Talk:Earl Doherty/Archive 1

This article is obviously biased and written from an opinion and lacks obejctivity.

There are no group of "Rationalists" that are in agreement that a historical Jesus existed. This line is pure bunk and is probably written by a fundamentalist Christian.

The majority of scholars now do indeed reject the idea of a historical Jesus.

This doesn't seem very NPOV...

Oh dear! This might have been an interesting article, but the author it wrote it in such a way as to undermine its credibility and make it sound OTT POV (as s/he might say. Needs serious rewriting & culling or else it is going to end up on the Votes for Deletion page very soon. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:42 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

This article is getting more embarrassingly OTT every time it is getting tough! (*sigh*) STÓD/ÉÍRE

Zoe put it on VFD, but I thought replacing it with a stub was a better way to encourage an NPOV article. We'll see how it goes. -- Tim Starling 06:37 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Gack. I just scanned the old article. It was not only extremely POV, but used extremely unscholarly language and just was terribly written. I agree it needed drastic pruning. jaknouse 14:46 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted (again) to Tim Starling's stub. The other version is SO biased, dreadly written and POV it beggars belief. I've transferred in the external links. At least they are neutral, about the only thing in that dreadful article. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:25 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've added a message on the bottom of the page asking the original contributor to join our discussion. It's ugly, but it's my hope that if we can get him/her to understand the idea of NPOV, s/he will be able to write an article far better than my microstub. The anonymous contributor said at one stage "It's well done and has no POV since it is only explaining Doherty's POV". This is a simple misconception I would like the chance to correct. -- Tim Starling 06:59 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

'''Removed the following text, which is heavily POV and seeks to show that Doherty is correct. It is not for Wikipedia to say or imply he was right, merely in a neutral manner his claims.''' STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:30 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

As Doherty explains about himself he has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages.Doherty was introduced to the idea of a mythical origin of Jesus when he studied in London under Professor G.A. Wells, who has authored a number of books defending this theory.He has since been interested in the subject and the findings of his book were the result of a research that lasted for almost 20 years.His working knowledge of Greek and Latin and his basic, as described by him, knowledge of  Hebrew and  Syriac has allowed him to study the New Testament and various related contemporary sources in their original languages.In the tradition of historical revisionism he has proceeded in re-evaluating those sources and re-interpredating them  according to the methods used in the study of modern history and not theology.Doherty currently (2003) lives in Canada and continues to take part in scholarly discussions of Jesus historical existence and his theory has raised some interest among those interested in the subject.

I actualy added this paragraph myself mainly using Doherty's autobiographic notes.Care to explain what part of the text you find as biased?I tried to add his qualifications and an explanation of how he came to this conclusion and not discussing the validity of his claims.I tried not to include my own opinion besides that his book mainly interests those already interested in the subject.Any ideas on how to improve on the text? User: Dimadick

A suggested rewrite.

Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages. He was introduced to the theory of the mythical origin of Jesus when he studied in London under Professor G.A. Wells, who has authored a number of books propounding this theory. Doherty has a working knowledge of Greek and Latin and a basic knowledge of  Hebrew and  Syriac. He claims that this has allowed him to study the New Testament and various related contemporary sources in their original languages, he further arguing that his approach is based on a historical rather than a theological approach to historic religious texts and is in line with historical revisionism.

Doherty currently (2003) lives in Canada and continues to take part in scholarly discussions of Jesus historical existence. His theory has raised some interest among those interested in the subject.

Fine with me.It keeps all information Doherty gives about himself.If it is more acceptable add it to the article. User: Dimadick

I am the author of the original article on Doherty. I didn't write the above paragraph, but now that I see it I think it must also be included. It is NOT POV! It only explains his qualifications! What kind of **??!! 'editor' would snip this? STARLING, Jtdrl, whoever you are, you are DUMB! You don't understand the very concept of NPOV yourselves! Every nonfiction book article has some kind of author qualification paragraph! Obviously, if Doherty didn't have knowledge of ancient languages, and studied under an eminent scholar, and have spent over 20 years studying the subject before writing the book - then the above para. would be a falsehood, a lie. But if it is true, it is not POV to list one's qualifications to write about a subject! So F* OFF, self-appointed censors!

