ApostateAbe

Here I continue to review the new e-book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), refudiating Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (or via: amazon.co.uk). Almost every sentence in Chapter 2 so far is an earful of chastisement against Ehrman by Richard Carrier, and it gets yet more personal with each page.

In the section titled, "Lying to Cover Up Your Mistakes: The Case of the Pliny Correspondence," Richard Carrier makes three points against Ehrman's coverage (pages 51-52 of Did Jesus Exist?) of the evidence of early Christianity per the letters of Pliny.

1. Ehrman doesn't correctly cite the source, mistaking a book of letters for a single letter.
2. Ehrman conflates a scholarly inference for a fact, about whether or not the Bythinian law against social gatherings applied to Christians.
3. Ehrman lied about the incorrect citation, calling it a mere typo instead of a mistake that reflects unfamiliarity with the evidence.

As it turns out, I don't disagree with these conclusions by Carrier. Ehrman is not an expert on the letters of Pliny (though of secondary importance to his field), but an expert on the New Testament, so I do find it plausible that Ehrman made a mistake about the citations and clumsily lied about it. I don't agree that Ehrman conflates a hypothesis with a fact. He doesn't claim that the scholarly conclusion about Bythinian law is a fact, and there is no shame in stating a probable scholarly conclusion the same as stating a fact, especially not in a book that doesn't presume to be scholarly.

One way or the other, however, I do disagree with the relevance of the three points by Carrier, because they seem to be picking at straws, only they are not straws but logs when looking through the telescopic glasses worn by Carrier. Bart Ehrman himself denigrates the relevance of this evidence, writing about it only in passing, and Carrier himself acknowledges that the point about Pliny is not central to Ehrman's thesis. The letters by Pliny prove only that Christians existed in the second century who respected Christ as a god, and the same point is made regardless of Carrier's points against Ehrman.

What, then, is the relevance of these points by Carrier? They seem to make the case that Ehrman is both a sloppy scholar with respect to mythicism and a liar. In other words, they are ad hominem arguments. Richard Carrier claims that he "chose a representative selection of the worst mistakes, in order to illustrate the problem." So, it is like he is saying, "I got him on this one, and this is just the worst of many examples, so trust me and don't trust Bart Ehrman on anything else." If this represents the worst of Ehrman, then the degree of the mistakes should match the degree of seemingly-overblown lambasting, but they don't. It tells me that Carrier really doesn't have much on Ehrman.

In his section titled, "Not Checking or Knowing Essential Facts: The Case of 'No Ancient Documents,'" here I find Carrier's most relevant charge yet against Ehrman. Unfortunately for Carrier, it is also where I find the first serious misquote by Carrier of Ehrman's book, a misquote that serves a strawman argument.

Per Carrier,

Ehrman falsely claims that from antiquity "we simply don’t have birth notices, trial records, death certificates -- or other kinds of records that one has today" and is adamant not only that we have none, but that such records were never even kept, because he asks "if Romans were careful record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records."

Carrier then exposes the reality that we do indeed have a number of such records from the region in ancient times, including records that Carrier handled himself from the sands of Egypt.

I decided to look up what Ehrman actually wrote. Here is what I found, on page 29. It is an item in a bullet list of points against Freke and Gandy:

The Romans were "renowned for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially their legal proceedings," making it surprising that "there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontius Pilate or executed" (133). [If Romans were careful record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone who lived in the first century. We simply don't have birth notices, trial records, death certificates--or other standard kinds of records that one has today. Freke and Gandy, of course, do not cite a single example of anyone else's death warrant from the first century.]

The statements in square brackets are Ehrman's. So, what did Carrier do wrong? Carrier wrote as though Ehrman wrote purely in absolute terms, as though Ehrman thinks absolutely no birth records or trial records or death records of any sort existed in ancient Roman times. But, a strong hint that Ehrman believes no such thing is that Ehrman used the word, "nearly." This was left out of Carrier's quote by Ehrman, and the corresponding sentence where it belongs is cut short in the quote by Carrier. He ends the quote with a period after the word, "records." Ending that incomplete sentence with a period misleads the reader into thinking that Ehrman was writing in purely absolute terms, but the complete sentence by Ehrman would bring the reader to a conflicting belief. There is a scholarly method of quoting incomplete sentences: using the ellipsis (...). Carrier did not do this. It is relevant, in part because Carrier uses as a counter-example the birth record of Caligula attested by Suetonius. Caligula was an emperor, and it should be no surprise that birth records of emperors are recorded but not birth records of almost everyone else. A thought like this would be communicated in the complete quote by Ehrman that Carrier failed to supply.

