jdl

What is absolutely clear is that Bart Ehrman's book isn't directed at mythicists. He can't have thought many mythicists would tolerate his introduction and proceed to the main body of argument. So it's a bit disingenuous to ask if he has changed any minds outside his target audience.

But funnily enough, I think the question backfires. The only mythicists who are going to read this are published authors who want to write a rebuttal, as well as the most open minded of the remaining mythicists. So it seems that if the majority of these open minded readers aren't persuaded by the book, that's a point against the strength of Ehrman's case.

Vorkosigan

Like Steve, I thought the Historicist case looked even weaker -- and Ehrman inadvertently argues for mythicism in his arguments against the Dying/Rising god idea. Much in that section on Freke/Gandy/Harpur was new.

But basically, the book changed my mind about Bart Ehrman, and not in a positive way.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

What!!! HJers are the ones who claim that Jesus was EMBELLISHED in the NT. HJers are the ones with the Charlatan Thesis.

All sources of the NT were grouped together with Fictional accounts and it was passed off as the truth.

The author of gJohn claimed his Jesus was the TRUTH and the LIFE.

Again, you PRESUME your own history. The Scholars on the QUEST for an historical Jesus have NOT ever found one yet. They don't even have any reliable sources to determine who they are really looking for.

The claim in the NT that Jesus lived is an EMBELLISHMENT.

EarlDoherty

Yes, Ehrman didn't do himself a favor in attracting mythicist readers by that Huffington Post article. But Ehrman's target audience is hardly mythicists. It's lay believers who have become disturbed about the growing profile of mythicism and need to be reassured. (And I guess diehard atheist (?) protesters like Abe and Steve.) The less they actually know about New Testament scholarship (not to mention the mythicist case) and things like evidence and logic the better. It is only with this audience that Ehrman can hope to get away with this abysmal effort.

But you're right about one thing. Published authors whom Ehrman trashes are definitely going to read the book and respond. I've already started. Don't know if anyone here has noticed, but the Vridar blog of Neil Godfrey has begun to publish installments of my book-length response to Ehrman. We're aiming for two a week (each one about 2500 words, following along with Ehrman's text). Once it's finished (a couple of months?) I'll convert it to an e-book for Amazon Kindle.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/...on/#more-27137

Ehrman's latest goof? His claim that in Scandinavia mythicism is going strong. A friend of mine in Sweden contacted him disputing that statement, and asking where he got it, and Ehrman came back with "Oh...I thought I'd read that somewhere. I'll correct that in the next edition."

Ehrman has handed his own head to us on a platter.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

Yes, that's the way I see it.

Vorkosigan

MrMacSon

It seems Christianity is just trying to keep the faithful, and their children (and the odd one or two teens from non-religious families).

They don't seem to want to engage deeply in the implications of their faith or the implications of its origins.

It doesn't seem many have been aware of questions about the historical-Jesus or the mythical-Jesus v historical-Jesus discussions. Books like Ehrman's and publicity around them are likely to change that.

neilgodfrey

I have sent Bart Ehrman two emails asking for citations to support his assertions that:

1) mythicists quote the "THAT Jesus did not exist" passage from Schweitzer to give themselves "cachet" that Schweitzer himself was a mythicist;

2) mythicists argue that Paul's "words of the Lord" are interpolations.

He is taking a long time to respond but that's undoubtedly because, as his automated machine reply infers, he is giving good diligence to spend the time needed to prepare the most scholarly answer possible.

I have also been alerted to Ehrman's contempt for his lay readers by being so careless as to inform them that Tacitus himself blamed Nero for the fire of Rome and that Tacitus himself conceded the Christians were innocent. I have no doubt such carelessness would never have been allowed for his peers. But as he also says, the way the intellectuals think is not the same as the way the masses think. So long as they keep buying his books what does he care?

Steven Carr

Wow! Did Ehrman really write what he did about Nero?

That is just amazing. Just wait until James McGrath tears into Ehrman for such a huge mistake in the book!

Tacitus clearly writes 'A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire.'

Nero's own palace burned down, according to Tacitus.

'Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.'

Doesn't sound like Tacitus thought they were innocent.

Mind you, Bart claims Tacitus wrote 'Nero *falsely* accused those.... whom the populace called Christians....'

Is this what the Latin says?

JonA

Of course Ehrman's book has nothing to do with the validity of Christian claims about Jesus' supernatural character.

Jon

Solo

Horseshit ! Most believers I know, and this includes all the members of my ex's extended family (and as she is a French Canadian it is really extended - mostly non-practicing Catholics, university educated) would not be giving "mythicism" a minute of their time. The idea that Jesus did not exist is absurd to all believers, even to the most lapsed and sophisticated ones. They would not need to be reassured in the least, especially since the profile of mythicism is growing mostly in your head.

Ehrman knows his market. It is the type of a college freshmen from Redneck, Alabama or Twocowbilly, Tenneessee who come to Chapel Hill, North Carolina with the mission to prove themselves by a degree to have risen above their redneck and twocowbilly ancestry. It's the sixties' hippies, now senile, vaguely recalling reading something about gnostics before Dan Brown, or thinking maybe Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene may help to puff their magic dragon. The always well-informed former spelling bee finalists. The thoughtful ones who always wondered how Paul fought off the wild beasts in the arena of Ephesus. And let us not forget the types unhappily married to Jesus quoters and ticked off at being dragged to church bakes.

The most probable reason d'etre for "Did Jesus Exist ?" is that Ehrman's readers wrote him tons of emails after "Forged", either being pissed off at him for going too far or egging him on to greater mischief (That's what I read between the lines in the book). His anti-mythicist crusade likely reflects the statistics of the reader response to Forged. It is to assure his clients (and the Board of Governors at UNC) that there are greater sinners than he.

Best,
Jiri