As to my article, which has been snipped three times now, the last time gave it all away. Whoever is doing the snipping has NEVER READ DOHERTY! What outrageous gall to attempt to edit something one isn't qualified to edit! The qualification problem all belongs to the editor-snippers! Doherty's thesis is that it wasn't PAUL who wrote the gospels and invented Jesus Christ, it was his FOLLOWERS! The thesis of Doherty is that Paul NEVER HEARD of the Jesus of the gospels! Paul died in 60-something A.D., and the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and it was after 70 A.D. that the gospels started appearing. Geesh! What sad ignorance and stupidity of the snipper-editor! He/she should wear a bag on his/her head! I have attempted to fix the article one last time. From now on any attempt to edit something one has not read will be considered a malicious act with no principles behind it. Not that it matters much, since nobody respects Wikipedia's scholarship anyway, and few will likely read this article on Doherty when they could just go to his own web site :) Years from now Doherty will be read, not Wikiwikitickitacki :)

Anybody who thought this was meant to be a fair, balanced encyclopædic article has had their illusions shattered by the above rant. S/he obviously thinks we are hear to proclaim the truth of Dohertyism and win converts. Not on wiki you don't. I'm sure you can find other website who take such stuff.

There is no problem with having stuff on Doherty here. All that required is balance, NPOV and scholarship. The bit you keep adding in presumes Doherty is right, includes no qualifications to statements, and then lists his CV to prove that he is right. That isn't how you write an NPOV article. Tone in down, don't state or imply that Doherty has proven something, just state what he alleges and that it is a controversial analysis. Leave it to the reader to decide if he is right or wrong. His qualifications are useful if written right. Quotes from a dust jacket are POV, by definition. If you can produce a fair, balanced article then it will have no problems here. But if all you want to do is write propaganda, go elsewhere. And if you react with the sort of rude abuse above you'll simply be banned and end up being able to contribute nothing. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:05 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdir: YOU'RE SICK! Your above rant could be used on an article about any author's works. The author is controversial, that's all. I've complained about you according to channels and hope you're banned! You simply cannot be reasoned with. At the most you could have inserted an occasional "according to the author" or "it's the author's view that", not deleted any attempt to explain his views because their mere exposition obviously DISTURBS YOU, and you think you're a self-appointed CENSOR with an obvious AXE TO GRIND. Was it YOU who decided to write your own article that is so ludicrously ignorant that it claims that Paul wrote the gospels after the year 70 A.D.? He died in the 60s! You have zero knowledge of the subject, you never read Doherty yet you presume to write the whole article? What's the matter, did JESUS talk to you in your dreams and tell you to WIN ONE FOR the GIPPER? I repeat: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. This is your last warning. No more will be posted about this article, or you. Doherty should see your tripe article that you and/or your partner Salsa Shark repeatedly revert to over better articles and have a good laugh. All your articles in WP are suspect now. It's your reputation on the line.

I have protected the article, to put an end to the edit war. Please discuss your proposed changes here. If any 2 or more contributors agree on a particular change, a sysop will make it for you. --Uncle Ed 23:39 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Well done on protecting the article, Ed. Everyone else sees that there is a problem with the above contributor's add ins but him. (PS: given that he as a contributor's account but is not using it, is he banned or something?) He needs in any case to take a valium and calm down and not make an even bigger ass than he has made of himself here. The article will do as it just fine. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:45 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid that it won't do in its present version.Not because it is a stub but because the only information given this far is erroneus.I spend some time reading Doherty's texts earlier today.A major point of his theory is that Paul never heard of Jesus and that therefor Jesus was invented sometime after Paul's death.The article as written now implies that Doherty theorises that Paul created Jesus himself.And though you might be angry with the original contributor's attacks on you he does have a point in saying that Paul is supposed to have died before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.He wouldn't be around to create anything. Its a misrepresentation of Doherty's theory.But I would suggest for everyone to calm down before posting another reply.The contents of this article should be discussed in a reasonable maner instead of a heated argument. User: Dimadick

This was an edit conflict merge, I haven't read Jtdirl's comment above, but I really have to go right now. I have a meeting starting 5 minutes ago.

I've made a unilateral change here, I hope I haven't offended anyone too much. Let me explain why.

The anonymous author said:


 * Doherty's thesis is that it wasn't PAUL who wrote the gospels and invented Jesus Christ, it was his FOLLOWERS! The thesis of Doherty is that Paul NEVER HEARD of the Jesus of the gospels! Paul died in 60-something A.D., and the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and it was after 70 A.D. that the gospels started appearing.  Geesh!  What sad ignorance and stupidity of the snipper-editor! He/she should wear a bag on his/her head!  I have attempted to fix the article one last time.

Yes, you're quite right, anon. Sorry, I had no idea what I was talking about, and I have changed the article back to one of your revisions accordingly. Also, I thought your qualifications bit was fine too. Perhaps Jtdirl has more at stake here than I. The idea that the whole story was made up after Paul died seems relatively plausible to me.

But for crying out loud, anon. CALM DOWN. Take a few deep breaths. I have to go now, I will be back in half an hour or so to sort this out.