I am not sure if this was dishonest or if this was a genuine blunder on Richard Carrier's part, but I can forgive him for this. I have forgiven Bart Ehrman for greater scholarly sins.

I will continue my review next Sunday, probably. I hope I am almost done with Carrier.

aa5874

I find that Carrier is absolutely right about Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" It is filled with logical fallacies.

Ehrman relied on the Pauline letters for his historical Jesus of Nazareth even though the Pauline writer mentioned nothing whatsoever of Nazareth.

Ehrman should have realised that Nazareth is an Embellishment if he claims the Pauline letters were earlier than the Gospels--No Jesus of Nazareth in Pauline letters.

Please examine page 140 of "Did Jesus Exist?"

The very same Ehrman who argues that the Resurrection did not happen now implies that Paul focused more on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Ehrman seems not to realise that he is contradicting himself.

Ehrman seems to have forgotten about his debates with William Craig on the Resurrection.

Ehrman claimed that the Empty Tomb is not in the Pauline writings and that the resurrection may well be visions of Jesus.
See
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-th...e-craig-ehrman

If the Pauline Jesus could have existed as visions then why is Ehrman using Paul as a credible source at page 140 of Did Jesus Exist?"

In a most strange fashion Ehrman made this statement.

Page 139 of Did Jesus Exist?

However when we examine the Pauline lettters it is the complete opposite.

What Paul tells us make it clear that his Jesus was not historical and matches the Mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

The Pauline Jesus was a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

Stringbean

AA what do you make of this?

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 29). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

He makes this statement on page 29 in his review of the Jesus Mysteries. My opinion, even this is not a conformation of an historical Jesus so what is Erhman getting at here? Is he implying that because Paul mentions Jesus that this makes him historical?

Pardon me but I fail to see the connection of something being mentioned and something actually existing.

ApostateAbe

I think it is important to distinguish between (a) arguments in favor of a historical Jesus and (b) counter-arguments against arguments in favor of a non-historical Jesus.

In this case, we have (b), not (a). He has (a) elsewhere in his book, but the ethical teachings of Jesus per Paul are not relevant to (a). If Paul were truly silent with respect to the teachings of the historical Jesus, then it may follow that it is more likely Jesus never existed. The claim is not true, Paul is not silent, and Ehrman's point is effective for striking down a popular argument in favor of a non-historical Jesus, but that same point would not be as relevant for establishing a historical Jesus.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

I am curious about your use of the term "Refudiating."

I had never heard the word before. This is what I found when I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary:

Refudiate
***
When Sarah Palin decides regular English words aren't good enough, she'll just go ahead and make a new one. Here, Refudiate bridges the gap between "refuse" and "repudiate", to mean exactly what she wants it to mean.
"The President and his wife ... they can refudiate what this group (the NAACP) is saying." - Sarah Palin, on F-F-Fox News
buy refudiate mugs & shirts
refudiate refuse sarah palin fox news portmanteau
by Nashsibanda Jul 16, 2010 add a video
2. Refudiate

A made-up English word: a combination of two legitimate words; "refute" and "repudiate". This is similar to George W. Bush's use of the word "misunderestimate" several years prior.

Used by Sarah Palin multiple times in print and conversation, she claims her use of "refudiate" is simply her "contributing to the living language" and justifying her ignorance by saying that "Shakespeare liked to coin new words too".

Despite the best efforts of the GOP and Tea Party spin doctors, its clear to everyone who wasn't home-schooled that she's a fucking idiot.
She (Palin) asked Michelle Obama to “refudiate” claims that the Tea Party movement is racist.
***
Is your use of the term in so some way related to an endorsement of Sarah Palin's use of the term?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ApostateAbe

PhilosopherJay, I use the word "refudiate" to mean: "attempt and seemingly fail to refute." I was inspired by Sarah Palin's coiniating of the term, and I am following in her footsteps.

aa5874

Ehrman's" Did Jesus Exist?" is riddled with logical fallacies.

It is now without any reasonable doubt that the HJ of Nazareth argument cannot be defended.

Stringbean

Yeah I guess the HJers will have to go with their blitz package.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

Reminds me of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson:

****
Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
****

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ApostateAbe

One of my favorite poems was written by the same author in that same spirit. Jabberwock, composed largely of words that mean whatever you wish they mean, just like any good poem.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.