GakuseiDon

I think the expectation here is that he will come up with the execrable arguments, because there are no intellectually respectable ones. Hands are waving over keyboards now in anticipation as we speak. Will he use "Brother of the Lord"? Zap! "Seed of David"? Kapow!

I wasn't aware that they had addressed mythicist arguments. Were they arguing against Doherty? Wells? Or even Drews?

More like a sideline than a role.

Toto

I don't think he would bother to write a book if he is just going to recycle old arguments. I feel no need to anticipate what he is going to write.

All have made some arguments that relate to historicity. Just not the bad ones that you are familiar with.

Let me just point out that you took a few incidents from feisty online debates and tried to claim that "mythicists" would smear any scholar who came out against mythicism, although your examples included Neil Godfrey, who does not describe himself as a mythicist, and also included an Acharya S fan complaining about Richard Carrier. I fail to see any good will in this.

GakuseiDon

Toto, we will see if I am right in about three months. When Ehrman's book comes out, I'm going to make myself a big bag of popcorn and sit back and wait for the fun to begin. It should be great!

mountainman

If you are willing to extend your research out of the backwater swamps of Biblical Historians and move into the field of ancient history, then you might think about reading either Robert M Grant or Arnaldo Momigliano. And if you have not already done so, I think that you could do no harm to your education in reading Chapters 15 and 16 of Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Momigliano would categorise Bart Ehman as a "Biblical Scholar" and thus as an "insider". The people inside the field of Biblical History use strange and archaic so-called criteria in their logical presentations and discussions (which have been listed by Richard Carrier). The critical scholars are not really to be found inside the field of Biblical criticism, rather they are to be found outside of it, in the general field of ancient history. There is no problem in the field of Biblical History which is not also a problem of the field of Ancient History, so why restrict your enquiries just to the tenured insiders, or to those who are "working the crowd"?

spin

That's a great bait and switch, GakuseiDon. It's not the perspective of the individual that is the issue. It is the way the individual's material is received in the community, or more here the way it is not received. Ad hominem, misrepresentation, and assumed conclusions, are merely means of ignoring the material and are no reflection of the value of the material or lack thereof. Your hoo-haa is irrelevant. Your persistent appeal to authority is mocked by your authority's approach.

Wells is functionally of a pre-internet era and was sufficiently ignored to have him nullified. The process is called "repressive tolerance". In internet the process is somewhat different, because of internet's reach. One tends to use ad hominem, misrepresentation, and assumed conclusions, appealing to the status quo.

Your reference to Dave31 is another bait-and-switch. In the end here all you've done is assert "The rudeness and offensiveness is not directed against mythicism per se." You say Godfrey isn't correct, but you don't support your assertion. I guess you have no logical reason to make the assertion.

I'll probably call him on various other things as well. We've been through the evidence and unless he has the rabbit in there, he's bound to fail.

spin

What do you honestly think Ehrman can bring to the discussion that hasn't been dealt with before? Enjoy your small amusements!

GakuseiDon

That's just it. I honestly don't think that Ehrman will bring anything new to the discussion. That's why I'm anticipating the blow to his credibility on this board after his ebook comes out in November: Dave31's outrage at him for not reading Acharya S, whether he's read her work or not; Earl Doherty's [censored]; Mountain man's picking over any pre-Constantine evidence used by Ehrman; Neil "Mr Furious" Godfrey's claims of intellectual dishonesty, etc. All coming together in a perfect storm!

Coming soon: "Perfect Storm II: the mythicist tsunami!" Available on all good forums from Nov 22!

GakuseiDon

I agree.
Okay.

I think that is my point. Wells should have got out more.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm saying Godfrey isn't correct about what?

Agreed. Erhman walking == Deadman walking!

Toto

If you haven't noticed, most people here think highly of Ehrman on the issue of textual criticism, but not so much on some of his historical conclusions. I don't think any of this will change.

I expect that he will come out with something along the lines of Mark Goodacre's podcast on mythicism. Goodacre managed to criticize mythicism without any sneers, ad hominems, or blatant mischaracterizations, and you don't see hoards of mythicists descending on his blog to revile him. Or did you notice that?

It is evangelical Christians who have started the Ehrman Project to discredit him. You might speculate on how they will react.

Or you could find a more productive use for your time and your wild imagination.

spin

OK, fine.

Two out of three are just a few of your straw dogs. You aren't getting to any general significance.

If you accept the charges of ad hominem, misrepresentation, and assumed conclusions mentioned earlier, that seems to me to be accepting Godfrey's claims.

Anything to prevent yourself from doing objective analysis on christianity though, right?