Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-28-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is utterly erroneous that "there is no empirical doubt that Matthew and Luke used prior written sources" when Scholars themselves do NOT all agree with your claim.

Find me three scholars who don't think they both used Mark.

spin · 03-28-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It is only when κυριος, in its non-titular form functioning in lieu of a name, leaves the Jewish context that it is used for Jesus. This is aided by the fact that Jesus had already been referred to by the title of lord (the lord Jesus, etc). The few uses of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in Paul are indications of interpolation (1 Cor 6:14, 11:23-27).

I'm not sure whether this is a tempest in a teapot, and I'm not sure I follow the thread or purpose of your argument (I may have missed earlier postings on it and where it's coming from), but I have no interest in getting involved in this. I've got bigger fish to fry.

But as to the claim in the final sentence of your above quote, I'll simply throw 1 Cor. 8:6 onto the pile:

"For us there is one God the Father from whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him."

Am I missing something here? I guess that makes this an interpolation.

Two issues re 1 Cor 8:6:

1. "One lord" is obviously titular: κυριος is not functioning in lieu of a name but giving a status to Jesus.

2. The verse is blatantly anti-binitarian, which in itself should discourage any attempt at a non-titular analysis of κυριος in the verse. Would someone steeped in the Jewish religion use a reference to god for another being?

Without the eqation of Jesus and "the lord" in Gal 1:19, any attempt to read "brother" there as biological becomes nonsense. The furthwr implications are great as to clarifying much of what Paul says (and other early writers).

Go fry your bigger fish.

GakuseiDon · 03-28-2012, 02:32 PM

My bolding below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

It is admittedly hard to believe that Ehrman could have deliberately misrepresented my words, consciously falsifying my arguments in order to put me in the worst possible light. But what is the alternative “carelessness” due to? What else but a blatant prejudice against all things mythicist, a deliberate closing of the mind to anything that could possibly confer a positive light on the mythicist argument (shades of Dr. McGrath), a conscious attitude toward mythicism as a satanic expression of anti-religion held by people whose sole agenda is the destruction of Christianity? In other words, “malice” against myself and mythicism, and what I and other mythicists are perceived to constitute... That malice has led Ehrman (and others both today and in the past) into a culture of misrepresentation and closed-minded condemnation, a litany of fallacious argument, a practice of misleading—even deceptive—presentation of both mythicism and the case for historicism, especially to lay readers who are at the mercy of their own trust in the reliability of ‘professional’ scholars with their proper credentials.
...
Several months ago, when we were discussing the anticipation of Ehrman’s book on this forum, I said to Don that I would hardly be adopting toward Ehrman the same tone and style I often adopted toward some of those here who treat mythicism as a doormat. I would show, I said, respect toward a respected scholar who might be expected to handle the subject matter and its proponents with some degree of honesty and thoughtfulness. How naïve that was!
...
Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist is a massive failure of integrity, both professional and personal.

Earl, like Acharya S, Neil Godfrey and others, you seem to me to have difficulty separating criticisms of your views with criticism of yourself. If anything makes you look like a crank, it is comments like "malice against yourself and mythicism" and "culture of misrepresentation and closed-minded condemnation".

While I would personally love to see you give Ehrman "the treatment" (as I call it) that you have given to the rest of your critics, I would strongly advise you not to. You've seen how Acharya S reacts to criticism against her books; if you want to avoid being lumped in with her, I suggest you avoid doing the same thing.

You've said before you have the evidence. If that is the case, I strongly recommend you to take the high-road this time, and let your evidence do the talking.

blastula · 03-28-2012, 03:00 PM

Big deal, Ehrman himself tarred all mythicists as "denouncers" and "despisers" of religion.

aa5874 · 03-28-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is utterly erroneous that "there is no empirical doubt that Matthew and Luke used prior written sources" when Scholars themselves do NOT all agree with your claim.

Find me three scholars who don't think they both used Mark.

Based on your response I am no longer interested in your game. I am engaged in a serious matter.

You were dealing with "Q' --common material in gMatthew and gLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Here's Q.

Are you familiar with the synoptic theories?

I don't want to condescend if you are, but there is no empirical doubt that Matthew and Luke used prior written sources, unless you believe they were miraculously inspired.

Please, I detest when people cannot admit their own blatant errors.

There is NO document that has ever been found that is called "Q" so why are you giving people the impression that there is such a document???

stephan huller · 03-28-2012, 03:47 PM

Ehrman completely misrepresented Morton smith in lost Christianities . it was utterly incredible
there is a precedent

EarlDoherty · 03-28-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I'm not sure whether this is a tempest in a teapot, and I'm not sure I follow the thread or purpose of your argument (I may have missed earlier postings on it and where it's coming from), but I have no interest in getting involved in this. I've got bigger fish to fry.

