stephan huller

I am not saying that mythicists are the invalid in the analogy. I am merely saying you can't fault Mohammed Ali for not taking his opponent seriously if he wins the fight. Moreover I am not saying Ehrman won the fight, but he is the Mohammed Ali in terms of popular culture.

I thought Carrier's argument should have been structured differently. Show me how Ehrman failed first and then attribute this to his lack of preparation, his overconfidence or his failure to take his opponents seriously. Carrier structures his argument the other way which means you have to wade through the cock business and Ehrman not reading Carrier's CV (vanity, vanity all is vanity). I don't know why Carrier spend so much time nitpicking and criticizing Ehrman for his lack of preparation. What I wanted to read was solid reasons for discounting his main arguments. In that respect I thought your summary was better than his review to be honest.

hjalti

Amen bro!

I think I mostly agree (and I think that the first trip to Jerusalem is probably a later interpolation).

These arguments might even "complement" each other in one sense. If (that's a big if) one could convincingly argue that for Paul "brother of the lord" would probably just mean "a christian", then the use in Galatians would seem to be non-Pauline. Similar to what our good pal spin says about the non-titular " lord" (that it were only later Christians that used if for Jesus).

stephan huller

And it drives me crazy that so many people think that Carrier 'trashed' Ehrman with this review. What's the matter with people? What would these people have thought if Carrier had actually written a damning piece.

I think the gospel is developed from myth but this should have nothing to do with my ability to assign merit to a piece which agrees with my worldview. I think Carrier is young and emotional. He should have spent more time crafting the article AS IF it reflected indifference and detachment. Isn't that the whole thing with scholarship - mastering the illusion of ἀδιάφορα?

That is the one consolation about getting older. You mellow.

Grog

Or is he George Foreman?

I think it is a good analogy, but it seems like Carrier is playing rope-a-dope.

I agree with much of what you say here. Yes, Ehrman got Carrier's credentials wrong (on purpose? another case of sloppiness?) but it is a bit vain to go on about it. Demonstrating a greater proficiency with the material was the better show. The review was not quite the knock out punch I think could have been delivered. I am seeing better at other sites, but mostly what one would consider knowledgeable "lay people."

Dave31

It would obviously be helpful to actually read Acharya's blog on the issue:

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

The fact remains that Errorman accused her of making it up and even drawing the image herself when there were sources and citations right there under the image. There is just no way Ehrman could possibly have read the book and missed them. He did NOT read the book.

Did Bart Ehrman read the books?

Bart Ehrman's Book 'Did Jesus Exist?'

hjalti

I must say one thing, totally besides any substantial discussion of the review: I found the image of Ehrman's book being a murder of electrons and trees to be hilarious.

The literary genre of "scathing review" is always entertaining! :P

hjalti

Well, to be fair Carrier adresses this point because apparently (I use that word because I havent read DJE?) Ehrman brought this up:

Grog

Carrier seems to relish in not fitting into a scholarly mode. I've seen him argue his case for writing in a more colloquial style. It is off-putting, though. And, actually, it sounds sometimes off key. I do think as a scholar, he is very clear headed. As a young scholar, he might want to at least take on the affect of some humbleness vis-a-vis the elders in his field. So, yes, you have a point here.

aa5874

You mean other people delivered BETTER punches to Ehrman??? Ehrman cannot be saved [by the Bell]--the bell tolls for Ehrman.

Grog

People are really worked up about this phallic savior thing. I didn't think it was very important, even a sideshow.

Why is it important? There are far worse things that Ehrman does in his book than misrepresent Acharya S. I admit to having not read anything by her.