Talk:Earl Doherty

Death?

It's been said on Amazon.com review section that Mr. Doherty died "last April." Any truth to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.123.39 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. There is nothing about this on his website, and I doubt an heir would be unaware of the site or leave his passing unmentioned. If "last April" means April 2008, then the site has been updated multiple times since then, which would be even more odd. If it means April 2009, then although there have been no website updates since January 2009, I wasn't able to find a published obituary either. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty sure he's not dead. I saw him a couple of months ago and he was doing fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.161.23 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical Scholar"?

Are we defining "Biblical Scholar" as "someone who has published a book about the bible" or as someone with an earned doctorate in a field of biblical studies? (because if the latter, then how does Doherty qualify?) If he has a relevant advanced degree in ancient history, then he'd be a historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.204 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scholar is normally defined as either having a masters or higher degree in the subject matter or publishing papers in peer reviewed journals on the subject. Doherty fit the second criteria as the Jesus Puzzle original appeared in a peer reviewed journal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, The Journal of Higher Criticism was not peer reviewed. Anyone who asserts that it was should provide some evidence pertaining to that point; I doubt you'll find any. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Like peer reviewing prevented Science from engaging in that whole Hwang fiasco several years back. Nevermind that aside from medicine peer reviewing has only come about in science within the last 100 years. For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers were published in 1902 without peer reviewing. Similarly, Anthropology and archeology developed what we would recognize as peer reviewing beginning c1910. Furthermore, peer reviewed does not carry the same weight across journals. For example, American Journal of Biblical Theology and International Journal for Creation Research are both presented as peer reviewed but one could hardly compare them to the peer reviewed journals like Human Evolution, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, American Antiquity, American Anthropologist, American Ethnologist, orAnthropology and Education Quarterly. Looking through anthrosource to see if there were any actual peer reviewed stuff on Jesus I stumbled on this little gem: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Anthropology of Consciousness is clearly stated as being peer reviewed so that should shut down the nonsense about no challenge to a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are anthropologists qualified to determine the historicity of a figure from antiquity? It's not that there's no challenge to the historical Jesus, it's that this challenge doesn't come from qualified historians. The point of this discussion was to determine if Doherty qualifies as a "historian." If he has no advanced degree in history and hasn't published in a peer reviewed journal on the topic (no matter if you think those things aren't important), then he's not rightly categorized as a historian. It's not whether you agree with him or not, it's whether the article puts him in the proper categories. Sort of like if we found out he believes in a God, we'd have to remove him from the "atheists" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I see what you mean. I qualified in archaeology in the eearly 1980s. But as I haven't worked in the field of archaeology for many years, I do not describe myself as an archaeologist. 92.8.205.199 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, visit the website of J. Higher Criticism http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/. It has a humorous frontpage stating that "This Publication May be Hazardous to Your Cherished Assumptions!" and another joke "F. C. Baur says, "I've been waiting a long time to see something like this appear again." F.C. Bauer is death since 1882. It seems to me that it is a erudite fanzine discontinued in 2003. Anyway, perhaps Wikipedia should cite only journals of the ISI Thomson database, because in internet times, any person can create an electronic scientific ou theological journal. And there is no Editorial Board in the journal webpage.

Another question: Doherty cites that he has B.A. in Ancient History AND Classical Languages, which are two different disciplines. Has he two B.A.s? Could someone provide independent information about where (which University) these B.A.s are obtained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

POV

This statement is pure POV: "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 [1] among the Western scholars. ..."

What does majority rule have to do with truth? Or that there was no historical proof of “Jesus”? - Sparky 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! It's not like historians know anything, right?

