hjalti

I just don't see why thinking that these verses are a part of interpolations are "myther arguments".

ApostateAbe

Mythers use those arguments and they believe it helps them make their case. That is all it takes to be a "myther argument." Myther arguments may even be reasonable and/or shared among others.

hjalti

You could just as well call it a historicist argument to claim that the beginning (v. 1-7 IIRC) of Romans 13 is an interpolation (because some mythicists, I think Doherty is one of them) uses it in an argument for mythicism.

hjalti

But is it still a "myther argument" if someone who isn't a mythicist uses it? Or is it still a "myther argument"?

ApostateAbe

Yes, it would be still a myther argument. Maybe "myther argument" comes off as a pejorative or whatever, but it is only meant to be descriptive.

dogsgod

I have come across this very argument on forums, that everybody knew who the author of Luke/Acts was referring to anyways, by those who adamantly claimed to know what people knew in the early centuries. It's like arguing with the creationist that believes that God put in place all the fossils when creating the world to explain a 4,000 year old universe. It's essentially the same argument in that it is an invented answer to explain away inconvenient questions.

I don't know, and it doesn't bother me that I don't know, to what extent, if any, the gospels refer to an actual Galilean preacher. I doubt that the epistle writers were aware of a Galilean preacher but it never ceases to amaze me how certain some are in their knowledge of the so called facts.


"The New York Times bestselling author and leading Bible expert takes on his critics and the vast conspiracy community with a forceful historical argument that, yes, Jesus did actually exist."

If Bart and his fan club believe that a Christ myth theory is a conspiracy, then what we need to know is what makes people believe in conspiracy theories and how it applies here. That some will always doubt the historical merit of religious texts and the religious followers that instill it is a given, and really ought to be considered as a given rather than a vast conspiracy.

hjalti

I didn't understand it as pejorative, but only strange. It's like saying something like: "Saying that Mt wasn't written by the apostle Matthew is a historicist argument.". And you could also say: "Saying that Mt wasn't written by the apostle Matthew is a myther argument."

I just think that if there is a very reasonable case for a verse not being original (whether that case is made by a mythicist or not is irrelevant) then Ehrman should explain why he thinks that the verse is actually original. He wouldn't for example just cite the stuff in 1Thess about Jews having killed Jesus, in fact, he probably thinks that it's an interpolation!

ApostateAbe

In a typical book that Bart Ehrman writes for the lay public, he cites hundreds of Bible verses to help him make his case. At the end of his book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk), he has an "Index of Passages," with tables of citations. It fills eight pages, and it contains hundreds of chapter-and-verse numbers. A case could be made for any of every single one those passages to be a scribal interpretation, equal to the case made for Romans 1:3.

I think Ehrman must address ad hoc claims of interpolations in general, and I expect that he will. And I do think that he would be heroic to prove the textual reliability of every single passage he uses in his arguments that has ever been challenged by mythers, but it would require filling a large volume, unfortunately.

Toto

There are no reasonable creationist arguments. Therefore mythicism is not like creationism.

If you do not mean to be pejorative, just don't use the word "myther." It's like using the phrase "Christ-killer" and claiming not to be an anti-Semite.

If you want to evaluate claims that the historical Jesus did not exist, and some of them are reasonable, then you have something completely different from the index to creationist arguments, all of which are contrived and dishonest.

If I wanted to create a lot of work for myself, I would split out these creationist analogies as inflammatory, but at this point, I don't know who takes Abe that seriously here.

Toto

That will be interesting, since he has made his reputation by demonstrating the unreliability of scripture. If there are some interpolations, how do you know that there are not a whole lot of interpolations, to paraphrase his last debate.