted against one another? Are members of the "majority" simply following previous views uncritically? These are the things that truly count, and constant appeals to alleged majority views means nothing. (Just for kicks, though: My own tally indicates the balance for this century in favor of the "earthly" interpretation. Perhaps I am not being selective enough in my consultations.)

So again, what about answers to these questions? Or is Doherty content here to rest on the laurels of trivia, rather than addressing actual arguments and questions? (It may be replied that the "most scholars" bit came from one of the magazine articles - but that doesn't lessen the severity of the sin in the first place; nor does it help that the sin was repeated, in more sophisticated guise, in the more detailed essays.)

"As for one of the supporting documents I offer here, the Ascension of Isaiah, he has already, as noted above, dismissed it as irrelevant." It is hard to see why this document should be relevant; it was not written by the apostle Paul, and was written much later than 1 Corinthians, in a different social and literary context. Why should be give it any attention in this regard? The superficial similarities Doherty cites are hardly sufficient. Continuing:

In his own defense, Holding quotes a long passage, 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16, highlighting all the phrases which have any reference to things 'human' in them, as though these, by some form of osmosis, render the "rulers" phrase automatically human, too.

Osmosis? No: Context. Nine times in the passage I cite, Paul refers to human wisdom; what reason, other than for the sake of supporting his theory, can Doherty give for suggesting that Paul suddenly switches gears and in the phrase in question, smack-dab in the midst of a discourse on human wisdom and its inadequacies, now wants to plug in a word on the wisdom (viz., the lack thereof) of supernatural beings? "Unfortunately," Doherty tells us, I have "failed to find, in Paul's discussion here about the wisdom of the world vs. the wisdom of God, any reference to a human Christ and the elevation of a human man to divinity." What ho? Paul refers in the passage to the crucified Lord of Glory, crucified as a human by earthly rulers; if this is not the same crucified Christ that he refers to as crucified and as divinity elsewhere in his letters, who is it? Someone else who was crucified? Or try this explanation: "Rather than 'supernatural rulers (being) out of order here,' human wisdom, in the field of religion, has always been concerned about divine and heavenly things." Is Paul speaking here as a specialist in the field of religion? No, he is not. At the same time, there is a category difference between "those who are purveyors of wisdom" and "what the purveyors of wisdom have to offer and talk about" - Doherty is confusing the two, and his confused attempt to get out of the obvious reference to earthly rulers has no semblance of sensibility or relevance whatsoever.

Our next step is regarding two passages which Doherty regards as interpolations. But first, a bit of fuss-budgeting:

...Mr. Holding makes the suggestion that Paul himself was the first to collect his letters (thus postulating the first Pauline corpus around the year 60!), and that in any case Paul had made copies of them for his own files at the time of writing, all to guard against the very possibility that some "misfit church" would dare try to doctor them. Such wishful speculation, the like of which I have never heard before, is completely unfounded and is simply an attempt to provide himself with ammunition to discredit the very principle of interpolation; whereas the modern viewpoint (see The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, p.205f) that such a corpus was not formed before well into the 2nd century leaves plenty of time for earlier interpolations to have left no contrary manuscript evidence, especially in 1 Thessalonians which has no pre-corpus attestation.

The "suggestion" here, the likes of which Doherty has "never heard before," may be found in the works of David Frobisch, a Pauline scholar of considerable erudition who has made an extensive study of the process of letter collections in the ancient world and deduces that the gathering of the Pauline collection was the result of the same sort of process - not necessarily as either Doherty or I would see it, but along the same lines, with Paul forming the initial collection and guarding it from disgrace, and someone else, perhaps Luke or Timothy, finishing the collection. Now of course, these "modern" interpreters (as if attaching "modern" to your position actually gives it any credence!) are as a rule anxious to divorce the NT from its social context as much as possible: If they treated the NT like any other ancient document - never mind treating it as the revealed Word of God - they would be forced to concede far more than they are willing! So then, if Doherty and his colleagues wish to enter a special plea on behalf of their theories, and say that the process of the Pauline collection was radically different than that of every other letter collection of the time, so be it; and if Doherty wants to place his faith in unsupported arguments of interpolation, let him do so. The social and textual data plainly do not support his contentions.

But now to the specifics. On the first alleged interpolation, 1 Thess. 2:15-16, on which I wrote some six pages of material, Doherty has only this single paragraph in reply:

His arguments against the claim that 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 is an interpolation are not entirely without merit, but that this is a "quaint notion" is belied by the long lineup of modern critical scholars who support it-many of whom I quote in my article.

Yep - that's it! So howzabout a REPLY to some of those arguments, eh! - Or are they unanswerable? Perhaps so, since Doherty has reduced himself to quibbling about terminology. Long lineup? Aye, well, that "long lineup" tends not to engage in original thought, but rather to work upon the backs of two previous interpolation-proponents (Schmidt, 1983; Pearson, 1971) - both of whom, at least by the standards of our Information Age, may be suitably described as "quaint" even in a non-ironic fashion! (Not only that, but why has Doherty failed to interact with the "long lineup" promoting the opposite view?)

Now to the second charge, regarding 1 Tim. 6:13, Doherty writes:

...Mr. Holding fails to point out that I qualify this by saying that the Pastoral epistles come from the 2nd century, so that even if authentic, the reference does not disprove my position.

Actually, I do point this out, though indirectly, when I write:

Now naturally, Doherty does not believe that the Pastorals were authored by Paul, and he alludes to all of the same old arguments that we have dealt with in Tekton 2-2-5: Vocabulary, teachings, church organization, lack of inclusion in P46, etc. He does not explicate upon these arguments, nor does he deal with counter-objections - and I would not expect him to do so. Of course, he could no doubt argue for interpolation of our specific verse anyway.

Tekton 2-2-5, for those who (like Doherty, apparently) are not aware, was/is my article on the dating and authorship of the Pastorals (named using a format designed by my former webmaster). So here, I quite clearly point out that Doherty is in the "late date" camp for the Pastoral epistles. (Perhaps we have here "a little laziness and a lot of lack of time" in action...?)

Here it needs to be pointed out that Holding will in no way accept that the Pastorals are not by Paul, going against the vast majority of critical scholars today who firmly reject Pauline authorship and date these epistles post-100. This and other similar examples of his apologetic conservatism clearly place Mr. Holding's scholarship at a "neolithic" level, and automatically put his overall exegetical powers and integrity under the deepest suspicion.

Actually, if Doherty had (again!) bothered to look further, he would have discovered my affinity for the idea of Luke as the Pastoral author, writing with Paul's authorization. As for the dating bit, calling the position names (And if this is true, I'm a proud little Neolith! Raw mammoth, anyone?), and leaving it at that, is not answering the arguments. Let Doherty address my Tekton article if he feels he has the courage.

On a positive note, Doherty admits "misinterpreting (his) notes on Kelly's analysis" of 1 Tim. 6:3 and issues his apologies to Kelly, who he suspects will now call off his libel lawyers. But regarding my actual arguments for the utility of 1 Tim. 6:13, he offers not as much as a peep.

And now, to one of my specialty areas, the secular references to Jesus. Here again Doherty appears to be insensate to my other articles on the subject - mainly in this case, here, which I quite clearly refer the reader to, along with Glenn Miller's article on Thallus. Even so, Doherty's reply on the subject is minimal, and the same excuse - that he found the polemic too hard to wade through! - is offered up. Only one topic is broached, re Josephus:

I would, however, ask who are the "Josephan scholars" who have "decided" that Origen is confusing Josephus' account of James death (the famous Antiquities 20 passage), with some (lost) reference in Hegesippus?

Naming names: Try Feldman or any of the other writers listed in my bibliography here. I'm not going to do Doherty's legwork for him, especially as this is rather a hypocritical request from one who is too often content to cite "trends" in place of names.(U(Update 8/07: May as well fill this in, with data found here which affirms my position; it's worth quoting extensively since it is an answer to Doherty:

A more likely explanation is that Origen simply read into Josephus’ statements about James an earlier, independent Christian tradition--as attested by Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandra--linking James’ death with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. After all, writing to explain the war was one of Josephus' purposes. And such an approach to Josephus would be consistent with Origen’s exegetical and writing styles. He is notorious as an imaginative reader of texts. Josephus’ writings were not an exception as Origen tended to read Christian traditions into Josephus’ writings. Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, at 17-18.

Furthermore, the placement of the martyrdom of James in Antiquities would have given Origen all the reason he needed to read the account of James' martyrdom in light of the destruction of Jerusalem. The martyrdom is described just before Josephus begins to discuss the problems that lead to the war with Rome, whose legions destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Just a few lines after describing James' death, Josephus writes, "this was the beginning of greater calamities...." Ant. 20.3. A few lines after that, Josephus writes, "And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us." Ant. 20.4. While Josephus was referring to other events, the proximity to the killing of James must have proved irresistible to Origen. It is also possible that Origen conveniently confused Josephus' explicit statement that Herod's execution of John the Baptist lead to God's judgment with the High Priest' execution of James leading to God's judgment.

Origen elsewhere shows that he is willing to read Josephus loosely but recount it as something stated by Josephus. In Fragment 115 of Origen’s Commentary on Lamentations, Origen comments on verse 4:19 (“Our pursuers were swifter than the eagles of the sky; they chased us on the mountains, they waited in ambush for us in the wilderness."), stating that “Josephus reports that even the mountains did not save those who were trying to escape.” There is no such explicit statement in Josephus’ writings, though it may be an inference from both of Josephus’ descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem. As Wataru Mizugaki notes, “by citing and using Josephus to his own purposes, Origen interprets [Josephus’] historical account from his theological viewpoint and adapts it to his interpretation of the Bible.” Mizugaki, “Origen and Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, at 333.

That Origen took Josephus' broader purpose of explaining the causes of the Jewish War, read nearby statements about the beginning of troubles and calamities a little loosely, and read into the account of James' martyrdom the existing Christian tradition about James' death being a cause of God's judgment, is the most likely explanation as to the origins of Origen's comments about James and judgment in his Commentary on Matthew and Against Celsus.

Moving on:

And I would point out that if Josephus is indeed citing a known 'title' attached to James as "brother of the Lord", it means nothing that he does not use the word "brother" in the sense of member of a brotherhood anywhere else in his text. As to whether in fact such an interpretation of the phrase is a "mind-numbing absurdity," I might ask if Holding interprets the "more than 500 of the brothers" of 1 Corinthians 15:6 as siblings of Jesus (rather, they are clearly part of an organized sectarian group), or how he personally would translate "ton adelphon en kurio" (brothers in the Lord, where Paul is also referring to a group) in Philippians 1:14 without implying some kind of "brethren/brotherhood" meaning.

• Re "it means nothing" - it very well DOES mean something, if we are attempting to foist a novel interpretation upon our writer! For that one needs a better reason than, "It supports my theory"!
• Re 500 brothers, etc. - nope, I see these as "spiritual" brethren, but let's get to the point. What Doherty misses here is that the phrase used by Josephus is "the brother of" - it is an individual possessive. It is not "of the brothers" which contains no possessive; nor is it "my brothers" indicating a personal collective, but it is an entirely different phrase that only by the most arduous stretching can be interpreted to refer to "brother" in the sectarian sense - as indeed the others could only by arduous stretching be made to refer to sibling connections in their contexts. If Doherty can produce even ONE instance in ancient literature where " the brother of" is used in a sectarian sense, and without any further qualifiers, then he MIGHT have the beginnings of a case - but as he cannot even show such usage by Josephus, except by assuming what needs to be proven, the argument remains a dead end for him as it stands, and Josephus remains as powerful, independent proof of a human Jesus. (Along with Tacitus, Thallus, and Lucian, whom he does not even touch in terms of a reply.)

And thus ends our review of comments on essay #2 - with the majority of material left completely untouched by Doherty. Let us move now to comments on essay #3, "The Twenty-Pound Gorilla." This essay attacks Doherty's keystone, and appropriately, he spends a great deal of time on it - but still barely addresses the content. (Note that in more recent days, I added material on high and low context that adds a coup de grace to my case; this was not present when Doherty responded to the essay.) Indeed, the bulk of his reply here consists of nothing more than restating his original case! My arguments are barely answered at all; they are mostly repeated, throughout Doherty's reply, with the aura of an academic harrumph, as though they may be plainly seen as fallacious simply in their reading. Only the most minimal efforts are put forth in reply; not a word is said about the key issues of OT and/or ancient citation methods, about the use of allusion versus direct quotes, about missionary preaching - instead, old arguments are simply repeated, as though somehow, by creating expectation and then astonishment, the argument can be won. "Was it 'trivial' that Jesus' death was the outcome of a trial, one in which he had been falsely accused, a murdered innocent? Not one epistle writer breathes a word of it." Actually, the charges against Jesus were NOT false, in a technical and legal sense (!), but even so, we still ask: Where on earth is the context or necessity to make mention of this in the epistles? Why should the subject be brought up? There is no evidence until Ignatius that anyone doubted any aspect of the historical scenario. "Was the contrast between the Jews' screaming for his blood and Pilate's magnanimous attempt to set him free of no interest, nor the betrayal by Judas, nor the actual extent of Jesus' ordeal, the crown of thorns, the scourging, the anguished cries and other words from the cross, the stupendous reaction of nature to his death, the tearing of the Temple veil?" Again, as I state VERY clearly, the issue is NOT "no interest" at all, but no NEED. Where is the NEED for these items Doherty throws into the air like so much parade confetti? "What of the host of lesser details: the freeing of Barabbas, the denial by Peter, the thieves crucified with Jesus, the presence of his mother at the scene, the vinegar drink?" What of them? These are all things that the churches written too should have been taught of long before the epistles were written; they have no relevance to what is being written, and Doherty has not shown any relevance for them, not now, nor in his past articles. Why doesn't Doherty tell us about his mother, his friends, and his family in his articles? Are they trivial? Why doesn't he mention his hometown, his homemade nacho recipe, or his favorite baseball team? Is Earl Doherty a myth?

But again, little is directly responded to in terms of my reply; here is a minor exception:

Mr. Holding addresses each point (though by no means all of the above) as though it were there in isolation, but he misses the more telling consideration that there are a host of these things which need explaining, all of which must be reduced to triviality, to irrelevance, to a lack of need. It is the totality of the silence that is the most devastating, and here, as I have said elsewhere, any logic in his kind of reasoning breaks down.