Please. Every basic statement of history is going to be disputed by someone; people are contrary. But if the majority of relevant scholars on a topic aren't considered to be worthwhile for citation, then we may as well write off all history on Wikipedia at once. Because that's the only way that we're really going to get historical positions, without original research. -Senori 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We could take the middle road here, and just put "Doherty is supported by a minority of scholars". This solves the problem of sounding too biased either way. Deathmunkee 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to put in a general comment like "most historians do not accept the ahistoricity of Jesus" as a specific refutation of the book. Certainly if Earl Doherty has been actually refuted by someone that specific objection can be brought in here. Other articles where the writer's work has been criticized links to those specific objections, and I see no reason why Doherty can't be afforded the same respect.-RomeW (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think currently the "minority of scholars" is basically Robert M. Price (though I can't be certain that he supports Doherty 100%, though he agrees with the basic premise, that Jesus's actual historical existence is doubtful), and unlike Doherty, Price actually has a doctorate in a relevant field (PhD in New Testament, according to his site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.204 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I addressed this issue on the Jesus Myth page a while back. A quick search through google produced not only Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) but also Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden), Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology), and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto). Insanely easy to fine if one just takes the trouble to look--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that's AWESOME. You were able to find TWO biblical scholars, a swedish scientist from the last century, the president of the american atheists who has also no credentials in the field and ... that's it! Wow, now that's an awful lot. I always thought the jesus myth was fringe lunacy but now there's even TWO biblical scholars! And therefore it's not the minority - WOW! Look, Liberty University has a biology-professor who denies evolution. Therefore, creationism is not the minority! Hurray! Answer in Genesis has a more impressive list of fringe lunatics and so has the flat earth society. 84.59.136.68 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

response to the "notability" question

This is ridiculous. I am generally considered to currently be the world's leading Jesus mythicist. My books and website have had a huge impact on this controversial issue and are known around the globe. And this is not "notable"? Just who is this "an editor"? A Christian who would like to remove me from the Wikipedia's public eye? - Earl Doherty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.29.88.35 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2007

Agreed. Earl has significantly advanced the mythicist argument and is largely responsible for its current popularity and strength. One rarely encounters a mythicist website, article, book or other that does not cite or otherwise recognize Earl's work. His case for there being no historical Jesus is the strongest one yet advanced. His book, his arguments, and his name are certainly notable and meet Wikipedia's related standards. His arguments as they are presented in his book and on his website have garnered much attention from notable scholars such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price, to name just a couple. It is unclear on what basis one would argue that this article (or The Jesus Puzzle article which I see has also been tagged) is not notable. (By the way Earl, just wanna say hello from Australia!) - Ian Tremblay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian1985 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

"I am generally considered to currently be the world's leading Jesus mythicist." By whom? Is it even possible to be a world leader in any field without relevant qualifications, academic recognition, or peer reviewed publications? Sankari Suomi (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The following comment was posted yesterday by myself and deleted shortly after by an “anonymous user”. It seems that apologetic activity and suppression of viewpoints is alive and well on Wikipedia. I will keep re-posting this as long as the “notability” box above shows: “This is ridiculous. I am considered to currently be the world’s leading Jesus mythicist. My books and website have had a huge impact on this controversial issue and are known around the globe. And this is not “notable”?!! And who is this “an editor”? A Christian who wants to remove me from the Wikipedia public eye?” – Earl Doherty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.29.86.244 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It's worth noting that "notability" in Wikipedia terms means something fairly specific; see Wikipedia:Notability. In general, a subject is considered "notable" based not on its popularity, or its importance as judged by editors, but on whether it has received significant coverage from independent published sources. I presume the editor who tagged the article did so because it doesn't currently cite any such sources. This should not be interpreted as implying any comment on your work; it simply concerns the current state of the article. EALacey 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added several more external links to independent reviews and critiques of The Jesus Puzzle. There should now be no room for contention over the notability of this article, not that there ever was really. If there are no objections, let's remove this tag and the one on The Jesus Puzzle article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian1985 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It might have been deleted by someone who thinks that an unsupported claim by someone about themselves does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Just a thought...92.8.205.199 (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "Acharya S" (Dorothy Murdock) is actually the world's leading Jesus Myther. Since both Mr. Doherty and Ms. Murdock are both amateur writers, I think we should go by "notability" based on their reader base and popularity. As such, Murdock is more notable. I agree that Doherty IS notable on the internet for his promotion of Jesus Mythicism, but he's certainly not the "leading proponent" or the most well known. Just think of "Zeitgeist the Movie" which came out back in 2007, was hugely popular in internet circles, and is based largely on the "research" of Acharya S. And she has probably a larger cult following than Mr. Doherty on the internet as well (though both, from a scholarly point of view, are fringe). Just check Amazon.com rankings... her two most well known books (Christ Conspiracy, Suns of God) have sold more than Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle."

