Solo

I take it you haven't read the book, Stephan. On page 5, Ehrman compares "mythicists" to Holocaust deniers. I am not surprised by the vitriol thrown back at him. The book is for all intents and purposes, worthless. He did not do his homework.

Its only utility that I can see is that it confirms Albert Schweitzer's observation that the debates on Jesus existence do not generally distinguish themselves by great intellectual acuity. There some great lines of his that are well worth recalling in the matter of the latest tempest in a teapot:

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

i had the book in my hand at Barnes and Noble. to be honest i thought it looked boring. still two wrongs dont make a right. ehrman has made explicit what was always implicit. now its the job of the mythicists to answer

tanya

Sure, and you are correct, no doubt, Jiri, thanks. Here's a thumbs up:
:thumbs:

OK, but, that's not what Michael wrote. The point of the thread is to criticize Michael's attempt at a book review. I claim it has begun in excellent fashion. Stephan disputes that assessment, and thus, your correct opinion (or, at least, correct to my way of thinking!!) about Ehrman's book is irrelevant.

What we need is not to heap more abuse on Ehrman, but to clarify why Michael's review is deficient. I claim it is going along smooth as silk, Stephan disputes this unduly facile opinion.

key word: "apparently". Though your comment, Stephan, and mine, following, are all off-topic, here is my reply:

What the Ante-Nicene "Patristic" writers support, with their gossip, Stephan, is not an historical figure, but a mythical creature, elaborated by the gospel writers and "Paul".

Please show me ONE "early witness who supports the historical nature of the Jesus ministry". You cannot produce even ONE witness to the Jesus ministry.

If Spiderman quotes Batman, who observed Superman lifting a heavy truck, does that mean we should invest in Kryptonite extraction in the famous mine located just north of Great Bear Lake in Northwest Territories, south of Inuvik, and Northeast of the MacKenzie River?

Vorkosigan

I never thought Ehrman was a mythicist. Why would I criticize him for not adopting mythicism? I've never hacked on any other NT scholar for that!

Ehrman's book is so disappointing because it is so awful. Godfrey has already piled up a bunch of misrepresentations of mythicists that look pretty serious. Did Stephen Huller even go over to Vridar and look?

It would be helpful if Huller could point out some exact quotes.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

no i admit that reading the book is way down on my list of things to do - down with getting a Brazilian bikini wax. my only observation is that the argument gets too emotional for my liking, especially with steve Carr's near evangelic zeal for the cause. there is no slam dunk with respect to the evidence for either side. its very much like predicting which way the election will go in november. we should demonize ehrman for merely arguing for an opposing pov. that doesn't make him an apologist. whether he misrepresents doherty is another issue. ehrman is often vilified here merely for taking the evidence at face value.

Vorkosigan

Where do I demonize Ehrman? Once again you're living in Stephen Huller fantasy world -- discussing a review you don't understand about a text you haven't read, in terms of your own prejudices. I went out of my way to contextualize the debate properly, and did not engage in vituperative personalities -- certainly not like Ehrman did!

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

There's a perfect example of this partisanship. I never said you demonize Ehrman. I merely observed that this:

is an overstatement. He hasn't 'given us' catechism. He just has decided to take the source material more or less at face value. When I was at Barnes and Noble I did take fifteen minutes to basically scan over the argument he puts forward. Yes, it's predictable but that doesn't mean that he is 'giving us mere catechism.' He's just saying that you can't ignore the early testimonies of the Church Fathers.

This has always been my beef with the 'mythicists.' What do you do with all the testimonies which say that Jesus was a man? I know what I do with it - I put forward the Alexandrian tradition as a foil. But the idea that you people just read the Catholic canonical gospels and epistles AS IF it were intended to support the idea of a wholly supernatural Jesus is intellectually dishonest.

stephan huller

And I am not going get dragged into a partisan debate either. The ultimate question is can any of us be sure about the identity of Jesus. I think anyone who claims certainty or that the evidence only supports his side in the debate is fooling himself. The evidence is ambiguous. But I do think that it comes down to Alexandria versus the Catholic tradition. We can say with some degree of certainty that the Alexandrians thought Jesus was a god and Irenaeus - and whatever support he had from earlier witnesses - vehemently disagreed. That's all we can be certain about.

stephan huller

The 'vitriol' I reference is Steve Carr's repetitious claims that because Bart Ehrman doesn't agree with him 'he's finished' or that he's 'trashed his reputation.' The ant trying to move the rubber plant was less deluded.

Vorkosigan

LOL. Then stop posting on this!!!!! Really, this passive-aggressive "I'm Ok You're ideological" commentary of yours is hogwash.