Doherty certainly does not address everything in his book (maybe all the things you asked about, but one can add to that everyone else’s list of things to talk about, and the sum total would far exceed anything Doherty has ever written).

We have to make strategic decisions as to what is more important to fill space first. One of my main criticisms of Doherty’s second book is precisely that he doesn’t do that. His first book is far better because it engages far fewer digressions and is much clearer as to its line of argument and engages in far fewer speculations and unresolved queries and focuses more on essentials. The second book has value mainly as simply a really long appendix to the first. But had it been his first, his theory might not have gained any attention at all.

My book will be large, but I have put in it only what is most essential. If I were to add any more, it would become an intolerable read, and all but impossible to publish. Maybe I will discuss other issues in future work. But that’s another matter.

It is not possible nor desirable to address every single possible angle or discussion of every single possible piece of evidence. Books have a physical limit not just on their word count but in respect to the readers’ patience.

Doherty seems to “address every single possible angle or discussion of every single possible piece of evidence” nevertheless, in his 2009 book. If the book should be usable as a “dictionary” for mythicists wanting to counter common Christian claims that there are “ancient non-Christian sources [who] helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels” (so Michael Gleghorn), the non-Christian sources need to be examined at length. Liberal scholars like Ehrman of course focus on the Christian sources, but conservatives not seldom claim that the non-Christian evidence for Jesus is vast and undisputable.

Is there an English translation of that yet? It’s of limited use to most people until then.

I don’t think there is.

Most of that is unnecessary (and what’s necessary is cited in my book, e.g. my work and Boman’s and Zara’s and Doherty’s).

One need only cite a few essential items on each piece of evidence, especially survey articles that cover all angles, and only when it’s relevant. It is not possible nor desirable to address every single possible angle or discussion of every single possible piece of evidence. Books have a physical limit not just on their word count but in respect to the readers’ patience.

Your own article on an interpolation in Tacitus’s Annales (2012), which I once saw you announce on this blog, but haven’t seen published yet. Are you perhaps proposing a marginal gloss of the Christus sentence, like Dr. A Pihl did in 2010 (http://tinyurl.com/glosstacitus)?

Yes. My paper on that has passed peer review and will be published by Vigiliae Christianae later this year or early next. And I do reference it in my book.

Hermann Detering’s Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand von Hermann Detering (2011), on the non-Christian “testimonies”

Is there an English translation of that yet? It’s of limited use to most people until then. Even beyond that, its hyper-skepticality limits its utility. We should not have to argue such extreme views to come to the conclusion of probable ahistoricity. I will not be making arguments that have any need of Detering for support.

Regarding the non-Christian “testimonies” to Jesus – an important question for many Christians claiming that the Gospel story is duly verified – there has been some development during the last few years, which in my opinion it would be unsuitable to miss when discussing the evidence. I therefore ask: Will you, in your book, discuss new scholarship dealing with the non-Christian “testimonies” for Jesus, like

– Marian Hillar’s Flavius Josephus and His Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus (2005); http://www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf

– Your own article on Josephus and the possibility of an accidental interpolation of the James sentence (2012)

– Erik Zara’s The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated (2009); http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zaratacituschrestianos.pdf on the Chrestianos/Christianos issue in the earliest Tacitus MS, confirming the old notion that the original word in fact was Chrestianos (apparently spawned by a suggestion by you, that the old “truth” was incorrect)

– The same author’s A Minor Compilation of Readings of Suetonius’ Nero 16.2 (2011);
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/zarasuetoniuschristiani.pdf on the manuscripts of Suetonius’ Christiani passage, confirming that Christiani is the original spelling attested to in the manuscripts themselves

– Earl Doherty’s Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009), on the non-Christian witnesses, in which the possibility of interpolation is discussed in (almost) every single case of non-Christian testimonia

– Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Harper 2012), in which he seems to think that Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum would not prove Jesus’ existence even if genuine

– Jobjorn Boman’s Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts. Liber Annuus 61 (2011) 355-376 (published 2012), on the readings of the Suetonius’ Chrestus passage (confirming that the original reading was Chresto, not Christo, but correcting earlier scholarly errors)

– The same author’s Comments on Carrier: Is Thallus Actually Quoted by Eusebius?, Liber Annuus 62 (2012), Jerusalem 2013, pp. 319-25, mainly about Thallus (and Phlegon), but in note 26 the author also importantly remarks that Suetonius’ sentence about Christians is not quoted (except in editions and manuscripts of Suetonius’ Vita) until 1595(!) (but cf. K. R. Bradley, “Suetonius, Nero 16.2: ‘afflicti suppliciis christian’”, The Classical Review 22, 1972, p. 10, on Orosius’ purported knowledge of the passage)

– Your own article on Thallus, (Phlegon,) and Eusebius (2012)

– Your own article on an interpolation in Tacitus’s Annales (2012), which I once saw you announce on this blog, but haven’t seen published yet. Are you perhaps proposing a marginal gloss of the Christus sentence, like Dr. A Pihl did in 2010 (http://tinyurl.com/glosstacitus)?

– Hermann Detering’s Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand von Hermann Detering (2011), on the non-Christian “testimonies”

?

Sincerely yours,
Rolv

Thanks!

I’ve cross-posted this in that debate thread as well. I’ll wait and see if video goes up and then blog it one way or another.

Those are all legitimate prima facie questions, and were the same ones I was asking when I (even as a professional historian) was certain Jesus existed in at least some mundane sense.

For the whole response you’ll have to await my book (On the Historicity of Jesus Christ, for the status of which see here). In the meantime, there is a short video summary of its thesis (20 mins) and now a longer version (c. 40 mins). I will blog about the latter in a few weeks (just have so much to do this week, as I’m in studio recording audio still for Not the Impossible Faith).

UAH Non-Theists – Home now has an audio recording of that debate: Dropbox – CarrierMarshallDebate2-9-2013.mp3

I heard your podcast on the Thinking Atheist yesterday. Seth asked if you believed that Jesus the man existed and you answered that you thought he probably did not exist.

I have always assumed that a perfectly human Jesus existed. It seems to me that Occam’s razor would suggest that it is more likely that there is some basis in reality for the Jesus story as opposed to the notion that the story was completely fabricated (even if the empirical evidence is lacking).

And a follow up question, why and how was the Jesus story fabricated?

I am admittedly a layperson in these matters however so it’s possible I’m missing something. Thanks and I appreciate all of your talks!

Someone asked separately from this thread if “my two science books have been languishing in peer review for ages” means they were being rejected. No. They were submitted to peer review ages ago by a major academic publisher who had high hopes for them, and I just haven’t heard anything since. Usually a rejection comes with a rejection letter. And these should be good enough not to be rejected but at worst receive a revision requirements list instead, which is typical. I just don’t have time to work up such revisions right now–nor to resubmit the manuscript elsewhere if for some reason either book is rejected for some odd reason–so I won’t bother looking into what’s going on with them until I have the time to deal with whatever the answer is; which means, after I’ve done all the principal editing, proofing and revising on OHJC.

(a) My two science books have been languishing in peer review for ages. I will check back in on that as soon as I’ve got OHJC off my desk (since I wouldn’t have time to do revisions or anything on the other books until then anyway).

(b) There is supposed to be a video of that debate. If Marshall is doing a transcript, he must have video. Can anyone find that video online?