""This is ridiculous. I am generally considered to currently be the world's leading Jesus mythicist"" claims Doherty. Even if true that means very little. It's like being the world leading ‘young-earth creationist’ (whoever he is). The truth is that almost all serious scholars, find the Christ Myth Theory simply ridiculous, based on their serious research. It would be nice to have some serious scholarship to take a look at Doherty’s highly questionable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment (for possible future readers). I find the claim "The truth is that almost all serious scholars, find the Christ Myth Theory simply ridiculous, based on their serious research." interesting in the sense that this seems to be a popular myth itself. Where is any serious research that would not take the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as the basic (supposingly self-evident) assumption, and would instead seriously address the pro's and the con's for the historicity claim, and finally give a scholarly demonstration that our evidence shows that the probability of non-historicity is almost null, and that the arguments and methodology of Price, Doherty, Carrier etc. are scholarly invalid? Is such the work of Bart Ehrman (seriously?), or of whom? (As I say, this is just a comment for the people who possibly want to think about this matter by themselves; it is clear that it make s no sense to do any arguing here.) Jelamkorj (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting enough George A. Wells claims to be ""the most articulate contemporary defender of the non-historicity thesis."" on his wiki page. Also it appears from the wiki pages of Doherty, Wells and Price and a few others that these authors from a closed circle of non-specialists who praise each other for having similar views on Jesus. These people wiki pages need to be put on par with fair, scholarly and unbiased criticism of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Doherty claims that he is the "leading Jesus mythicist of the world " in this very page. His books are, so he claims, read "all over the globe". There's no real evidence of this world-wide influence.
Doherty has no need for academic journals to grant him recognition, as he can produce his own self-consecration.
From a certain distance, the whole dispute about whether Doherty or Dorothy can qualify as "leading Jesus Mythicist of the "world" is indicative of the vanity of "independent researchers" and a sign that their reputations are constructed and based on clever self-advertising, not on genuine scholarship recognition.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources

Below are some sources discussing Doherty's views that are not yet in the article, which might be added (and which also support notability):

• Wells, G.A. (2004). Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9567-4.
• Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul Rhodes (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. pp. 65, 67–68. ISBN 978-0-8308-3868-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Freke, Timothy; Gandy, Peter (2002). Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-4594-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Bock, Darrell L.; Wallace, Daniel B. (2007). Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0-7852-2615-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

B.A. in Ancient History AND Classical Languages? and where? And when?

I'll repeat a previous question that deserves answer:

"Doherty cites that he has B.A. in Ancient History AND Classical Languages, which are two different disciplines. Has he two B.A.s? Could someone provide independent information about where (which University) these B.A.s are obtained?"--79.17.192.188 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither the article nor the source used claims Doherty has two degrees. Normally when someone says they have "a degree" in X and Y, that means they had a "double major". An independent source would be preferable, of course, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of extraordinary claim here. --RL0919 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that to know which University we are talking about is very important; Not all universities are equal .--95.247.28.215 (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