Tim Starling 23:58 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem with Doherty's thesis. The problem was the manner in which it was written here. It needed a major rewrite to conform with elementary NPOV rules. A lot of the language here presupposed Doherty was right and everyone who disagreed with him wrong. It is irrelevant whether this is true or not. Wiki needs to present information in a manner that does not validate or invalidate an argument, merely state it and let the reader make a judgment. In the manner it was written it read like a badly written press release from Doherty's publishers. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:08 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

User Salsa Shark, Jtdir and some others in cahoots with them keep reverting to a totally false depiction of the work of Earl Doherty that they authored no matter how many times others attempt to reedit it to make it correct. Why isn't something done about this user abusing rv privileges? The Wikipedia is spreading deliberate lies about Earl Doherty as long as the reign of Salsa Shark and Jtdir continues. Nothing can be done by outsiders. Their privileges need taking away so others can edit-in the truth.


 * For the record, Karen Johnson, Tim Starling, Jaknouse, Salsa Shark, Tannin and I all agreed that this article was seriously POV to the point of ludicrousness. A number of reverts took place, with notes being attached urging the original contributor to try to be NPOV in rewriting the article. All we got was personal abuse (see the relevant talk page for details) and blanket reversions. Ed Poor has frozen the article in the NPOV stub form we created (and kept having to return to) to stop the endless reversions to the ludicrously OTT propaganda piece the original author kept trying to install. (It is noteworthy that he has not bothered even to sign his personalised rants on either the talk page or here.) STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:00 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not; a voice of reason from 212.* just signed themselves "dimadick". -- Salsa Shark 00:09 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC) (Yup. saw that. Just removed the line)STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:10 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Actualy "dimadick" is me.No, the original contributor is still anonimus.I just got involved when earlier today I tried to add a paragraph on Doherty's qualifications as explained by himself.When I returned later I discovered there was an edit war about it.I am not interested in propaganda and if you read the talk page you may notice that I'm not trying to offend anybody.I've just tried to add biographic info on Earl himself, just like I have added in similar articles.Any reasonable explanation for this heated arguments over an article relatively minor in importance? User: Dimadick


 * I protected the Earl Doherty article, pending resolution of this issue. Please come to talk:Earl Doherty and talk it over. --Uncle Ed 23:54 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

(above from current disputes over articles)

+---+ |      | | [] [] |    Hasty rendition of  me wearing a paper bag on my head |      | |       | +-|   |-+   |   |

Meeting was shorter than expected. As long as Ed Poor doesn't complain in the next few minutes, I'll unprotect the article and reincorporate some of 12.252.115.59's contributions (with better grammar of course).

12.252.115.59's earlier contributions did look like a badly written press release, but this one was fine. He was indeed getting abusive on this talk page, but can you blame him when two editors repeatedly revert the article to one which is obviously factually wrong, despite his protestations?

This is why I didn't want the page deleted. I thought that given enough guidance, 12.252.115.59 could write an article on Doherty much better than my stub, since he's obviously a fan and knows much about Doherty. He has proven me right. -- Tim Starling 00:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record, I never touched any of the text on the page, just removed heavily POV chunks that kept being plonked in. Whatever mistakes existed in terms of dates, etc were not my work. All I having to do is get the anonymous user to write information in a fair and balanced way. What the text was was never my concern, once it was properly written. If I had the time, I would have rewritten the text myself. To give people a chance to NPOV it I moved a chunk to the talk page and produced a suggested less POV which I see has largely been included. So please, anonymous user, this wasn't about censorship, it was simply about getting the text put in a neutral framework, not a one-sided 'Doherty has proved he was right. He has proven everyone else wrong' article. That is not the sort of article any encyclopædia can carry STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:31 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

12* is now having a temper tantrum over at Talk:Robin Cook, claiming that his copying from another website is not a copyright infringement. -- Zoe


 * [sigh] Why can't I pick sane people to stick up for? Am I unintentionally turning Wikipedia into an mental hospital? -- Tim Starling 06:04 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Is this the same Earl Doherty who designed The Great Canadian Pie board game in 1977? See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=1990. Wesley 13:48 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

What degree does he have and where did he earn it? I can't find any biographical information about Doherty at http://www.jesuspuzzle.com. I checked out a copy of The Jesus Puzzle from the local library, and it doesn't mention his educational or professional background either, other than launching a web site in 1996 about the historicity of Jesus. Is "Earl Doherty" anything more than a pen name and virtual online identity? Wesley 20:58 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe the historical researcher Earl Doherty never actually existed at all. Perhaps he's just a story invented by the Canadian Humanist Association. -- Tim Starling 01:25 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Excised text, recently added to the end of the article:


 * (It is an unsolved mystery that, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica and other such information sources, the documents of ancient Hebrews and Romans show no records of the executions or even the existances of Peter, Paul, or Jesus, except for posthumous reports.)