Totality of silence? Well, 200 times zero is still ZERO; and if Doherty fails to secure his case in each individual argument, or in a sufficient number of them, then the Borg collective fails. The key is whether any of the individual arguments can be defended; but all we are given is this sort of rhetoric:

In his dissection of the individual silences I raise, he is often at pains to produce an "apples and oranges" analysis. In these he creates the most strained distinctions and niceties of definition so as to remove the necessity, indeed the very possibility, that the writer could have brought in the Gospel element which seems to us most germane and compelling of mention.

Nice polemic, and I'll admit that in addition to apples and oranges, I should have added lemons as well. But any specifics to go as a side order? Here's one, regarding whether Paul knew about the Lord's prayer in Romans:

"Paul is talking about content; Jesus is talking about method," goes one explanation. (Shades of the sophisticated subtleties of Burton Mack!)

Yep - that's the whole answer! Satisfied now? Shall we all put our Earl Doherty statuettes back on the mantlepiece? Labeling the argument "subtle" does not answer the question of the argument's validity, folks. If Doherty is so "unsophisticated" in his vocabulary and thinking as to be unable to recognize such distinctions as I have made, then that's just something we can't help. (Maybe there's a government program for such people.)

It's all pretty much like this; but again, an exception:

Mr. Holding takes a number of tacks to deal with the silence in the epistles concerning any attribution of earthly teachings to Jesus. He suggests that we do not, when quoting well-known words from Shakespeare, or Kennedy, or other famous people, always insert the attribution when it is obvious to the reader or listener who said the words. Fair enough, but the situation in the epistles is more often than not one of debate, of urging the reader to a certain course of action, where mention of the "author"-especially when he is the Son of God-would be a natural impulse to give added weight to the argument. (At least some of the time, surely!)

What ho? This argument passes right by the issue! "Surely" - WHY? How does the name of the person cited "add weight" when the recipient already KNOWS who the speaker is??? And if this is true, then why was the same process not followed to the letter for OT cites, which were also used in situations of debate - even in places where God is the speaker? Surely if what Doherty says bears out, then there would be absolutely no avoiding the "natural impulse" to cite God as the speaker to add weight to the argument! (I wonder, is this a "natural impulse" that we are born with?)

And if the purpose were to praise Shakespeare, or to show why he was so great (as the epistle-writers' purpose was to sell the people on Jesus), we would hardly tend to leave out the fact that Shakespeare was indeed the author.

What ho again? The epistle-writers were not trying to "sell the people on Jesus" - they were addressing people who had already BEEN "sold on Jesus" for a decade or more! Nor in fact is it true, re Shakespeare: Again, the name itself adds no more authority than it would if merely assumed to be known! "What is in a name...?"

Looking back to his article D02, he said this about the observation that the epistles seem to imply, and often state explicitly, that God is the source of Christian teaching, with no mention of Jesus and his ministry: "God (is) the primary source; Jesus (is) the Word of God, His mouthpiece. Not even Jesus took credit for the content of his own preaching, but identified the Father as his source." Evidently, every Christian epistle writer made the same respectful bypass and ignored Jesus the teacher, refusing even to refer to him as such. Is this really a feasible explanation?

Certainly; why not? Neither posturing in astonishment, nor harrumphing in dismay, is a valid form of argument; and neither will serve to counter the bare fact that citation methods of the time, especially in terms of allusions, simply did not employ the sort of "precision" that Doherty is demanding of the epistle-writers. (And again, as I note elsewhere, Doherty has already provided a way to explain away a reference to Jesus as a teacher, so what difference does it make??)

I will bypass specific comments on 1 John, only referring the reader to our article on this subject, and noting this section:

When 1 John 3:21f and elsewhere fails to assign to Jesus the great love commandment, the centerpiece of his Gospel preaching, but identifies it as coming from God, Mr. Holding explains it this way: "The answer should be obvious. As Johannine theology most explicitly equates Jesus with God, and refers to Jesus as God's Logos...then obviously-expressed in terms of the Father/Son christology-even if these words did come from Jesus' mouth, they in fact ought to be attributed to God." The same explanation is offered for similar silences in Hebrews. This kind of reasoning is characteristic of the theologian, and I suggest that the great majority of us who do not dance on the head of a pin are still left unsatisfied at this determination on the part of all the epistle writers to adhere to such esoteric considerations.

Well, like it or not, we are dealing with subjects related to God, and so theology MUST enter the picture. No amount of barring the door against it can keep it outside; nor will Doherty's narrow worldview! Not that his personal satisfaction or those of his skeptical cohorts means a great deal in the first place! The issue is how the 1 John writer viewed things, not how we modern readers do.

Doherty closes by saying, "On the whole, we are left dumbfounded at (the epistle-writers') overall 'lack of need' to refer to Jesus himself, his life's words and deeds, amid their constant proselytizing, their struggles against rivals, apostates, skeptics and heretics, and amidst the simple love and respect they must have felt for their vividly remembered Master, the Nazarene whose name hovered, silent and kept in check, on their pursed lips and the tips of their pens. " Well, perhaps a little closer study of social and literary context (especially "high and low context") will alleviate some of that dumbfoundedness, and if that doesn't work, there are always some powerful psychiatric medications available on the market, and they might even work to improve some of those attempts at prose that Doherty is putting forwards. Ironically enough, "dumbfounded" is a description high-context peoples like the French might readily use to describe low-context persons like Doherty who would insist on the repetition of so much detail already known. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of my points against Doherty's keystone piece remained unanswered; and we would hardly agree that pursed lips and pen tips had Jesus' name and all of these details hovering about their orifices! We argue, rather, that that name, etc. had long since PASSED those places - and were no longer needed for support. But, if Doherty is so inclined, here's one argument I really want an answer to:

Doherty's Christ of the nether-realm, this spiritual being that he alleges Paul believed in, he acknowledges to have undergone certain earth-like details in his life in the nether-regions. This Christ was born of a (nether-realm) woman, spat out a few teachings, ate a meal with his disciples, was crucified, and died. Well and well. My question is simply this: What ELSE did this Christ do in his nether-life? Presumably he was not crucified shortly after his birth (baby formula served at the last supper?); certainly he did nothing with his royal life other than sit on some heavenly couch eating potato chips and watching reruns of Touched by an Angel. The point being: Doherty's "spiritual Christ" is "suffering" from the same sort of "gaps" in the record that the historical one does - and therefore poses just as much of a "problem". This is something that he has utterly failed to recognize or address, and no wonder, for it renders his entire myth-thesis pointless. I would ask Doherty: Why should we accept his thesis, when it has just as many gaps in the record as the traditional "alternative"? If this question can be answered successfully, then we may get on the road to giving Doherty's thesis a modicum of credibility - otherwise, it is no more than another bad joke to be discarded among the academic ruins, for it fails on the very same major point he uses as a bludgeon.

We now go to essay #4, "Round and Round We Go", in which I have collected arguments used by Doherty that I have designated as circular. Here again we begin with a technical complaint:

One of Mr. Holding's most vociferous complaints against me is that I often draw on a certain observation by a quoted scholar (e.g., Burton in regard to Galatians 4:4 or Barrett on Romans 1:3) when that scholar does not himself go on to draw from his own observation a conclusion identical to mine. This criticism is a red herring. Naturally, I realize that Burton does not use his own observation in the same way I do. But the observation is still made. And I have every right to call attention to it, even if I take it in support of a different conclusion. Nor am I duty bound to point out that his conclusion was different from mine-an assumption which the reader is likely to make in any case.

