Why I Can’t Critique Harpur

Last updated on: August 9, 2006 at 2:05 pm by David Hayward

Why I Can’t Critique Harpur 2006-08-09T14:05:57-04:00 David Hayward

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’ve just written a short essay on why I can’t, according to his own criteria found on his website , critique Harpur’s book, The Pagan Christ.

Yesterday I was reading Harpurâ€™s website on which was a page indicating what he felt was a â€œreasonable approachâ€ to critiquing his book, The Pagan Christ. In a nutshell, here they are:

1. Anyone who is a priest, minister, pastor, seminary professor, or church official of any sort is disqualified from critiquing his book because naturally they are â€œdeeply threatenedâ€ by his ideas. For these people to even concede one fact would be like taking out the corner stone of their precious traditions, and their whole edifice would fall. They are excluded from critiquing his work because they are naturally defensive and therefore biased.

2. Harpur claims that anyone who hasnâ€™t read the original sources, such as Higgins, Massey, and his personal favorite, Kuhn, canâ€™t critique his work.

3. He next criticizes what he calls the â€œgeneral professional academicâ€ who may be dissatisfied with the sparseness of Harpurâ€™s documentation. He claims that The Pagan Christ is a â€œpopularâ€ book, and needs to be judged on that merit alone. To question his sources is, he claims, unfair to the book that is intended for popular consumption, not academic dissection.

4. His last â€œreasonable approachâ€ is that the critic not â€œnit-pickâ€ the book apart, therefore discrediting it. The critic should be only concerned with the main thesis of his book.

I emphasize that Iâ€™m not at all referring to Harpurâ€™s content at this point, but the 4 requirements of a â€œreasonable approachâ€ pretty much disqualifies me on all counts. Hereâ€™s why:

1. I am a pastor and therefore a church official.
2. I havenâ€™t read his original sources, nor will I have the time and money to do so.
3. I believe references are a must for a book that so heavily depends on â€œoriginal sourcesâ€ for its thesis.
4. If the main thesis of the book is so radically true, then I think it should endure serious criticism.

Let me fatten this up a little:

1. Just because I am a church-official, it doesnâ€™t mean I am unable to put aside my personal convictions to read a book with as much objectivity as I can muster. It also doesnâ€™t mean, just because I may disagree with him, that I canâ€™t have sound criticism to his theses. What scholar right from the beginning excludes certain groups of people from criticizing his or her work? Iâ€™ve never heard of this before. The Wikepedia Dictionary calls this argumentum ad hominem: â€œ*An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally â€œargument against the personâ€) or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.â€ I realize how self-defeating this can be. It is like in a recent workshop I attended on burn-out. I made a statement with some emotion behind it, and the general response was, â€œHmm. I smell burn-out!â€ I said, â€œIâ€™m NOT burnt-out!*â€ But, I realized as soon as I said it, that I might as well shut up. Like trying to convince a psychotherapist that youâ€™re not crazy. Same here: as soon as I start critiquing Harpur (not even his ideas yet, just his method), I will be accused of being defensive and biased, towing the party line.

2. One the one hand, Harpur says that his book is â€œpopularâ€ and not intended to satisfy academic scrutiny. But then on the other hand he demands that you can only critique the book when youâ€™ve read all of his sources. Higgins, Massey, and Kuhn are his favorites. Does this also mean that I have to read Higginsâ€™, Masseyâ€™s, and Kuhnâ€™s sourcesâ€¦ the Egyptian original texts? Then does this mean I have to read the Egyptianâ€™s sourcesâ€¦ the Ancient Druid texts or whatever? Shouldnâ€™t a work of this magnitude stand on its own? Shouldnâ€™t I, as a thinking human being, be able to sniff error or recognize truth from the document before me without having to dig around the archives? Besides, he received grants and time allotments to complete this book. Do all of his readers? Maybe just the uncritical ones!

3. I suspect most scholars realize that when they make a bold claim it should be supported by evidence. As a friend said to me recently: â€œExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.â€ I think that is only fair. So, for instance, when Harpur says, â€œWhat cannot be gainsayed by anyone is that the history of the early centuries of the Christian religion witnessed the perpetuation of a extensive series of what all later historians refer to as â€˜pious fraudsâ€™â€(p. 56), I personally think such a bold, sweeping claim as â€œall* later historians*â€ needs some kind of evidence. Otherwise, the gullible masses which have swallowed Christianity whole may also swallow this whole.

4. Doesnâ€™t a scholar expect his thesis to rest upon the evidence? To give a series of incredible claims that are called facts, and then say: â€œâ€¦ the truth, I have discovered, is that this inner experience of the presence and power of God as the Christ within our own consciousness is the best proof of the authenticity of true Christianityâ€ (p. 176), is self-defeating. To build a case, as Harpur does, based on his own investigation of his sources, and to call them irrefutable and beyond repute, then to say that the â€œbest proofâ€ is his â€œinner experienceâ€ is not good scholarship. I am in dialogue with people right now who are agnostics and atheists, and for me to say, â€œI just feel Jesus in my heartâ€ and hope that carries weight with them is just not good argumentation.

Again, I want to emphasize that I am not at all engaging with the content of Harpurâ€™s ideas yet. This is just a discussion of his method. I have problems with it.

thought

Previous Post

August 8, 2006

true witness and success

Next Post

August 9, 2006 blogging around the clock... almost

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category art cartoons cartoons 2 freebie music one minute message podcast Sophia teaching technology thought

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 March 2006 February 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is "the beginning of knowledge," according to Proverbs?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fear of the Lord Riches Power Humility