^^ Good point. I have contacted Doherty personally on two separate occasions, asking him to clarify (a) where he studied, and (b) what degree(s) he received. Although happy to discuss other issues with me, he has so far declined to answer any questions about his education and qualifications. It seems clear to me that we have no independent confirmation of his alleged qualifications.Sankari Suomi (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Two more requests have been rebuffed. Doherty simply refuses to confirm the details of his education. Since he relies on the claim of academic credentials to bolster his credibility, the claim requires substantiation. The reference to his alleged degree should be withdrawn from the article until it can be independently confirmed. I have now removed it. Sankari Suomi (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's back again. Once more it cites Doherty, and a book citing Doherty, on the subject of his degree, and once again any steps to gain independent verification - for example, the name of the institution - is conspicuously lacking. This is important on so many levels that it is worrying to see that there are editors out there who are willing to uncritically accept it as read that Doherty is telling the truth. He may be doing so, of course, but given he has now had several years to provide the supporting evidence and conspicuously failed to do so, I think this claim must be considered very doubtful indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.214.224 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to question it, but any statements about it that go in to the article have to comply with the biographies of living persons policy (at least as long as Doherty still lives), which means no blog posts as sources unless it is the subject blogging about themselves or a blog posted under the editorial control of a reputable organization. See WP:BLPSPS in particular. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would dispute that it is negative - it seems factual and Doherty himself, commenting below the line, avoids it. However, since you insist, does this work as a compromise? Until the institution is put forward, it is a highly contestable claim, and I would strongly recommend it not be put forward as blunt fact in an encyclopaedia. 213.122.214.224 (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that neither the "Jesus Puzzle" article (1997) nor the book (1999) mentioned any B.A. of any kind. Meanwhile Dorothy Murdock, his competitor in the Internet popularization of Jesus issues, (with her Internet essay on "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ"), could boast of an official 1982 B.A. in "Classics, Greek civilization" from Franklin and Marshall College (making her born ca. 1960), of her year in Athens, and other accomplishments. Both popularizers published their first book, the Jesus Puzzle and The Christ Conspiracy in 1999.

Doherty could not match Murdock in diplomas, and was left behind. It is only much later that he could follow suit by, at long last, issuing an announcement, at age 68, of his own B.A. in "Ancient History and Classical Languages" in the Preface (p. IX) of Neither God nor Man (2009). Nice degree, if you can get it . What date? When?

As a nice stab in the dark, one could guess it is possible that this B.A. was obtained after courses in Greek and Latin (correspondence courses, Un. of Phoenix, adult education in city college?) in the late 90s and could have been completed only during the 2000s, in his mid-60s, rather late for someone who poses as an infallible expert in the field of NT studies.

Doherty prefers to keep a veil on the details, and, so far, this "outstanding" schooling has remained mysterious, unverified. Observers suspect that something is disturbingly not kosher in this story -- which remains hidden for very good reasons

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Read this New York Times article, Feb. 24, 2013 "Adults Are Flocking to College That Paved Way for Flexibility", by TAMAR LEWIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/education/25degree.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130225&pagewanted=all&

All those degrees are obtained online, without ever attending a class, meeting a professor, visiting a campus, getting to know your classmates. The final test can be a phone interview asking you questions on the material supposed to have been read. Cost is manageable: around $5,000 for a B.A.

It is highly likely that Doherty may have gotten his degree online sometime after 1999, since he never mentioned it in his first book, but it was triumphantly trumpeted in the preface of Neither God nor Man (2009). If so, he would have obtained this online B.A. in his 60s, pretty late for somebody who claims to be an expert on interpreting ancient Greek texts.

No bona fide scholar will ever find such a background as inspiring any confidence in Doherty's interpretations. They all reject his conclusions as mere speculations and imaginings, products of his autodidact fancy, even though Doherty keeps prefacing his elucubrations with "as I demonstrate", claiming that he is using only "logic" — but it is only the logic of his solitary, ruminating, brain.

And no established publisher, not even Prometheus, the publisher of choice for Jesus deniers and skeptics, has even indicated any willingness to publish his books, all published on his kitchen laser.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if this might have some bearing on the question: https://archive.org/stream/carletoncovon1965carl/carletoncovon1965carl_djvu.txt See about 2/3 of the way down - an Earl J. Doherty was awarded a scholarship, described as 'in-course' (so presumably he had already started). No details of what it was in, although it does say who was funding it. The puzzling things are, if this is the same Earl Doherty: 1) He was 24 at the time, which seems old for an undergraduate degree (or could it be for the abortive postgrad degree)? 2) If he was at Carleton, which so far as I know is a perfectly good university (admittedly, I know almost nothing about Canadian HE) why is he so very reluctant to say so? Is there some dark secret about the degree classification or award that he doesn't want people to know about?86.141.186.223 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I think I have found the secret and have amended the article accordingly. It would appear he did a non-honours degree, albeit one he passed with distinction.109.158.92.33 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what we call original research| and as such does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reception of Doherty works is biased

The "reception" section regarding Doherty's works contains only critique of people who agree on the hypothesis sustained by Doherty or are part of organizations who are biased against Christianity.