Doherty calls it a red herring, but like any fish out of water, it still smells bad. Yes, the right is granted to USE the observation; but as to being "duty bound" to point out the differences in conclusion - um, it seems rather RUDE to use someone's material in this way if they don't agree with you, lest the reader be impressed with the idea that the cited person supports your position in entirety on that specific! But perhaps I am merely old-fashioned in this regard; perhaps it would be entirely safe for me to take Doherty's quote above, "This criticism is a red herring," and use it to effect when it has little or no relevance to what I am addressing, say, as though he were calling one of his OWN arguments a red herring! Will the drumbeats be any less evident, I wonder? And as for the readers' assumptions - this is yet another excuse, limping along with the same power as this justification:

By way of analogy, a creationist may point to some natural phenomenon and draw a conclusion that a Creator is responsible. I, as a Darwinist, can surely quote him, but apply it to my own conclusions about evolution.

And by analogy, I find such conduct just as reprehensible. Using someone else's material for your support, without making it clear that they do not agree with your own ultimate point on the subject; or, citing the problems that a writer brings up, and applying your own solution without answering or at least noting their own solutions to the problems (or simply dismissing them without saying what they are!), especially to the magnitude of those whom Doherty has cited, is unprofessional. At worst it amounts to a type of intellectual prostitution!

But now again to specific arguments. Regarding the "battle of the prepositions" over 1 Cor. 11:23, the Last Supper scenario, and Paul's specific use of a preposition that would indicate a historical recollection over a vision as the source of his data, Doherty replies of my arguments:

I find it ironic that whereas (Holding) and others are often at pains to make the point that Paul and the other letter writers are producing "occasional" (meaning informal, dashed-off, etc.) works, so that they should not be held to principles of comprehensiveness and exactness, here Paul is not subject to Moulton's qualification of "in daily speech" because Paul had a "much more precise and intelligent mind than the average person . . . and would be unlikely to suffer from such inexactness of speech." (I wonder what Holding makes of the garbled sentence in Galatians 2:6?)

• Re "occasional" - My pain here is caused exclusively by Doherty's outrageous equation of "occasional" = "informal/dashed off". Where has he gotten this from? "Occasional" equals not "informal/dashed off" but "written for an OCCASION" which has nothing to do with how formally, or how quickly, an epistle was written. Perhaps he is confounding here the idea of "occasional" with my arguments re "rhetorical brevity" - but even this does not equate with informality or speed, but rather with economy and clarity. The point is that my or any other person's point about "occasional" letters provides no support for Doherty's attempted pointer against Paul's precision and care in writing.
• Re the "garbled" Gal. 2:6 - well, if Doherty wishes to break open this topical can of worms, it's his own fault if it is he who ends up wriggling on the hook. Galatians 2:6 is garbled? Admittedly, commentators in the past have accused Paul here of ambiguity and/or carelessness in composition, but recent detail-studies by Betz and Longenecker have now come to the opposite conclusion, finding here, rather, a very carefully-crafted expression that brings across a very precise point from the pen of the apostle Paul. So, I wonder, in turn, what Doherty makes of that argument - and if he wants to bait the hook further with an uglier worm, he is by all means free to do so.

But back again to the feed trough: Here is a place where I most specifically charge Doherty with misusing a scholar, Barrett, regarding Romans 1:1-4.

In his reaction to my analysis of Romans 1:1-4, I refer the reader to my comments above about quoting scholarly observations. Barrett (whom I never labelled a Platonist) offers a translation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh." By this he means, of course, earthly flesh. My appeal to Barrett was more to the concept of "sphere" which he thinks could here be taken from kata. From there one must go on to enquire what could be included, according to the various philosophies of the day, within that "sphere of flesh". I cover this quite thoroughly in Supplementary Articles 3 and 8.

WHOA horsey!!!! Let's start by looking at how Doherty originally used Barrett:

The term "in flesh" (en sarki, or kata sarka) is also a stereotyped phrase in the early Christian epistles. If we take into account C. K. Barrett's suggestion in his translation of Romans 1:3, it may simply have signified the entry of Christ "into the sphere of flesh," which included that lower celestial realm where Satan and the demon spirits dwelled and wreaked their havoc on the material world.

Now read plainly, this passage clearly invokes the authority of Barrett and indicates that his "sphere" phrase is being defined as including the "lower celestial realm," etc. - an idea that never crossed Barrett's mind. No, Doherty did not label Barrett a Platonist directly; nor do I say he does, but in taking Barrett's term and applying his OWN loaded meaning to it, WITHOUT stating Barrett's own reasons for the phrase, Doherty is cheaply usurping the authority of Barrett for his position. (Not to mention using the phrase itself for a purpose that is entirely foreign to its conception!)

The bottom line: One is not at all free to "go on to enquire what could be included, according to the various philosophies of the day, within that 'sphere of flesh'," because Barrett did not compose that free-translation phrase with the "various philosophies of the day" in mind at all. Nor did Paul have any such notion in mind, although Doherty once again pulls a stretch to try and say so:

And of course, (Holding) has already rejected the very notion that Paul (coming from Tarsus-birthplace and capital, I might add, of the Hellenistic Mithraic cult from the 1st century BCE on), or other early Christian circles such as those in Antioch, Asia Minor and Greece, could possibly have suffered any inroads of Hellenism into their pure Jewish "mainstream" thinking (if, indeed such a creature can be found, especially in the Diaspora, during this period).

This is not quite what I say: What I do point out is that geography has marginal relevance as far as what we can assume has "influenced" a person, and that one must prove first that such "inroads" have occurred and are uniquely the result of such influence. In light of the work of W. D. Davies in the past and E. P. Sanders more recently, who have found nothing in Paul that cannot be found in Jewish mainstream thinking, we must ask WHY (aside from a theoretical need) we must assume that Hellenism is behind Paul's ideas, especially to the wild extent that Doherty proposes. (Moreover, that Paul was BORN in Tarsus hardly equates with his having spent any significant portion of his life there; if he rose successfully in Judiasm beyond his years as he says in his letters, there is a high probability - and Acts serves to confirm this - that he spent most of his formative educational years in Jerusalem! Maybe the Mithraists caught 'em in the cradle? But it doesn't matter anyway; as I show here, Mithraism and Christianity aren't even kissing cousins.)

And so, on to some complaining; a bit non-specifically about my lack of attention to some of his allegedly "original and insightful" comments on Romans (There's that humble fellow talking! - original and insightful? How about considered and correct?), about my allegedly "piecemeal" and "ineffectual" replies concerning Galatians 4:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (of which, nothing more is said, other than to say that they are "piecemeal" and "ineffectual", with reference back to Doherty's original arguments). More explaining my arguments without answering them, as though by astonishment and posturing can the battle be won. "Calvary, for purposes of denying any possible parallel between itself and Mt. Sinai, has had its topographical profile reduced, but I still suspect that any dispassionate observer would regard Mt. Sinai, where the first covenant with God was established, and non-Mt. Calvary, where Jesus' blood sacrifice (as stated by Jesus himself at the Last Supper) brought the new covenant into effect, to be clear and inviting parallels." Doherty can suspect until the end of time, but no Gospel writer ever granted Calvary any topographical significance of this sort; nor again does the parallel he establishes hold, no matter how many word-parallels he attempts to draw, and no matter how hard he tries to confound the blood sacrifice with the giving of the covenant terms, which are two entirely separate events. My charges of circularity in his reasoning remain standing.

