Vorkosigan

LOL. Propaganda piled on propaganda. As Carrier notes:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026/
""Ehrman says “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” the passage about Christians in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Now, I agree with Ehrman that it’s “highly unlikely” this passage wasn’t what Tacitus wrote; but the fact that he doesn’t know of the many classical scholars who have questioned it suggests he didn’t check. See Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964–68),” The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970), pp. 253-66 [and in 80.2 (Nov.–Dec. 1986)], who identifies no less than six classical scholars who have questioned its authenticity, three arguing it’s an outright interpolation and three arguing it has been altered or tampered with [correction: he names five scholars, one of them arguing in part for both--ed.]. This is important, because part of Ehrman’s argument is that mythicists are defying all established scholarship in suggesting this is an interpolation, so the fact that there is a lot of established scholarship supporting them undermines Ehrman’s argument and makes him look irresponsible.""

Just another error of Ehrman's

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

Yes, Ehrman seems not to have considered that the several instances of Aramaic words could have come from an author who spoke Aramaic and wanted to show off his learning.

The fact that Aramaic was widely spoken in Judea and Galilee is a little known fact today, but would not have been a little known fact in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. It would have been common knowledge, especially to anyone who grew up in or visited those areas.

We may find an analogy in the play/movie "West Side Story." Spanish words are sprinkled throughout the production. For example, in the opening dance sequences you hear phrases like "Mira, mira," and "Esta aqui," and we find it in bits of dialogue:

According to Ehrman's logic, this would make the characters of West Side Story historical. Yet, we know that the characters, as well as the plot, were based mainly on the fictional characters in William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet"

At best, the use of a few Aramaic expressions actually proves that at least one author of the Gospel material knew that Aramaic was commonly spoken in Judea and Galilee and knew a few Aramaic words.

The fact that Ehrman takes this use of Aramaic instead to argue for an historical Jesus points to the weakness of the Historical Jesus case. He would not need to bring forth such a weak argument if there were stronger arguments.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

I don't think Ehrman is claiming that the passage has never been challenged by serious classical scholars.

His claim is that there are no currently active classicists of note who regard the passage as an interpolation.

Andrew Criddle

anethema

i think this again seperates the men from the boys so to speak. real historians dont regard the NT as historical, its a question of genre case closed. acharya has done a yoepersons amount of research to bring forth a mouse. errorman depends on his little niche to support his libels and there"s really no one to refute him from the mainstream. because the mainstream is is an artificial construct. as ive said before its similar to dems & reps in the US, they speak different languages and have vastly different agendas. none of them is interested in real historical truth, ala israel finklestein and the real historians of the ancient near east.

anethema

i dont care if anyone is atheist, antitheist, antimisquitoto, or antidisestablishmentatarian, this should not be about ideas. the remains can tell us what happened to acertain extent. thats why have a certain grudging admiration for aa's viewpoint. for hundreds of years people believed that slaves built the pyramids, only to find out wow the workmens village and graveyard which attested to free men accomplishing this extraordinary task. do i expect to find the same for ancient Xian origins? no , but one never knows does one?

GakuseiDon

I was going to point this out as well, as I went into the details of Carrier's criticisms and Ehrman's responses when Carrier's review came out. I was going to add this to my review pages on my website, but didn't go ahead, since it doesn't move the debate on the main topic on any.

Anyway, below is Ehrman's response to Carrier's criticism. On the same page that Vork uses for Ehrman's earlier quote, Ehrman also writes:
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

While I’m on the Tacitus reference. At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55). Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong. As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.

In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t... my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.

Richard Carrier responds to Ehrman's comments above in the following link. Below is an excerpt:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1151/

Ehrman says now, “my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.” This I would credit as a fair statement (assuming, again, that he checked), but it’s not what he says in the book (nor does he now mention whether Benario’s subsequent surveys document anyone rebutting the scholarship he summarized on this passage before; just because the topic didn’t come up in later years doesn’t mean it has been universally rejected, or even rebutted, a fallacious kind of inference that typifies Ehrman’s continual shortcomings in logic). In fact, if all Ehrman meant were that no current Tacitus expert doubts the passage, then his book’s argument doesn’t hold up. He would have to change that argument to make this new premise work.

It must also be noted that Ehrman still doesn’t admit that he tars the competence of mythicists when he tells his readers (and regardless of what he meant, what his readers will take him to mean is the issue: because it is that that I have to constantly correct and therefore makes the book bad) that no competent expert would ever agree with them and that they are the only ones coming up with these ideas. But if serious qualified experts had the same notions, that seriously alters the entire impression of the matter. It’s not a crazy idea coming out of left field anymore. It’s just wrong. And the difference is huge. This should be particularly clear to someone who acts like such criticisms are personal attacks and unfair. Ehrman made his opponents look crazier and less competent than they are. That is much more of an unfair personal attack than what Ehrman is putting up with from me (since unlike him, I am accurately representing what he said). That he doesn’t even see this plank in his own eye while complaining about the splinter in ours is ironic coming from an expert on Jesus.

This is the original quote from Ehrman in his book:

Some mythicists argue that this reference in Tacitus was not actually written by him—they claim the same thing for Pliny and Suetonius, where the references are less important— but were inserted into his writings (interpolated) by Christians who copied them, producing the manuscripts of Tacitus we have today. (We have no originals, only later copies.) I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who thinks this, and it seems highly unlikely.

Carrier agrees with Ehrman that the Tacitus passage being a forgery is "highly unlikely".

Vorkosigan

Why yes, Carrier thinks it is not a forgery, but that is not his point. His point is that Ehrman is consistently sloppy and the remarks on the Tacitus reference show that.

aa5874

You statement has no real value.

Scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin places it hundreds of years after the 1st century.

C14 analysis of ancients manuscripts have NOT revealed any Jesus story from the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Examination of Tacitus Annals by ultraviolet light shows that there was manipulation.

Based on Scientific theory the human body cannot walk on water.

Based on Biology the conception and birth of Jesus is not probable.

Based on Scientific theories, the actions and miracles of Jesus cannot be reproduced by any experiment known to human beings.

And further, the DATA in the NT presently available would be immediately dumped as garbage by Scientists.

The HJ argument is "failure of facts and logics".

aa5874

Actual Evidence has more value than expert opnion.

Ultra violet light shows that Tacitus Annals was Manipulated.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus...and_Chrestians

We cannot be going over the same forgery.

There was no-one called Jesus Christ in the 1st century.

There was someone called Chrestus during the time of Claudius. See Suetonius "Life of Claudius".

Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic Ruler in Hebrew Scripture based on Wars of the Jews by Josephus, Tacitus "Histories" and Suetonius "Life of Vespasian".

GakuseiDon

Right. So Ehrman's point -- that the Tacitus passage being a forgery is "highly unlikely" -- is reasonable and Carrier agrees with it. On to Carrier's point then. Can you show how the remarks by Ehrman on the Tacitus reference are sloppy please? The link to Ehrman's response is here:
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Ehrman's comments on this start from around here:

In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation. What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t. I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today.

And end here:

I think that’s enough to settle it. I really don’t think what I said was “irresponsible,” “sloppy,” or “crap.”

Can you quote what Ehrman actually says on this (not what Carrier claims Ehrman is saying or should have said!) and show where he is sloppy please?