No critique of serious Biblical Scholars or historians is reported.

Hence it appears that Doherty's work is of more importance and significance that it might truly be.

Since Doherty's scholarship is in itself questionable, it would be important to add critiques from serious scholars and from both sides, not only few comments of people who agree blindly with Doherty's ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. This section is not worthy of a high-quality Encyclopedia. Michael Licona's analogy to the Iranian's President's questioning the reality of the Holocaust in WWII is meaningless.
Devoting FIVE FULL LINES to a an arbitrary analogy is indefensible. This intends to leave an indelible stain on Doherty's image. But, in fact, this "criticism" sounds ridiculous, and defeats its purpose, it undermines the relevance of the comparison. The informed reader may tend to dismiss it, wondering why the editors have not been able to find a more focused criticism of Doherty's claim to "scholarship".

As one critic, not mincing his words, has declared:

"Doherty isn't a responsible scholar. He's a nut who plays with reality...Doherty's nonsense and flights of fantasy appeal to some people who like far-fetched theories. He has no standing among historians and scholars. He's a favorite of ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists."

But it's not by giving the analogy with the Iranian President that you'll convince informed readers. It is by using high-quality criticisms from RESPECTED scholars, not buffoons.

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Doherty is a self published author

It seems that Doherty is a self-published author and his books are not exactly WP:RS, although they are mentioned in Wikipedia as though they were by a separate publisher. According to Amazon.com's profile: "In 2001, Earl Doherty formed his personal publishing house, Age of Reason Publications, and is now issuing all three of his books under this imprint." And a publisher check on Amazon also shows that those are in fact the only 3 books issued by that publisher. And Canadian Humanist Publications which originally published his first book has only published one other book, ever. That is not a real publisher either. Doherty's books are self-published.

I do not really want to get involved in this article, but one of you guys who edit this page should state upfront that those books are all self-published and not WP:RS by any measure. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to avoid self-reference to Wikipedia, so it would not be appropriate to state in the article that a subject's books do not meet the standards of WP:RS. However, it is OK for the article to note that most of his books are self-published and that Age of Reason is a publishing house Doherty set up himself, assuming those facts can be cited to reliable sources. (I don't doubt it is true, but I'm not sure an author profile on the Amazon website can be treated as a reliable source.) If someone has been citing his books as sources in other articles, then you should raise the issue on the talk pages of those articles, or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually further below in the article it already says that he self-published his book, but it is rather hidden. I think that same statement needs to be made upfront, in that he is built up in the lede to be a "big time author" with three books to his name, but in fact he is just a self published person without a serious publisher to support his work. The presentation of Doherty in the lede as a serious author needs to be corrected to reflect that he is just a self-published person. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a policy-based way of correcting the situation. Per WP:SELFSOURCE Doherty's website can be used about himself, and it states: my own imprint, Age of Reason Publications. Hence it is can be stated in the article that his books are self-published by his own company, Age of Reason Publications. So that should be added to the lede to avoid the incorrect impression that he is not self-published.

I suggest that the lede should be modified to read:

Earl J. Doherty (born 1941) is a Canadian author.

Doherty has self-published three books, Challenging the Verdict (2001), The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009) under his own imprint, Age of Reason Publications. Doherty's books argue for a version of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure.