We move now to comments on essay #5, "Fringe Factoids". Against J.A.T. Robinson's Gospel-date arguments, we find no more again that the usual name-calling that characterizes "rebuttals" to Robinson's thesis: My championing of Robinson is "evidence of (my) ultra-conservative exegetical leanings," Robinson's stance is "on the distant right wing of New Testament scholarship" and at odds with "the most fundamental insights of the last century in critical NT research." Not a single rational argument to be found in the forest of polemic! Just wave that (post)modernistic flag and be done with it! "The huge discrepancies between Acts and what Paul tells us in his letters are reduced to 'minimal' and 'easily recognized as rhetorical/polemical.' " Well, what of it? Doherty himself barely said two sentences on the subject; why should I devote special attention to the matter myself in this context? But if Doherty wants to prove his mettle, he can respond to my article on this subject. "The idea that Judas Iscariot was an invention is labeled 'rather peculiar' and seemingly imputed entirely to Hyam Maccoby." Well, it WAS Maccoby's idea; but I suppose there's the off chance that Doherty came up with the idea independently! And again, Doherty said little more by volume that I did on the subject, so what of the brevity of my reply? Finally, what of my question in this regard:

...it should be noted that these is a special problem for Doherty's theories, thanks to his extraordinarily late date assigned to Acts. Elsewhere Doherty maintains standard early dates (50-60 AD) for Pauline letters that he considers genuine. The problem is that most of the data used to fix Paul's letters chronologically COMES FROM the book of Acts. If Acts is not a reliable document, then what grounds are there for dating Paul's letters early? (It will not do to suggest, as Doherty does elsewhere, that accurate bits of tradition have filtered down into Acts - that merely begs the question.)

This is the second question above all that I'd like answered - so how about it?

Now Doherty briefly dismissed the testimony of Papias; I in turn ask these questions:

In what way does the reference "sound as if it was not a narrative work"??? How does he say that "it would seem that Papias had not seen these documents himself"????

Doherty replies by noting that he plans an article on Papias in the future, which we can accept graciously; but Doherty does descend from the pedestal to "fill (me) in on one of (my) questions." - the second one above; though I wonder why we can't also answer the first one, where I rather think that Doherty stuck his neck out a bit too much. At any rate, Doherty writes:

On what basis do I say that Papias had not seen the documents he calls "Matthew" and "Mark"? Mr. Holding probably does not accept deductive reasoning, but if Papias did possess copies, he would hardly have failed to deal with some of the Gospel sayings of Jesus in his now-lost work Oracles of the Lord Interpreted. And if he had, the several later commentators who saw that work, such as Eusebius who is quoting from it in the matter of Mark and Matthew (and on whom we must rely for most of what we think we know about Papias), would surely have referred to them, instead of limiting themselves to some of the ridiculous things Papias is reported to have talked about, such as a gruesome version of the death of Judas. Nor is it likely that if he had full narrative Gospels of Jesus' life, Papias would have disparaged written works and preferred oral traditions, as he is reported to have said.

I do accept deductive reasoning; but I do not accept faulty reasoning, and this paragraph is peppered with it. I'll wait until our critic devotes more of his valuable time to Papias before getting into any depth, but briefly:

Re "failing to deal with" the Gospel sayings - now of course, Doherty's basis for saying that Papias does not do this is based upon the next argument, that "several later commentators" like Eusy would "surely" have quoted Papias on such matters, as opposed to quoting him on certain (unspecified) "ridiculous" things. Well, being that this is not very specific, I can only say that Eusy would actually, indeed, be inclined to make Papias look ridiculous: He plainly regards him as someone of minor intellectual prowess. As for the second bit, re "disparaging written works" - there is neither a logical nor a deductive connection between "disparaging" and "not having possession of" - indeed, one would suppose that one could not "disparage" such works unless they actually existed! - but I suggest here that our writer should consult the work of Lentz (referred to in our article here) to understand the point of Papias' comment here.

Our next subject area dealt with is the alleged rivalry between Paul and Apollos found in 1 Corinthians. Doherty responds here in some depth:

In this same article, Mr. Holding addresses the core of my first Supplementary Article, the rivalry (as I see it) between Paul and Apollos, centered on the congregation at Corinth. While he says a lot, his case seems to boil down to this: there was no disagreement at all between the two beyond a friendly rivalry based on the Corinthians' preference for one or the other as a public speaker. For this he appeals to terminology found in two or three scattered verses in the first few chapters. For a "friendly rivalry" over their respective oratorical skills, the Corinthians have divided themselves to such an extent, that Paul is forced to write this long letter to them to patch things up, in which he discourses on the wisdom of the world vs. the wisdom of God to defend his doctrine of the cross, over which some are "on their way to ruin"! In addressing the rest of my analysis of the early Christian apostolate, Holding again has recourse to his "they already knew" argument, as well as to a "rhetorical brevity principle."

My, what careful consideration! "While I say a lot...?" It "seems to boil down to..."? I wonder what the reaction would have been had I deigned to write of Doherty thusly! Perhaps our "humble fellow" considers it not worth his valuable time to descend to more precise responses? (Perhaps that point has become obvious already....!)

To specifics. "...there was no disagreement at all between the two beyond a friendly rivalry based on the Corinthians' preference for one or the other as a public speaker." Actually, I point out that the issue went a bit deeper: It also involved a congregational rivalry between the rich and the poor, and "smart" versus "dumb" - it was a classic social division with multiple aspects, much like the sort one can find in churches even today. "For this he appeals to terminology found in two or three scattered verses in the first few chapters." I appeal to much more than this, and Doherty knows it: He may try to dull the point by using the adjectives "scattered" and "few" - but the passages cited are all within the same argument-sector of the epistles, and are inextricably linked together. Beyond that, I go into some detail about the social background of the problem, of which Doherty says zip. "For a 'friendly rivalry' over their respective oratorical skills, the Corinthians have divided themselves to such an extent, that Paul is forced to write this long letter to them to patch things up, in which he discourses on the wisdom of the world vs. the wisdom of God to defend his doctrine of the cross, over which some are 'on their way to ruin'!" First of all, we have pointed out that the division involved many more factors; but even so, it was not so serious that Paul could not address the Corinthian congregation as a whole. Second, this "long letter" is not TOTALLY devoted to this problem - only 4 of our chapters out of 16 deal with this issue directly, which amounts to a rather short discussion! Finally, re "ruin" as is found in some translations - Paul may be being hyperbolic here (in the manner of, "If you keep crossing your eyes, they'll stay that way"), but even if he is not, the situation as I described it could very well lead to "ruin": More salt in the wound, more sore points attacked, and in a trouble-filled city like Corinth, that could be the end of that church for good! Doherty's inability to grasp the social consequences of the scenario given reflect poorly on his own grasp of the matter at hand, as well as his desperation to bring the rivalry to parties who were essentially innocent witnesses.

Regarding my material on Paul's use of the word "gospel" - Doherty merely says that he with "let the reader decide" if I have "effectively explained away the blatant contradiction" between Galatians 1:12 and 1 Cor. 15:3. Indeed so: And let the reader not forget to consult my linked reply to Robert Price in this regard, where I have centered most of my material on this subject, which Doherty either ignores or is unaware of.

