Because it is, well…. sort of like Fox News:
The chapter gets several things right and mentions important information about the context of earliest Christianity – and yet consistently manages to interpret those details as leading to mythicism. For instance, Doherty rightly emphasizes the importance and indeed centrality of Scripture for many Jews in this period, and that there were groups that interpreted prophetic texts as referring to themselves and their own experiences (p.84). The Qumran community are presumably the example par excellence of this phenomenon. Doherty somehow never seems to realize that, if the earliest Christians were similar, this would naturally fit a scenario in which they interpreted prophetic texts as referring to their own historical experiences, including of a historical Jesus…..
As always, McGrath’s way of handling mythicists of the Doherty type is entertaining and well thought out. Doherty and company produces tripe. While I would agree somewhat that evidences can be thrown either way, I have to believe in the historicity of Christ due to certain logical reasons.
- Predictions of future McGrath reviews of Doherty’s book (vridar.wordpress.com)
- Earl Doherty responds: “It’s too bad Jim did not actually refute the arguments . . .” (vridar.wordpress.com)