That will state the correct situation, with references that are permitted, per policy. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting this into the lead suggests it is one of the most important things about him, which doesn't seem to be the case as far as how reliable sources discuss his work. We also can't refer to his first book as self-published unless there is external sourcing that says this. Canadian Humanist Publications may not be a standard publishing house, but that in itself does not constitute self-publishing. However, I did use your source and some of your wording to expand on his writing and publishing activity, which I hope makes the relevant facts sufficiently prominent. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will be upfront. Doherty is a nobody. So I do not even know if I should spend time discussing this. But I do see a general trend in Wikipedia of the "dilution of scholarship" where self-published items are getting used right and left and authors with hardly any education are used next to serious scholars. I even started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list about that type of list. And Age of Reason certainly belongs on that list, as do all of Doherty's books.

Let me explain things this way: When someone wants to publish a book, they can think of Princeton University Press, Oxford University Press, or just use their own laser printer. Doherty uses his own laser printer. That is why Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources exists. Because those who use their own laser printers do not have the luxury of having their book carrying the imprint of Cambridge University Press. What other reviewers say about a self-published book, does not make it non-self-published. Does it?

The suppression of the statement that "Doherty now self-publishes his book with his own imprint Age of Reason Publications" from a one sentence lede, does not help a user know about Doherty. And what others say about his book does not make it properly-published. He is a self-published author. So please do allow me to register my objection to the exclusion of the statement from the lede that: "Doherty now self-publishes his book with his own imprint Age of Reason Publications". That statement is well sourced, in fact using the same source used throughout the article. And its suppression is hereby objected to.

Indeed the lede here should be expanded to reflect the body of the article. As is the lede fails WP:LEDE in that it does not mention the content. That should really change. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection to expanding the lead (although the article is relatively short so the lead should be also). I'm just saying that as with all article content, we should try to follow the reliable secondary sources, which don't seem to make a big deal about how his books get published. (Hence why we ended up using a primary source for this fact.) So this is a fact about the subject but not an important one (per the lack of talk about this in sources). Lesser facts about a subject may sometimes belong in an article, but they don't belong in the lead. As far as the use of sources on Wikipedia goes, I'm fully supportive of your concern -- the average quality of sources is abysmal. Editors will cite a blogger's review of a book rather than the book itself, because the former is online and they are lazy. They will search Google Books and not pay any attention to who the publisher is or whether the details of the metadata on Google match the scanned book content (e.g., attributing the publisher as the university whose library the book was in when Google scanned it). Etc. But these are internal topics to be addressed on project pages, not a reason to prioritize article content about publication status. --RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That brings about an interesting question: How many reliable WP:Secondary sources are there among the 21 references here? Of course references 8-12 have absolutely nothing to do with Doherty and do not refer to him, but he refers to them - I do not even know why they should be in this article - looks strange. Then if you remove the references to his own website and other blogs, there seem to be just 2 or 3 WP:RS sources that refer to him. Two of them like him, the other calls his work academically inferior, etc. The reason people do not refer to him is that he is no major scholar - if a scholar at all.

Now, what is your feeling about blog type references, excluding his own? Are they WP:RS? History2007 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much down with the standard rule on blogs: they are only RS if they are not self-published (e.g., a blog overseen by a news organization) or if they meet the exemptions for self-published work (subject discussing himself, or a previously-published expert discussing their area of expertise). For this article, I haven't done much editing (beyond vandalism reversion) on it in a couple of years, so I haven't paid too much attention to the sources. I agree with your point about the footnotes for tangentially related works and will remove them. There have been a couple of RS works recently that discuss his theories and should be added. I just put in a biographical tidbit from Ehrman's new book, and Robert Price had a book come out last year that references Doherty quite a bit. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so Wells, Price and Avalos on one side and Ehrman and Hoffman on the other make 5sources. And they would all be WP:RS. But the other websites such as secular web, infidel, etc. are probably no WP:RS and should go, now that there are book refs. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Doherty is not just self-published, he is also self-promoted

Excellent discussion of key points by History2007 and RLO919. Doherty is not just self-published, he is also self-promoted. In addition, his basic initial ideas concerning Jesus denial, have been borrowed from G.A. Wells and Arthur Drews, as observed by R. Joseph Hoffmann.