Now to the issue of 2 Peter. Here we at least have a bit of an answer to one of my key charges. To begin:

When Mr. Holding gets to my discussion of 2 Peter, with its "Transfiguration" anecdote which manages to leave out virtually every element to be found in the Gospel scene from which it is supposed to be derived, he offers the familiar rejoinder: "How would stating the obvious help? What need is there for all these details if the reader is familiar with the story?"

To this, the reply is offered:

Yet this is the very issue under debate. What conclusions do we draw from the fact that the writer of 2 Peter gives us no evidence that the Gospel incident of the Transfiguration is his source for the account he gives, an account whose bare words describe nothing so much as a revelatory vision of a divine figure? My position is that the lack of such Gospel details can be taken as an indication (not proof, of course) that the presumed historical incident in a ministry of Jesus (described in Mk. 9:2-8 and parallels) is not the writer's source, possibly because he knows of no such thing. Holding's position is that these details are missing from 2 Peter because the writer and his readers already knew of them. In the context of an argument over whether in fact 2 Peter knew the Gospel scene, which position stands closer to the fallacy of "begging the question"?

Which stands closer? Doherty's position, by far: We have a written record elsewhere that approximates what is written in 2 Peter, using indeed exact words and phrases; Doherty has - what? Speculation, presumption. Obviously neither of us can "prove" our case in the fullest sense of the word; but Doherty's personal lack of satisfaction with the level of detail provided is no cause for shifting preference to his position. Just how many details would 2 Peter have needed to include to satisfy Doherty? What would keep Doherty from arguing that these finer details are not also representative of some sort of nether-experience in a parallel universe just like ours (as he goes as far as to do elsewhere for other details that don't fit his thesis)?

Here are Doherty's closing comments on essay #5, which lead me to wonder whether he has actually read what I wrote carefully:

By now, perhaps, the reader is wondering how, if no one ever mentions the details or even the basic data of the events of Jesus' life, if no one ever attributes teachings to him or takes care to preserve exactly what he said, how is it that in fact "everyone knows these things"? Preservation and transmission of oral tradition was supposedly accomplished by continually speaking and writing those things which in fact are so woefully missing in the entire written record outside the Gospels. Is there not a contradiction involved here?

Not at all, and Doherty would know this had he bothered to read what I wrote carefully. As I made quite clear, the details and data would have been covered in the missionary preaching of the apostles, some 10 to 20 years before the epistles had been written; preservation and transmission of oral tradition was accomplished at the time of this missionary preaching (and it was not a matter of "continually" speaking and writing, but of sufficiently teaching to whatever degree was needed; and in an oral-based society, "continually" was not at all necessary - the basic memory patterns would be established within a very short period). This is not contradiction, but process, and here as always, Doherty pretends that there was no Christian contact prior to the epistles, that the epistles represent the total content of all that was ever referred to in the early church. What horrifying reductionism!

Our next article is #6, "No Apologies", on the subject of the second-century apologists. Our humble skeptic tells us that "In some ways, this is the most interesting of Mr. Holding's rebuttal articles, not the least because he manages to reproduce most of what I wrote in my 'Second Century Apologists' article." Oh? So it is Doherty's material that makes things interesting, eh? But, regrettably, in spite of this backhanded compliment, Doherty avers: "I am not going to comment at length on this article, since it really boils down to a 'Was So - Was Not!' confrontation." It "boils down" to much more than that, of course, but our readers apparently to not deserve the full disclosure from our "modest fellow". Much space is devoted to the key issue of Gospel attestation, thusly:

On the matter of when the Gospels are first attested to, one can cite many scholars' so-called "echoes of the Gospels" in the early literature, but such echoes can be interpreted in different ways, and if they all lack clear reference to written documents (and especially when they stand next to other indications which suggest that the writer is unfamiliar with basic Gospel material), then surveys like those of Helmut Koester (in Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern, 1957, and Ancient Christian Gospels, 1990) which tend to regard such echoes as the expression of floating traditions and not derived from written Gospels, become compelling.

That "other indications" bit is simply too vague to respond to; but as for the rest, I would simply point out again that if Koester, et al. are expecting 20th-century citation methods, they are not only begging the question, but also working woefully out of the socio-literary context of our writers. I may ask, what of the similar use of the OT, which likewise often " lack clear reference to written documents"? Are these allusions to be regarded as "floating traditions not derived from written OT books" because they lack the citation standards of the 20th century?

Regarding the apologists, very little is actually said. Doherty tells me that he would "like to assure Mr. Holding that I am well aware of the Roman social context, with its attitudes toward religion, in which the apologists had to operate, and I have taken it into account, as several passages in my article clearly indicate." Yes, they do; my difference of opinion is, as Doherty does note, with "the weight it should be given when taking other factors into account..." - and I say that Doherty, while KNOWING of the context, nevertheless fails to comprehend or appreciate it: His rosy scenario, that supposes that the Christians could simply have showed what a nice, smart fellow Jesus was, is about the same as saying that Hitler could have been cured of his hatred of the Jews had he only been given an intelligent introduction to the Torah or taken a field trip down to the local synagogue. As far as specifics, Doherty only says that he finds my methods of " 'explaining' the blatant statements of apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, and especially Minucius Felix, thoroughly inadequate." This is a wonderful statement of Doherty's personal opinion, but it tells us absolutely nothing other than that perhaps he considers himself above answering his critics directly, except where trivia like this is concerned:

One note: I did not say that the Dialogue with Trypho represents Justin's early beliefs. I said that the account of his conversion experience, which is thought to have taken place 20 years before he actually wrote the Dialogue, and which is described in the opening chapters, represents those beliefs.

As the account of Justin's conversion is PART OF the Dialogue, one wonders what the problem is here. I certainly make the distinction clear.

Much more time is spent now on response to my #7 essay, "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black," which is put together by way of conclusion to the first 6 essays. Perhaps irritated by the many times I find his own material to be fallacy-ridden, the skeptic strikes back: In response to my finding of his conclusion, "To believe that ordinary Jews were willing to bestow on any human man, no matter how impressive, all the titles of divinity and full identification with the ancient God of Abraham is simply inconceivable," to be fallacious, Doherty writes:

I fail to see any fallacy. It is a statement of the difficulty-in my considered opinion an impossibility-in accepting the proposition that Jews did in fact do this. It is based on a knowledge of the Jews and their attitudes toward God vis-a-vis humans. It does not state, as Holding claims, that "the idea that Christianity is true is itself fallacious."

Well, of course Doherty fails to see the fallacy; otherwise he would not have been so silly as to present it. And as a matter of fact, as Doherty turned the phrase in the original essay, it DOES state, in essence, that "the idea that Christianity is itself fallacious" - so if Doherty is not able to make himself clear using the English language, it is no one's fault but his own.

So then: We do agree, however, that "The idea that Christianity cannot have been 'true' as orthodoxy has presented the picture of its presumed beginnings, is an argued conclusion derived from evidence about the nature of Jewish beliefs and attitudes, and what these say about the difficult of accepting that they could have done such a thing with a human man." Now if this is what Doherty MEANT originally, he is to be congratulated for doing a much clearer job this time. Whether the arguments bear out is, of course, another issue, and leads to the next comment:

But then Mr. Holding goes on to give us a genuine fallacy. He says that such an action by Jews would be inconceivable, "UNLESS it actually happened, and that 'human man' proved himself to be the Son of God." This is a far more blatant example of a piece of circular reasoning and begging the question combined, than anything he calls attention to in my work.