What's that got to do with Earl Doherty? -- Tim Starling 07:27, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Did Doherty Study under Wells?
Recall that Wells is (was) a professor of German (not a professor of Classics) and that Doherty has a Classics-type degree. From that fact alone, what would it mean to say that Doherty studied under Wells? That Doherty took a German class from him once? Moreover, I have been in correspondence with Doherty since 1997 and have read his book and website, and the most that he's said is that he's heard Wells speak, not that he "studied under" him. I'm removing this; you can put it back in if you have a source to back it up. If it's controversial, I'll e-mail Doherty about it. --Peter Kirby 08:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Rationalists

 * Doherty's belief that there was no historical Jesus contrasts with the view of Rationalists, who thought of Jesus as a real person whose story has only survived in oral traditions told in the language of myth.

That's is very strange. It implies that there is some group of people called "Rationalists", all of whom have a fixed opinion on whether Jesus was historical person or not. That can't be right, unless the link should be some special class of Rationalist. In any case, I'd say that the sentence is redundant in light of the sentence that follows it:


 * Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus

"minority position among scholars" has sufficient impact to make the point.--Malcohol 12:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The reference to A.N. Sherwin-White in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament is a red-herring. He was talking about the extent to which the core of the Gospel is a reliable rather than a largely mythical account of a historical event. He was claiming that there was not sufficient time for myths to develop round the events which he takes for granted as historical. The reference has nothing to do with Doherty's theory. Ray Elsom 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Doherty's dating of Mark is irrelevent. Even the earlier date is twenty years after Paul's epistles. Doherty's theory does not depend on a late date. The reference implies that it does. Even then the dating of the Gospels is speculative and has no evidentiary basis regardless of how many scholar's agree with each other. Ray Elsom

I deleted the list of ahistoricists because I did not see how it fits into an article on one particular ahistoricist. Additionally, a list tells us little without any hint of credentials/qualifications. Layman 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the links to Christopher Price because it does not include Earl Doherty's rebuttles.

I deleted the link to the evangelical christian web site because it is promoting apologetics and not a serious examination of Doherty's arguments.

i.e.


 * The Historical Jesus a page devoted to the defense of the historical Jesus.

Ray Elsom

I restored them. I was not aware that Doherty had written rebuttals. If he has, then provide them. However, simply deleting links examining his work critically is not a justification for your actions. Layman 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap. The site is a piece of christian apologetics. It has all the signs including anti-atheist bigotry, misrepresentation of facts etc. It is very far from qualifying as a serious critical review.

For example :

He quotes the Didache (teachings) in the following way ...

"Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before[emphasis C.P], receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel[emphasis C.P]."

Then offers the argument ...

"While this passage is Despite Doherty's assertions, there is nothing in Chapter 11 about using direct revelation to test each apostle or prophecy. Rather, apostles are to be tested by something that sounds more like the apostolic tradition. An apostle's teaching must be tested by comparing it to "the things that have been said before" and "the decree of the Gospel." Far from testing each apostle's message by "direct revelation," the Didache instructs Christians to test them by comparing it to established tradition."

The phrase "Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets" is a chapter heading. The original document does not include chapter headings or chapters. They were put there by the translator. The reviewer has inserted the translator's chapter heading into the text itself so that the subsequent sentence appears to refer to earlier apostles. He then argues that this refutes Doherty. Without the misrepresentation of the source text the phrase links to the earlier passages in the Didache itself and there is no sense that the author had earlier apostles in mind.

Here is another translation that makes this clear ...

''"So, if anyone should come and teach you all these things that have just been mentioned above[emphasis R.E.], welcome him. But if the teacher himself goes astray and teaches a different teaching that undermines all this, do not listen to him. However, if his teaching contributes to righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, welcome him as you would the Lord. Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel[emphasis R.E.]." The Apostolic Fathers, Second Edition, Translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer''

The word "gospel", capitalized in C.P.'s version, simply means "good news" and could mean any inspired message from God, not excluding the one presented in the Didache itself. C.P. hopes his readers will take it to mean exclusively the oral tradition allegedly written down later by the evangelists. This special use of the word, signified by the capital "G", is a later Christian innovation. It is not to be found in the original Greek unless we put it there.

A serious critical reviewer would not resort to such obvious subterfuge because it would be easily refuted even by a dim wit like me. C.P. is addressing an uncritical audience who will swallow every fallacy he feeds to them.

Ray Elsom