But as to the claim in the final sentence of your above quote, I'll simply throw 1 Cor. 8:6 onto the pile:

"For us there is one God the Father from whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him."

Am I missing something here? I guess that makes this an interpolation.

Two issues re 1 Cor 8:6:

1. "One lord" is obviously titular: κυριος is not functioning in lieu of a name but giving a status to Jesus.

2. The verse is blatantly anti-binitarian, which in itself should discourage any attempt at a non-titular analysis of κυριος in the verse. Would someone steeped in the Jewish religion use a reference to god for another being?

Without the eqation of Jesus and "the lord" in Gal 1:19, any attempt to read "brother" there as biological becomes nonsense. The furthwr implications are great as to clarifying much of what Paul says (and other early writers).

Go fry your bigger fish.

Well, I'm not quite sure what your purpose is, or what you are demonstrating by your distinction between titular and non-titular, but I do agree with your sentiment on Gal 1:19. Anyway, as I said, I have no interest in pursuing this.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 03-28-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

My bolding below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

It is admittedly hard to believe that Ehrman could have deliberately misrepresented my words, consciously falsifying my arguments in order to put me in the worst possible light. But what is the alternative “carelessness” due to? What else but a blatant prejudice against all things mythicist, a deliberate closing of the mind to anything that could possibly confer a positive light on the mythicist argument (shades of Dr. McGrath), a conscious attitude toward mythicism as a satanic expression of anti-religion held by people whose sole agenda is the destruction of Christianity? In other words, “malice” against myself and mythicism, and what I and other mythicists are perceived to constitute... That malice has led Ehrman (and others both today and in the past) into a culture of misrepresentation and closed-minded condemnation, a litany of fallacious argument, a practice of misleading—even deceptive—presentation of both mythicism and the case for historicism, especially to lay readers who are at the mercy of their own trust in the reliability of ‘professional’ scholars with their proper credentials.
...
Several months ago, when we were discussing the anticipation of Ehrman’s book on this forum, I said to Don that I would hardly be adopting toward Ehrman the same tone and style I often adopted toward some of those here who treat mythicism as a doormat. I would show, I said, respect toward a respected scholar who might be expected to handle the subject matter and its proponents with some degree of honesty and thoughtfulness. How naïve that was!
...
Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist is a massive failure of integrity, both professional and personal.

Earl, like Acharya S, Neil Godfrey and others, you seem to me to have difficulty separating criticisms of your views with criticism of yourself. If anything makes you look like a crank, it is comments like "malice against yourself and mythicism" and "culture of misrepresentation and closed-minded condemnation".

While I would personally love to see you give Ehrman "the treatment" (as I call it) that you have given to the rest of your critics, I would strongly advise you not to. You've seen how Acharya S reacts to criticism against her books; if you want to avoid being lumped in with her, I suggest you avoid doing the same thing.

You've said before you have the evidence. If that is the case, I strongly recommend you to take the high-road this time, and let your evidence do the talking.

Thanks for the advice. But Neil Godfrey has already provided the evidence and I have every justification for the comments I made which you bolded. What "high road" has Ehrman left for anyone to take? It doesn't take a "crank" to strongly object to the kind of disreputable tactics Ehrman is engaging in.

I'm about to post my reaction to Neil's second installment. Stay tuned.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 03-28-2012, 05:24 PM

Neil Godfrey has posted the next installment exposing Bart Ehrman’s misrepresentation of my views as put forward in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...dohertys-book/

He notes that Ehrman has not only accused me of saying that the ancients had only one philosophy and view of the world (i.e., Platonism), but of claiming that the mystery cults interpreted their mythical stories in the same way as Plutarch, namely by rendering them allegories which had no literal reality in *any* dimension of the universe.

Once more Neil quotes Jesus: Neither God Nor Man to disprove this. He gives further examples of my knowledge of more than one philosophy, and then addresses the Plutarch issue, quoting passages like this:

In contrast with the philosophers, however, it can hardly be thought that the entire membership of the cults, even if following their lead into the upper world, went so far as to reduce the myths to pure allegory, things that never happened as described. . . . On earth or in the heavens, the heart and soul of the cults must have viewed the myths as literal, as genuine actions of the gods . . . The same is undoubtedly true of Paul . . . (p. 149)

What could be more diametrically opposite to what Ehrman has claimed? If not making him guilty of deliberate falsification, it only enhances the judgment of incompetence and blind prejudice.

I made the following comment on the Vridar posting:

What troubles me the most is that Ehrman could possibly think and claim that I, despite being an agenda-driven Christianity-hater and maniac mythicist, could research and write about ancient philosophy and cosmology in connection with Christian origins in an 800-page tome, and still be guilty of thinking that there was only one philosophy in the ancient world, one way of viewing the workings of the universe. What kind of a deranged idiot does he truly take me for?