Doherty has borrowed, lifted, or paraphrased, the major ideas published by Arthur Drews in his Christ Myth (1909) and The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912), which climaxed the debate, Die Frage nach der Historizität Jesu, that raged in German/English scholarship in the 1890-1940 period, and entered the notion of an inexistent Jesus into the Western World's consciousness.
G.A. Wells resurrected the old Jesus existence debate that had gone into recess after WWII, with his three books, The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971), Did Jesus Exist? (1975), and The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1982) and some ten books that have followed until 2009.
Doherty's writings have never acknowledged those two pioneers as sources of his working ideas, neither at the very beginning of his text, as is the norm in authentic scholarship, nor anywhere in the body of his books. He tries to appear as if he were the very originator of those ideas already proposed by past scholarship but kept under silence by him.

Compare with the first page of the preface to the Christ Myth (1909) where Arthur Drews immediately mentions David Strauss, Bruno Bauer and John M. Roberston as his major influences. In the first 6 pages of his preface, Arthur Drews mentions 37 names of key scholars, cites their books and their impact on the subject. David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Albert Schweitzer, all started their books with discussing the major scholars contributing to their subject. All German scholarship operated in this manner.

For the sake of differentiation, Doherty has added a concept of "World of Myth", also borrowed from the book World of Myth: An Anthology, by David Adams Leeming (1992). He claims that the early Christian documents show that Jesus Christ resided in a "spiritual," "celestial" sky (heaven), never having come down to earth. This angle, he claims, makes him "different" from G.A. Wells.

Doherty is above all a popularizer of his own personal theories, not a critical scholar:

• He's never disclosed if he had gained any professional knowledge in the area of NT studies or established any kind of expertise in the field of NT criticism before the publication of his "Jesus Puzzle" article (1997) and follow-up Jesus Puzzle book (1999), to dispel doubts that he was an amateur weighing in late in life on NT topics outside any established area of expertise ever previously obtained by him.
• He has not openly identified, at the very outset of his 1997 article and 1999 "Jesus Puzzle" book, the original sources used in his compilation. In Germany this non-disclosure of sources is condemned as an absolute violation of critical scholarship rules and has led to the revocation of Ph.D. diplomas. Professional historians like R. Joseph Hoffmann have spotted in Doherty's writings the systematic use of the scholarship of G.A. Wells and Arthur Drews.
• He never distinguishes for his unlearned reader the hard conclusions from the soft speculations, suppositions and imaginings. Everything is presented as unqualified fact, a guaranteed way to confuse the unlearned reader.
• Although claiming extraordinary novel findings, Doherty has never addressed the community of scholars in articles for the professional journals like Classical Philology (Un. of Chicago) or The Classical Review (Cambridge Un.), resulting in his claimed findings to remain on the fringe of established scholarship.
• Practically all scholars have preferred to stay away from a thorough critique of his books. Which is the usual rule followed by expert scientists and scholars towards the propagation of fringe ideas and theories, preferring not to get involved and just watching from the sidelines.
• Doherty's latest book resulted from incorporating all his rebuttals and refutals to the criticisms received over the last ten years since the publication of his first book, The Jesus Puzzle (1999). As a result, Neither God nor Man (2009), is a huge book of 802 densely-packed pages and 444,000 words, mistakenly addressed to the market of lay readers.
• In debates, Doherty's vocabulary has, on occasion, switched to plebeian and proletarian expressions, never read or heard from an authentic scholar, or even a passionate professional polemist such as Christopher Hitchens.
• Overall, Doherty has not followed the fundamental rules of critical scholarship.

In his "Proving History" article, Feb. 2012, Richard Carrier, a Columbia Un. Ph.D. in ancient civilization, has labeled as a "tertiary source", a work that is "just repeating what "secondary sources" (actual experts studying the original documents, "primary sources") have already said". Carrier claims an authentic scholar should "just go to those sources directly".

