stephan huller

But the fact that you accuse Ehrman of doing a wrong doesn't make it right when you do the same thing. I think that being a pseudo-scholar criticizing a real scholar is often an unfair fight because all we do is drag the 'real scholars' down to our level. Why not read the book before attacking it for its short comings? Isn't that fair?

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how Ehrman screwed this up. The bust Acharya references is a bust of Priapus, not Peter. Ehrman says:
Ehrman's objection here is Acharya's identification of the image as Peter, when it's Priapus. Acharya apparently supports this identification by arguing that "Peter/Petra" was a slang word for a schlong (just like "cock" and "peter" both have those meanings in Modern English), but I don't see (in portion quoted) any actual attestation of "peter" being used that way in 1st century Greek or Latin, nor does she make a case that anyone ever identified Simon/Kefas/Peter as either a rooster or a penis, and certainly did not make a case that a contemporary viewer of that bust would think it was the Apostle Peter.

Plus, we know it's Priapus. When was Peter ever identified with Priapus? Priapus was portrayed (almost literally) as a walking hard on. A completely sexual entity. Peter is anything but a sexualized entity, nor is he a generative entity. he was presumed to have been celibate, was he not? How does a celibate Priapus figure make any sense?

Acharya is annoyed that Ehrman insinuates she might have drawn the image herself (though Ehrman couches it with a question mark), and it appears he might not have been aware that this particular bust existed (though I would say that he should not be expected to have a mental catalog of every pagan sculpture in the Vatican archive), and it's true that his tone towards Acharya is dimissive, but those are elements of style, not factual accuracy. Acharya does not give any real reason to identify that scupture with Peter. Even "SOTHR KOSMOU" is not something associated with Peter.

ApostateAbe

When Bart Ehrman makes a claim about ancient history, he takes the readers directly to the ancient historical evidence. You may either agree or disagree with the conclusions, but this is good practice of a historian. Acharya S did not do this. She did not take the reader directly to the ancient historical evidence. Instead, she took the reader directly to another previous modern author, who did the same thing in turn--merely repeated the same claim and cited another previous modern author. I am not completely unappreciative--it is great that Acharya S did the detective work to backtrack the claim to 19th century sources, and it leads me to think that there is something to this--maybe it really was a pagan Greek artifact, molded either before the rise of Christianity or after, and it is now hidden in the Vatican museum because a cardinal thinks it comes off as a bawdy satire of Christianity. Either that, or it was constructed by a 19th-century pagan or a satirist who fooled a few people into believing it was ancient. Either way, those considerations would be much easier if Acharya S went directly to the earliest and most reliable sources in existence, which is certainly not Barbara Walker's The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. Good scholarship is something you do the first time you publish a book, not something you do on your blog only after your book is published and criticized.

Dave31

That's false, if you read the blog she traces back much farther than that.
It wasn't nearly as easy to track down in 1999 as it is today. The fact remains that Errorman didn't even check into this at all. Errorman failed to even notice that Acharya did cite someone else for the drawling i.e. Walker.

Dr. Robert Price is right, Ehrman's book is a "hack job," so Abe, are you going to harass Errorman for it for years on end like you have been with Acharya for what like 8 years? What Ehrman did by falsely accusing her of making it up is libelous, which is far worse than anything Acharya S has ever done.

Dave31

That's just not anywhere near an accurate reading at all. It's as if you haven't read Acharya's blog mopping the floor with Ehrman's sloppy and egregious errors. Here's what Dr. Price posted in Acharya's blog as he obviously sides with her on this issue:

Errorman makes no mention of Priapus. At least it doesn't show up when I do a Google book search for it.

No, Acharya is annoyed with the fact that Errorman accuses her of making things up when he could easily have performed a cursory search to discover otherwise. That's libel. Errorman failed to even notice the fact that Acharya's book does in fact cite someone else. So, questioning if Acharya drew that image just shows that Errorman didn't even read the book he was criticizing. When it comes to the subject of mythicism Errorman simply cannot be trusted. It's why Errorman's reliability and credibility are now ruined.

Ehrman owes Acharya S a public apology and retraction for falsely accusing her of making things up.

GakuseiDon

Wow! Dr Robert M Price has posted on Acharya S's forum thread on "The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican":

http://www.truthbeknown.com/freethou...e-vatican.html

I am truly amazed at the mudslinging in Did Jesus Exist! And the blatant errors! I am really shocked Bart would issue a rag like this. I fear his credibility will suffer from this hack job.

By the way, at the Jesus in History and Myth conference (CFI) in March 1985, one of the speakers showed a slide of a photo of a crucifix statue from some Scandinavian church featuring Jesus suspended from what was unmistakably a huge penis!

The issue seems to be Ehrman's statement in "Did Jesus Exist?"

"'Peter' is not only 'the rock' but also 'the cock,' or penis, as the word is use as slang to this day." Here Acharya shows (her own?) hand drawing of a man with a rooster head but with a large erect penis instead of a nose, with this description: "Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasure [sic] of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" (295). [There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up.]

So is Dr Price saying that Ehrman is wrong and Acharya S is right? Is there a penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican? Was that resolved? I couldn't see it in Acharya S's article.

Diogenes the Cynic

There was no error on Ehrman's part. the issue is not the existence of that statue, but Acharya's identification of the statue as Peter (it's not, it's Priapus").

Toto

Acharya S's source for the claim that the cock represents St Peter is Barbara Walker, not considered to be a reliable source by a lot of people - but it looks like Barbara Walker is right this time.

about St Peter

This may have some connection to Peter denying Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed, or that might be a cover for the real meaning...

It is still not clear that this particular cock represents St. Peter, but symbologists can read a lot into anything.

Diogenes the Cynic

Acharya does not make a case that there was any connection between Peter and Penis, or support her contention that Peter was a slang word for penis or had any association with it.

The statue in question is Priapus. Acharya gives no reason to identify it as Peter except through some kind of magic rings connection of "Peter" to "penis" by way of a rooster. The argument from Modern English dick slang. I do not believe she has made a case that a person living in 2nd Century Rome would see that statue and think it was the Apostle Peter.

aa5874

Please tell us of "The EVIDENCE" that HJ did EXIST from Ehrman. You seem to know what is wrong with Achyara's position but we cant get "the EVIDENCE" for HJ.

In gMatthew the Son of a Ghost came from Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

Please tell me if your HJ came from Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate???