Originally Posted by Steven Carr

All Ehrman had to do was tell us why Carrier was wrong when he said we don't have those sources Ehrman claimed as evidence, we don't even know if they existed, and if they did, we don't know what they said.

Ehrman can claim his book popularises scholarship, (while simultaneously castigating Carrier for expecting it to be a work of scholarship, go figure).

But that doesn't make the invisible documents Ehrman waves around appear by magic.

And it certainly doesn't mean that a Greek work which contains Aramaic must be based on the words of Jesus himself.



The book is an epic fail, to the extent that Ehrman now has to castigate Carrier for not realising it was supposed to be a book for the general public, not for scholars.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Steven Carr is the perfect ambassador for mythicism. He needs to be engaging Ehrman, Hoffmann and others more often. Steven, go get him! Show them what mythicists are made of!

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Ehrman is not obligated to meet your expectations of him nor to chase down every supposed flaw in his book that armchair scholars think exist in it. His statement above is clear, that if asked he will answer other questions, something that leaves the door open to Carrier to have further questions put to and given response. One can only hope that if he does so it will be done in a better manner than his latest rant and consistent with what he asks of readers of his material.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

You mean Ehrman is not obliged to produce these invisible documents he can date to within a few years of Jesus's death?

CARRIER
And yet Ehrman repeatedly cites false stories, even stories he himself confesses to be false (indeed, even false stories in forged documents!) as evidence for the existence of Jesus, which is the most unbelievably illogical thing I could imagine any historian doing.

CARR
I guess you are going to respond that Ehrman has no need to cite true stories as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

And that if you ask Bart to refrain from citing false stories as evidence, that is no more than 'ranting'.

Ken Humphreys review of Bart's rewriting history was masterful.

HUMPHREYS
Ehrman's case for a historical Jesus could have been presented much more succinctly than in a 368-page book. In fact, that case has been presented much more succinctly - in endless publications from Christian apologists.

Ehrman, no longer the believer that he once was, rewrites that apologetics material, minus the supernatural elements. At its heart is the "chronological side-step" (in a debate I once had with Gary Habermas he actually performed the dance): Our extant sources (the canonical gospels) belong here (70s - 90s of the first century); the written sources on which they draw belong here (50s - 60s); the oral traditions which informed the earliest written sources belong here (30s AD!!!)

Glory be, "first-hand evidence" from the time of Jesus himself!

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

... The only good thing about it is that, at least for now, he has put clear ground between himself and mythicists.

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is that a good thing?

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

I guess your skills don't reach as far as reading English, let alone translating accurately:

" I will not answer each and every single point Carrier raises (on this, see my closing comments), but will deal with the most serious ones in which he charges me with scholarly incompetence. I am always happy to answer questions about any of the others, should I be asked".

" I have not dealt with all the myriad of things that Carrier has to say – most of them unpleasant – about my book. But I have tried to say enough, at least, to counter his charges that I am an incompetent pseudo-scholar. I try to approach my work with honesty and scholarly integrity, and would like to be accorded treatment earned by someone who has devoted his entire life to advancing scholarship and to making scholarship more widely available to the reading public".

" I like very much the idea of “intellectual charity,” and I think that it is a good idea to contact an author about problems that might be detected in her or his writing. I wish Carrier had followed his own advice and contacted me, in fact, rather than publish such a negative and uncharitable review. But I do hope, at least, that fair minded readers will see be open to the arguments that I make and the evidence that I adduce in Did Jesus Exist, and realize that they are the views, in popular form, of serious scholarship. They are not only serious scholarly views, they are the views held by virtually every serious scholar in the field of early Christian studies".

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

You mean Ehrman is not obliged to produce these invisible documents he can date to within a few years of Jesus's death?

CARRIER
And yet Ehrman repeatedly cites false stories, even stories he himself confesses to be false (indeed, even false stories in forged documents!) as evidence for the existence of Jesus, which is the most unbelievably illogical thing I could imagine any historian doing.

CARR
I guess you are going to respond that Ehrman has no need to cite true stories as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

And that if you ask Bart to refrain from citing false stories as evidence, that is no more than 'ranting'.

Ken Humphreys review of Bart's rewriting history was masterful.

HUMPHREYS
Ehrman's case for a historical Jesus could have been presented much more succinctly than in a 368-page book. In fact, that case has been presented much more succinctly - in endless publications from Christian apologists.

Ehrman, no longer the believer that he once was, rewrites that apologetics material, minus the supernatural elements. At its heart is the "chronological side-step" (in a debate I once had with Gary Habermas he actually performed the dance): Our extant sources (the canonical gospels) belong here (70s - 90s of the first century); the written sources on which they draw belong here (50s - 60s); the oral traditions which informed the earliest written sources belong here (30s AD!!!)

Glory be, "first-hand evidence" from the time of Jesus himself!

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

The only good thing about it is that, at least for now, he has put clear ground between himself and mythicists.

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

But I can't read these invisible documents Ehrman uses as evidence - the ones Ehrman can date to within a few years of Jesus's death.

So how can I debate their contents or reliability?