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC) --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Licona's comparison of Doherty to Holocaust Denial is irrelevant and a waste of valuable space

It is bizarre for a biographical article that aims at high quality to occupy five lines of the 18-line section “Reception” with the quotation of Michael Licona, devoted to mentioning the Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Introducing the Iranian president and his campaign against Israel and Zionism in this section devoted to critique of Doherty's far-flung speculations is an error of judgment. This kind of analogy is used only for the shock value of its images, and is usually acceptable mostly in the tabloid popular press.
But here, it only undermines the scholarly value of Licona's critique. Licona must have more solid arguments in his article “Licona’s Reply to Doherty” as examples of his acumen than this arbitrary, and artificial comparison to Holocaust denial.

In a scholarly article, this analogy seems arbitrary, meaningless, and irrelevant. This adds nothing to the substance of the "Reception" section and only detracts from its scholarly intent.

It’s wasted space which could be used for better founded critical quotes, like for instance, Bart Ehrman's evaluation of Doherty’s Neither God nor Man, where Ehrman dismisses its unfounded speculations:

"It is an 8oo-page book that is filled with so many unguarded and undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of fact, that it would take a 2,400-page book to deal with all the problems...Not a single early Christian source supports Doherty's claim that Paul and those before him thought of Jesus as a spiritual, not a human being, who was executed in the spiritual, not the earthly realm." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 252 -58) "

There is a real debate about the existence of Jesus that has been going on for more than 200 years just because the documentation about Jesus's life is not comparable to that of the Holocaust.
The Licona reference should be removed and replaced by a substantial and relevant criticism of Doherty’s work like Bart Ehrman's. Similar criticisms could be found in the writings of R. Joseph Hoffmann, or Richard Carrier (all solid Ph.D.s).

In this section, it also should be noted that practically all professional scholars have preferred to stay away from Doherty's writings altogether. Since 2009, no thorough, complete, critique has been presented by any academic scholar.
By comparison, when Arthur Drews published his Christ Myth back in 1909, a tidal wave of nearly 80 scholars worldwide published violently negative reactions, the bulk until 1914, resuming after 1918 until WWII, and a trickle afterwards. (According to Peter De Mey, a professor of "Systematic Theology" at the Catholic Un. of Leuven, Belgium, in a comprehensive paper "On Rereading the Christ Myth Theological Debate", ca. 2004, which has exhaustively tabulated the extraordinary number of refutations by "fundamental" academic scholars and theologians in Germany, Britain, the USA, and France, selected from the immensity of the literature sparked off worldwide by the Christ Myth.)

And, so far, this section could add, Doherty has never proposed an article to the American Classical Philology (Un. of Chicago), or the British Classical Review (Cambridge Un.), which both cover all aspects of Antiquity society and culture.

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost a year has passed since this valid complaint has been lodged, with no attempt to deny it. The quote is not noteworthy in importance or encyclopedic in tone. Consider it taken out. --Peter Kirby (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Licona material violated WP:BLPSPS and should have been removed for that reason if nothing else. ROO's tendency to produce long abstract rambles sometimes obscured more basic problems. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Passing here, I can just note that the claims like "It is an 8oo-page book that is filled with so many unguarded and undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of fact, that it would take a 2,400-page book to deal with all the problems." surely do not sound encyclopedic either, not having anything in common with scholarly arguments or so. As such, it is here simply an unguarded and undocumented claim, nothing more. If some editors here try to keep at least some sort of a basic objectivity, then e.g. the following should be mentioned (taken from Christ Myth page):

Christ Myth Theory authors Richard Carrier, Rene Salm, D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Frank Zindler and David Fitzgerald, wrote a response to Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? in the 2013 book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? [137].

Thank you for considering this. Jelamkorj (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

lead should summarize topic

The lead should summarize the topic. One of the most important points on this topic is that the ancient texts don't support Doherty's claim, so that should go in the lead. I put it in the lead and it was eliminated. Fans of Doherty might not want to see this information in the lead, but our readers deserve an informative lead. Here's the text that was cut: "Doherty says that Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual being executed in a spiritual realm, a claim not supported by early Christian texts.<ref>{{cite book |first=Bart |last=Ehrman |title=Did Jesus Exist? |year=2012 |pages=252–258}}</ref>" Jonathan Tweet (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Earl Doherty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705071412/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.humanists.net/hic/fall_1995.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/review1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)