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Actually, The Journal of Higher Criticism was not peer reviewed.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."

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?

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)

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.

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)