Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-11-2012, 02:40 PM

I don't know if this has been posted here. I think it is much better and more concise than Carrier's initial attempt at a response

http://www.radikalkritik.de/Wells_Ehrman.htm

dog-on · 05-12-2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I don't know if this has been posted here. I think it is much better and more concise than Carrier's initial attempt at a response

http://www.radikalkritik.de/Wells_Ehrman.htm

Excellent, imo.

tanya · 05-12-2012, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think it is much better and more concise than Carrier's initial attempt at a response

Shorter, yes, better, no. Perhaps you would care to pick a single example, described by both reviewers, to demonstrate Well's superior writing, compared with Carrier's, or anyone else's.

Consider, for example, Wells' assessment of Ehrman's presentation of Papias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.A. Wells

"In this connection, Ehrman adduces the second-century bishop Papias as 'an important source for establishing the historical existence of Jesus' (98). He refers to his discussion of Papias in his 2009 book Jesus Interrupted. But what he claims there (108,110) is merely that 'in reading Papias we have access to third- or fourth-hand information' and that Papias 'passes on stories that he had heard, and he attributes them to people who knew other people who said so. But when he can be checked he appears to be wrong.'

If I have understood correctly, then Wells is pointing to an ostensible contradiction between two different publications of Dr. Ehrman?

From what little I have read, the more important issue here, is not whether Ehrman has changed his opinion of the merit of Papias, as an author attesting to the historicity of Jesus, but whether one, anyone, can employ Papias' legendary texts (none exist at present) ostensibly authored, at the earliest, in the SECOND century, to serve as witness to some undocumented activity, occurring one full century earlier...

dog-on · 05-12-2012, 04:41 AM

To be fair, I think Ehrman was saying that regardless of the veracity of Papias's account, Jesus is still mentioned.

Grog · 05-12-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

To be fair, I think Ehrman was saying that regardless of the veracity of Papias's account, Jesus is still mentioned.

So an "important source for the existence of Jesus" is one that mentions Jesus regardless of its veracity? Weak criteria for evaluating the source material, in my opinion.

dog-on · 05-12-2012, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

To be fair, I think Ehrman was saying that regardless of the veracity of Papias's account, Jesus is still mentioned.

So an "important source for the existence of Jesus" is one that mentions Jesus regardless of its veracity? Weak criteria for evaluating the source material, in my opinion.

If you wished to use it for anything beyond the brute fact that Jesus was mentioned, then I would agree.

05-11-2012, 02:40 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Wells's Response to Ehrman I don't know if this has been posted here. I think it is much better and more concise than Carrier's initial attempt at a response http://www.radikalkritik.de/Wells_Ehrman.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2012, 04:41 AM	#4
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	To be fair, I think Ehrman was saying that regardless of the veracity of Papias's account, Jesus is still mentioned.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.