Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 11-21-2011, 11:47 PM

It appears that the date of Bart Ehrman's book establishing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, has been put back to March 2012.

Vorkosigan · 11-22-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It appears that the date of Bart Ehrman's book establishing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, has been put back to March 2012.

Conspiracy theorists will want to know WHY!

mountainman · 11-22-2011, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It appears that the date of Bart Ehrman's book establishing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, has been put back to March 2012.

Conspiracy theorists will want to know WHY!

Bart's polishing the armour plating on his historicity halo.

Solo · 11-22-2011, 05:39 AM

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena · 11-22-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

Could very well be - he got stuck some place......
Reading the riot act to the ahistoricists looks to be not as straightforward as he might want.....

aa5874 · 11-22-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

There is NO such claim in gMark. Please, there is no need to invent stories that are no where in gMark.

JonA · 11-22-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

As far as I know, Ehrman never attempts to argue for the historicity of the resurrection.

So I don't see how he could have gotten stuck on that point.

And where the hell does Mark ever talk about Paul?

Jon

Solo · 11-22-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

As far as I know, Ehrman never attempts to argue for the historicity of the resurrection.

So I don't see how he could have gotten stuck on that point.

He argues that the disciples (whom he believes were historical entourage of Jesus) in time of Paul claimed they saw Jesus post-mortem. This of course rests with on the genuineness of 1 Cr 15:3-11 passage which some mythicists (and skeptics like myself) believe was not written by Paul. Now, he could have got stuck right there. His belief in the historicity could be undermined, or challenged, when he discovers plausible alternatives to interpreting Paul's knowledge of James, the brother of the Lord, as indication he was kin to Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

And where the hell does Mark ever talk about Paul?

Jon

He doesn't. Look up the word oblique in a dictionary.

Best,
Jiri

Solo · 11-22-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

Could very well be - he got stuck some place......
Reading the riot act to the ahistoricists looks to be not as straightforward as he might want.....

I know that he has somewhat naive view of certain matters (as I had exchange of e-mails with him), and I suspect it is because he has not had much exposure to the alternative points of view. He simply dismisses them. I quoted to him Schweitzer, "even those who do not entirely agree with the radicalism of Robertson, Jensen, Smith and Drews assume it self-evident that the life of Jesus originated largely in myths – even though a historical core might be acknowledged. Anyone who does not accept this view runs the risk of being considered out of touch” to make a point that he took mythicism seriously. Ehrman wrote back that Schweitzer was opposed to mythicism which roundly missed my point.

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena · 11-22-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians !

Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body !

Best,
Jiri

Could very well be - he got stuck some place......
Reading the riot act to the ahistoricists looks to be not as straightforward as he might want.....

I know that he has somewhat naive view of certain matters (as I had exchange of e-mails with him), and I suspect it is because he has not had much exposure to the alternative points of view. He simply dismisses them. I quoted to him Schweitzer, "even those who do not entirely agree with the radicalism of Robertson, Jensen, Smith and Drews assume it self-evident that the life of Jesus originated largely in myths – even though a historical core might be acknowledged. Anyone who does not accept this view runs the risk of being considered out of touch” to make a point that he took mythicism seriously. Ehrman wrote back that Schweitzer was opposed to mythicism which roundly missed my point.

Best,
Jiri

Hopefully, taking no bets though - if he is now stuck, or at least having to pause, bodes well for his honesty. Having to finally get to grips with the huge issues involved might just have induced a significant degree of caution. I'm sure he will be aware that his ebook is going to get pulled to pieces online from the ahistoricists/mythicists - no 'scholarly' restraint will be coming his way....:devil3:

11-21-2011, 11:47 PM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Ehrman's book postponed It appears that the date of Bart Ehrman's book establishing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, has been put back to March 2012.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-22-2011, 05:39 AM	#4
Solo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2,579	The two things we already know about Ehrman are that he is nobody's fool and that he is thorough. That he got stuck some place might be a natural consequence of his view that the texts have been extensively forged. It might be easy to defend the gospels as historically reliable by someone like Craig Evans, but Ehrman knows that the text accounts are not disinterested accounts on any point. Maybe, he realized - as none of the learned scholars seems to yet - that if Mark ended at 16:8, Jesus did not appear to his disciples until Matthew contradicted Mark's gospel. That would be a huge revelation to Christians ! Mark tells us obliquely that Jesus was not preached as rising from the dead until Paul received the news in his body ! Best, Jiri

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.