This statement by me would, indeed, be fallacious, IF I had said "BECAUSE" it actually happened - but since the statement is conditional rather than definitional, it cannot be fallacious. Once again Doherty's grasp of logic seems rather slippery, and leads us to question whether he is able to recognize fallacies in his own work: But then he goes on -

My statement about the Jews, that they were not capable of such a thing, is "disproven", he says, because they actually did that. Since they did that, this shows that they were capable of it. Nothing could be more classically circular than this....

And on it goes; but we'll stop there, because there is a problem: I nowhere say anything like the above at all! Nor do I use the word "disproven" in my essay - quote marks notwithstanding. This seems to be the second time that Doherty has created a quote for me; but considering how he has misused Kelly and others, why should we be surprised? But it does not even end there:

He also applies the term fallacy here: "The idea that New Testament scholarship for the past two millennia has been entirely wrong, and that only the genius of Earl Doherty has just now uncovered the truth, is itself a ludicrous proposition." The two millennia idea, of course, proves nothing. Was Copernicus guilty of a "fallacy" when he bucked millennia of conviction-and scholarly conviction at that-that the sun went around the earth? Does Mr. Holding believe in the existence of Amon-Re because the Egyptians believed in him for longer than Christians have believed in Jesus? And I would like to point out that I have never claimed either "genius" or that I am the first to propose that Jesus never existed. But of course Mr. Holding knows that.

But of course I do: And I also know that Doherty has once again failed basic reading comprehension. Let's look at what I actually wrote:

Let us offer a restatement of one of Doherty's own fallacies to make a point: The idea that NT scholarship for the past two millennia has been entirely wrong, and that only the genius of Earl Doherty has just now uncovered the truth, is itself a "ludicrous proposition" - one that would require a much higher burden of proof to be believed, a burden that Doherty has utterly failed to meet.

So in light of this: I have indeed applied the term "fallacy" here - because I have said this in order to satirize Doherty's continual fallacious appeals! To put it simpler: I know it's a fallacy; that's the point, folks! It's satire! But like all satire, it contains a further point: The two millennia by themselves prove nothing; but the issue - again, for the Christ-myth crowd - is that Doherty is indeed claiming "genius" (though he uses no such word) inasmuch as he has presumed that he is more learned, more intelligent, more fair-minded, and more perceptive than hundreds and even thousands of historians, NT scholars, and others who have determined through their studies that a human Jesus actually walked the earth. Is this not the "modest" fellow who has asked whether all of Western civilization has been subject to a hoax which only he and a few others have now figured out? This indeed would be a ludicrous proposition - one not impossible; but so unlikely on its face that "ludicrous" serves well for an initial description!

With that, there is the usual departure from the ring, in which Doherty blasts away from the fight without entering, yet having his arms upraised -- saying only that I have dealt with the rest of his "fallacies" (4 out of 5) "in a very cursory and ineffectual fashion." Not that we of the Lower Caste of the Unwashed are to be privileged to be told how this is so. But in closing, content not only with excusing himself, Doherty now generously allows me to use one of his excuses: "But perhaps by that time he was getting weary, as I am now." The joke's on the skeptic: My articles (including #7) were not all written in their numerical order! One exception, though: Our last essay, #8, "Hebrew Harmonics" - another place where Doherty descends to earth a bit more on our behalf. Apparently annoyed by being accused of category errors so often, our critic tries to turn the tables on me, just so:

In the quotation of Psalm 8 contained in Hebrews 2:6-7, "the son of man" (this term refers in the Psalm simply to "mankind") is made "for a short time lower than the angels." This is indeed a reference to nothing else but humanity, as Mr. Holding points out. Now, in 2:9, the writer says that Jesus was one who "for a short while was made lower than the angels." Holding claims that 2:9 "refers back" to the Psalm quotation, and since the latter's reference is to humanity, this must govern the meaning of the later verse, making it indicate "nothing else but that Jesus became a man on earth."

Seems simple enough. But no; our critic is befuddled by even the most basic phrases in the English language, just so:

I'm not sure what he means by "refers back". They both use the same phrase, "for a short while made lower than the angels," but that does not mean that we can read every aspect of the context of the first verse into the second. The writer may be saying no more than that "mankind in its way was made lower than the angels, while Jesus in his own way experienced the same thing."

What ho? We can't read every aspect of the first verse into the second; but we CAN read a nether-world Platonic dualism into it, in spite of the total lack of references thereof...? Apparently, for:

Here, many analogies offer themselves. Both Floor 5 and Floor 1 are "lower than the roof", but they are not thereby on the same level, and both may not be inhabited by people of the same nationality.

So where is the evidence that the Hebrews writer was thinking in these terms? The answer: There is no evidence! Once again, for the thousandth time, Doherty is merely assuming what he has yet to prove: It may have red skin like an apple; it may have a stem like an apple; it may have white, juicy pulp like an apple - but nevertheless, it is actually a new, mutant strain of orange! This, and the paragraph that Doherty follows with the above, are merely more, more exercises in his favorite marching formation, the Grand Circle. As with 2 Peter, it is of course POSSIBLE that the evidence should be seen Doherty's way; but to prove this would require so much, far much, more than Doherty has provided.

Now perhaps a tad out of place, we are offered this rather interesting explanation - which I take to be Doherty's analysis of why Christianity (as he sees it) moved from the spiritual Christ to the earthly one. Read it closely; it provides for much amusement:

It may be that, in order to appeal to a mass audience, the esoteric nature of the Platonic system had to give way to something more understandable, more accessible to the average mind. Paul's audience is largely an intelligent, educated, sophisticated one, as his letters show. Christianity a few generations later was appealing to many more people of all classes, including slaves and the dispossessed, the marginal, the sick and troubled. One of the reasons for this broadening of appeal, I would suggest, was the 'descent' of the spiritual Christ into the material realm, to take up an abode on earth, in human flesh. For that, Christianity had "Mark" to thank, though he probably never intended it.

This painfully reductionist paragraph is riddled with all sorts of assumptive errors:

• "It may be that, in order to appeal to a mass audience, the esoteric nature of the Platonic system had to give way to something more understandable, more accessible to the average mind." We'll hop on this in more detail shortly; but we really must ask - is this "Platonic" system Doherty envisages REALLY that "inaccessible"? If so, why? And why could it not also appeal to "unintelligent, uneducated, unsophisticated" people drawn by the very fact that it was beyond their comprehension, and therefore perhaps something to be admired? Which leads to:

• "Paul's audience is largely an intelligent, educated, sophisticated one, as his letters show. Christianity a few generations later was appealing to many more people of all classes, including slaves and the dispossessed, the marginal, the sick and troubled." One key word here: The best we can assume is that Paul's audience included the intelligent, educated, etc. - we have no warrant to say that they were largely so; indeed, the data indicates (see Meeks' First Urban Christian and Stark's The Rise of Christianity), that although the intelligent, etc. made up an unusual number of the readers, there was indeed a broad spectrum of people in Paul's congregations - including those who were slaves (remember Philemon's letter, and advice to slaves in Ephesians and Colossians?), dispossessed and marginal (remember the fight in Corinth?), sick (1 Cor. 11:30 - nah, not really; but how does one tell from the epistles how healthy the readers were? - no matter; by Stark's reckoning, the data shows that there were not many times when ANYONE, rich or poor, was particularly healthy!), and troubled (if there was no trouble, there would be no epistles!). This alone deflates Doherty's proposition of a class/intellect connection to the rise of Christianity as a "flesh" religion. But there is more:
• "One of the reasons for this broadening of appeal, I would suggest, was the 'descent' of the spiritual Christ into the material realm, to take up an abode on earth, in human flesh." This runs into two HUGE problems. The first is the combination of the two factors above. The second is this: As we have pointed out in our reply to Robert Price, to move towards a fleshly resurrection would have been exactly the WRONG thing to do to win Gentiles! Remember that the Greeks thought of a resurrection body as a "resuscitated corpse" - to move from a spiritual Christ to an earthly one would have been a death knell for Christian belief, no matter how intelligent or moronic the congregations were!

