Toto

After Ehrman agreed to write the book, he contacted Robert M Price and got some reading recommendations.

I suspect some of the book will be a debunking of the less respectable mythicist internet memes going back to Kersey Graves.

Gorit Maqueda

Perhaps Ehrman does not exist :-)

ApostateAbe

"Serious" is a subjective title, but Ehrman's slur gets a pass from me, because I take the minimum requirement of authority in scholarship to be either employment in a state-accredited college or authorship of many articles in respectable journals. Robert M. Price is probably the Jesus-minimalist still alive who has the best credentials, which I take to be an embarrassing point, because Price has a PhD (two PhDs?) but no employment at an accredited research institution. Doherty has no credentials other than an MA in ancient languages and popularity on the web. You may have a different idea of what counts as "serious," though, and that is OK with me.

I think Ehrman made a good point about the brother-of-Jesus passage of Galatians 1:19, in that it is something that Paul said in passing, as though it was not so much in Paul's interest and not a significant point of ancient debate. I don't think that is "bluster," but maybe you have a different idea about that, too.

At the time, I doubt that he read either Price or Doherty. That has probably changed, because, according to Price himself on his radio show, Ehrman asked Price for some of the relevant literature, and Price obliged. Price actually has considerable respect for Ehrman, and Price predicted that Ehrman's book would not be lightweight.

aa5874

What is very strange is that the Quest for the Historical Jesus continues yet from nowhere Scholars like Bart Ehrman is arguing as if he FOUND HJ.

No Historical Jesus has ever been found so the Quest continues.

This is the Third Quest and Nothing has changed. There is still ZERO credible evidence for an historical Jesus.

Ehrman wants to pull HJ from his hat like a Magician pulls rabbits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Can someone wake up Bart Ehrman---the Quest Continues.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...chapter20.html

The historical Jesus is a figment of imagination.

"Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had an existence".

GakuseiDon

Hopefully Ehrman will be covering Doherty's theories, upon Price's recommendation. However, Price has given very positive reviews of Acharya S's work as well (Doherty has also given Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God" very positive reviews), so Ehrman may also be addressing astrotheology, which would be interesting.

EmmaZunz

Interesting reply, cheers.

I'm gauging seriousness by the content of their books, rather than by their official credentials. I don't think you could read Ehrman and then read Doherty, and say that Doherty appears to be at any sort of academic disadvantage. The Doherty book I have is copiously referenced and very tightly argued. He does not strike me as amateur in a derogatory sense at all, although I am not an ancient historian so take my opinion as it might be worth. It is very easy for historicist academics to react with snobbery. I accept they are the experts and may be right, but experts too are capable of prejudice as many academic scandals have shown. I hope Ehrman's book will be really strong, presenting the historicist case with a force it has never had applied up till now. Then we will be able to tell which side is stronger. It's worrying though if he had never previously read any of this work. How could he dismiss it without even reading it?

Re the brother thing, all we can say is that Paul was operating with very different assumptions from us. What he could mention in passing and expect his audience to understand, is not the same as what goes for us. We don't really have enough evidence to make more than an educated guess.

Looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Hope Ehrman sends advance copies to the mythicists so we get the debate going quickly!

ApostateAbe

I would be disappointed if Ehrman did not make the copy-cat-Christs arguments the focus of his book, because those are the most popular arguments among mythicists generally, though not on this forum.

GakuseiDon

General question for everyone:

Which mythicist views should Ehrman address?

Which mythicist views should Ehrman ignore?

Or should Ehrman just discuss the positive case for a historical Jesus, and not attempt to refute any mythicist arguments?

There is no formal mythicist position in current modern scholarship for Ehrman to address AFAIK. Dr Robert M Price and Dr Carrier haven't produced a case for a mythical Jesus to date, so if Ehrman is going to critique any mythicist position, it will probably be among the most popular ones in print and on the Internet. The two best known ones to my knowledge are Doherty's "Mythical Realm Christ" theory and Acharya S's "Astrotheological origins" idea. Maybe GA Wells' might be in there as well, from a Pauline perspective. Any others?

aa5874

The Quest for the Historical Jesus was INITIATED without any input from MJers.

HJ Scholars are arguing AGAINST the NT Canon.

It is the Jesus in the Canon that was REJECTED and HJers are LOOKING for another Jesus of Nazareth which they cannot find for about 250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Let us NOT waste any more time.

Please review the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

We can't be going over the same thing.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus is a REJECTION of NT Jesus.

This means that the NT is NOT a credible source so don't even bother.

Just go find a credible source in YOUR QUEST for your HJ of Nazareth.

HJers ALREADY know NT Jesus was MYTH.

The 250 year old HJ Quest continues WITHOUT evidence.

It will NEVER end.

EmmaZunz

I think the most important issues, if I can answer that way, would be:

Paul's theory of Jesus Christ - earthly or heavenly;

the higher criticism of the gospels which sees them as a mess of midrash, myths and legends, and editorial agendas, rather than historical tradition;

the absence or presence of HJ material in Q.

The best theory IMO is Doherty's idea that Paul has no HJ, while Mark is an allegory that combines kingdom preaching and the crucifixion-resurrection-salvation program for the first time, and that Q was originally devoid of HJ material. That is a very powerful theory.