Of course, anyone who has read my books and website, followed me on internet DBs, or who knows anything about ancient philosophy themselves, would have to take this for what it is: Ehrman going utterly off the deep end. Unfortunately, much of Ehrman’s ‘popular’ readership is not going to be in a position to recognize this, and quite willing to believe the worst about this mythicist charlatan…

(And by the way, we can tell that Ehrman is writing for such a readership. After all, it’s only scholars who would demand an Index in a scholarly book.)

However, I suspect that a lot more mainstream scholars are actually going to delve into his book (if only to catch up on their own dismal knowledge about mythicism), and many of them are going to smell something rotten in Denmark. Many of them too, I equally suspect, frequent DBs, often anonymously, and will encounter the furor being raised at Ehrman’s disreputable antics. This is not going to do the historicism cause any favor. As for those for whom it will harm my own reputation, well, they were already ignorant and biased against me anyway.

What about it, Abe? Are you willing to revisit your review?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe · 03-28-2012, 05:51 PM

Mr. Doherty, the relevant charge that Ehrman lobbed at your hypothesis is that we simply do not know what the ancient mystery cults believed (thus the label "mystery") despite your claim that they adhered to Platonism.

What evidence does Doherty cite to show that mystery religions were at heart Platonic? Precisely none.

Every informed critic of your work makes this point. You seem to be kinda making a mountain out of a mole hill, much like Acharya S and her acolyte roared that Ehrman falsely accused her of making up the bust of a rooster with the penis nose (Ehrman's accusation was actually as ambiguous as Acharya S's evidence).

03-28-2012, 05:24 PM	#109
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Neil Godfrey has posted the next installment exposing Bart Ehrman’s misrepresentation of my views as put forward in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...dohertys-book/ He notes that Ehrman has not only accused me of saying that the ancients had only one philosophy and view of the world (i.e., Platonism), but of claiming that the mystery cults interpreted their mythical stories in the same way as Plutarch, namely by rendering them allegories which had no literal reality in any dimension of the universe. Once more Neil quotes Jesus: Neither God Nor Man to disprove this. He gives further examples of my knowledge of more than one philosophy, and then addresses the Plutarch issue, quoting passages like this: In contrast with the philosophers, however, it can hardly be thought that the entire membership of the cults, even if following their lead into the upper world, went so far as to reduce the myths to pure allegory, things that never happened as described. . . . On earth or in the heavens, the heart and soul of the cults must have viewed the myths as literal, as genuine actions of the gods . . . The same is undoubtedly true of Paul . . . (p. 149) What could be more diametrically opposite to what Ehrman has claimed? If not making him guilty of deliberate falsification, it only enhances the judgment of incompetence and blind prejudice. I made the following comment on the Vridar posting: What troubles me the most is that Ehrman could possibly think and claim that I, despite being an agenda-driven Christianity-hater and maniac mythicist, could research and write about ancient philosophy and cosmology in connection with Christian origins in an 800-page tome, and still be guilty of thinking that there was only one philosophy in the ancient world, one way of viewing the workings of the universe. What kind of a deranged idiot does he truly take me for? Of course, anyone who has read my books and website, followed me on internet DBs, or who knows anything about ancient philosophy themselves, would have to take this for what it is: Ehrman going utterly off the deep end. Unfortunately, much of Ehrman’s ‘popular’ readership is not going to be in a position to recognize this, and quite willing to believe the worst about this mythicist charlatan… (And by the way, we can tell that Ehrman is writing for such a readership. After all, it’s only scholars who would demand an Index in a scholarly book.) However, I suspect that a lot more mainstream scholars are actually going to delve into his book (if only to catch up on their own dismal knowledge about mythicism), and many of them are going to smell something rotten in Denmark. Many of them too, I equally suspect, frequent DBs, often anonymously, and will encounter the furor being raised at Ehrman’s disreputable antics. This is not going to do the historicism cause any favor. As for those for whom it will harm my own reputation, well, they were already ignorant and biased against me anyway. What about it, Abe? Are you willing to revisit your review? Earl Doherty

03-28-2012, 05:51 PM	#110
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Mr. Doherty, the relevant charge that Ehrman lobbed at your hypothesis is that we simply do not know what the ancient mystery cults believed (thus the label "mystery") despite your claim that they adhered to Platonism. What evidence does Doherty cite to show that mystery religions were at heart Platonic? Precisely none. Every informed critic of your work makes this point. You seem to be kinda making a mountain out of a mole hill, much like Acharya S and her acolyte roared that Ehrman falsely accused her of making up the bust of a rooster with the penis nose (Ehrman's accusation was actually as ambiguous as Acharya S's evidence).

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

03-28-2012, 03:00 PM	#104
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	Big deal, Ehrman himself tarred all mythicists as "denouncers" and "despisers" of religion.

03-28-2012, 03:47 PM	#106
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Ehrman completely misrepresented Morton smith in lost Christianities . it was utterly incredible there is a precedent

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.