But now to Hebrews again. Here Doherty devotes a great deal of attention to defending his two "smoking guns", Hebrews 10:37 and 8:4. Doherty begins by saying that my work "fails to grapple with perhaps the strongest area of my case: my presentation of many passages in the epistles which give us a picture of the beginnings of the Christian movement, in which no room is made for an historical Jesus." If I have "failed" to grapple with these things, it is because there is no opponent in the ring: I have maintained that Doherty has failed to show in any place that there is "no room" for a historical Jesus in any given passage. He says, there is "no room" at the inn of history because the epistle-writers are "presenting their picture of the Christian faith movement as one which was dependent on revelation from God and a study of scripture." And I have shown that this is because of the overarching authority of the OT to the first Jewish and Judaized believers, a point that Doherty has neglected to answer. He says that the historical Jesus is impossible because Christianity is a movement "which speaks of ancient 'secrets' and 'promises', with the first action on those promises, the first revelation of those secrets, being identified with apostles like Paul or the arrival of 'faith'." I have already dealt with these sorts of passages individually and will not do so again here, except more generally: Doherty is again confusing the ministry of Jesus with the post-resurrection mission, among other things. "Why is it that no epistle writer ever points to Jesus himself as playing an earthly role in the revelation and carrying out of God's work of salvation?" Every time an epistle writer mentions the cross or the resurrection (or when Paul refers to the Last Supper) he does this: There can be no other way to point to Jesus in this fashion, because the role of Jesus in revealing God's plan of salvation occurred only in these events, as the Gospels are plain to report. The moral teachings of Jesus said little about this subject, and even that done in parables which we do indeed find some allusion to in the epistles.

But what of our "smoking guns" which Doherty continues to insist leave no room for a historical Jesus? Starting with 10:37 - Doherty tells us that "is not yet another case, as Holding claims, that the writer did not feel it necessary to say that Jesus had already been on earth in advance of the coming Parousia because everyone knew that he had." Rather, he repeats his original argument, and tries to reinforce it by analogy, to wit:

It may very well be that I am married, yet write to a friend and not mention it because he already knows it. But if I say to that friend, "next month I'm getting married," it is certainly going to cause confusion and require elucidation on my part. And unless I'm planning to commit bigamy, why would I make such a statement if in fact I already have a wife?

And once again, it is the same old reductionist error: Assuming that Hebrews represents the totality of all that the writer knows, and all that his congregation knows! I say again: What of missionary preaching? Does Doherty think that the writer of Hebrews said nothing else to his congregation on previous occasions? To use that impaired analogy: Yes, it would require elucidation, if you were fool enough not to say something else in between; and this is precisely what we are arguing: That there WAS more than just these letters; that the groundwork had been established some 10 to 20 years prior to the writing! This is a subject that Doherty himself ignores completely.

A bit is also said on Hebrews 9:27-8. Doherty charges that my work "completely ignores the alternate translation/meaning I offer for ek deuterou" and continues, that my essay "declares that the 'second time' meaning 'is THERE in the text,' accusing me of suggesting interpolation, an idea which does not cross my lips."

Actually, what I did here was ask for clarification: I said, "It is THERE in the text; is Doherty suggesting some sort of interpolation?" - A fair question, I think, since Doherty used a very strong word, "intrusive". So now we have clarification, but still no good answer. He also offers no parallel for his "alternate" translation of the Greek phrase in question, which is what we would really like to see in order to significantly move his strongly counter-consensus argument.

And so to the next "smoking gun", verse 8:4. Of this it is written:

As for his rejoinder to my "Smoking Gun" in 8:4, it doesn't work, if only because as Holding presents the writer's meaning, the point is so trivial and so uncritical to the context, that there is no reason why he would have made it. If Jesus had in fact performed a sacrifice on earth-namely on Calvary in his sacrificial death-which is the equivalent to what the high priest now does, what is the point of saying that he wouldn't do it now that he has reached heaven, since there are priests on earth who do such things?

Trivial and uncritical - to WHOM? Earl Doherty? The verse in question serves to highlight the difference between the superior, heavenly ministry of Jesus and the earthly ministry of the priests. Of course, like any explanatory phrase, one could easily claim that it is "trivial" or "uncritical" - but then again, most explanatory and expansion phrases ARE that way! One could easily run through the sermons of any minister and find phrases and indeed entire paragraphs that are "trivial" or "uncritical" - at the very least in the eye of the beholder. Thus Doherty has no grounds to say that the rejoinder "doesn't work" other than personal preference for his theory. He goes on to say, however:

If the writer had that recent earthly sacrifice in the storehouse of his knowledge, why would that thought not lead him to words which would reflect such a recent presence on earth? Moreover, he goes on in verse 6 to point out that Jesus' present ministry in heaven is far superior to the earthly one, an idea which takes no account of (and would seem to denigrate) the fact that Jesus recently did have an earthly ministry.

And again we point out: 1) What NEED would there be to reflect on this recent presence on earth, if it was common knowledge? 2) What of the "denigration" of the earthly ministry? We have pointed out quite clearly (assuming that this "denigration" claim is true) that Jesus' earthly ministry, as even the Gospels show, was literally of little account and in terms of the overall picture, and accomplished almost nothing. So, what is the problem here, exactly? Finally, appealing once again to the presumed Platonic-type basis of this verse, Doherty argues that "if Jesus had somehow operated in both (earthly and heavenly spheres), the contamination would have destroyed their carefully crafted antitheses and required at least some concrete reference to the discrepancy." One wonders why this is necessarily the case: Rabbinic exercises seldom contained analogies that were completely flawless, and the rabbis (as well as preachers today!) seem undisturbed by inexactness in their analogies. Why should the writer of Hebrews have had a care for the needlepoint concerns of a 20th-century critic?

|

Conclusion: Our Condescending Critic

Doherty closes by providing a link to the our page and tells his readers "if a reader feels that a specific argument is a good one and warrants pursuing, and I have not covered it above, I have no objection to having it called to my attention and addressing it in normal Reader Feedback fashion." Well and well: So this is how it ends, not with a bang but with a whimper. Here is my suggestion to the reader: If this is how the matter is to be played out, perhaps someone should inundate Doherty will questions based on my material. Until then, I suppose, we shall have to be content with watching the Monarch of the Christ-Myth from afar, he who, like his spiritual Christ, has not truly deigned to descend to Earth on our behalf.

---

Go Home!