Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I always get the impression that Ehrman is speaking to a class of southern college students who have been indoctrinated into the idea that the Bible is the font of all knowledge, wisdom, and certainty. He knows that what he is telling them is almost too radical for them to absorb as it is, and anything more might provoke a riot.

Having a passing interest in these issues and no technical expertise at all I shall restrict myself to the tone of the quotation in the OP. As a university lecturer I was conscious of the resentment of students when they feel that they are being talked down to. In my opinion Ehrman is talking down to the reader. The tone, as you might, children, have noticed, is strongly reminiscent of that adopted by C. S. Lewis in the Narnia stories.

Yeah, I would expect based on his writings that he would come off as kind of a dick in his lectures, but, surprisingly enough, I went to RateMyProfessors.com, and his students seem to love him. His biggest downside according to the raters is that it is difficult to get a high grade in his course.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Show...jsp?tid=669818

aa5874 · 07-11-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I recommend Argument to the Best Explanation for deciding whether or not the gospels were written as fiction or not....

Argument to the Best Explanation supports Myth Jesus.

We have PRIMA FACIE evidence in the very Gospels. Unlike Herod the King, Tiberius the Caesar, Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, John the Baptist, and Herod Philip the tetrarach, Jesus was targeted and described in no uncertain terms multiple times as the Child of the Holy Ghost.

The Argument to the Best Explanation supports the theory that Jesus was just a story that was BELIEVED to be true by people of antiquity.

When all the ABUNDANCE of evidence is applied to the Argument to the Best Explanation, it is clear Jesus is BEST EXPLAINED by Mythology based on the PRIMA FACIE written evidence of myth in antiquity.

Toto · 07-11-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... We obviously can't use ANY historical methodology for known-to-be-fictional texts. ...

So if I know that Mark is fictional, this is all irrelevant.

Quote:

In those peculiar cases where we have not yet decided that the written texts do not belong in the fictional genres, then all such criteria are useless.

The point of this exercise is to find the historical Jesus. We don't know if Mark is fictional or not. Are you saying this thread is a waste?

Quote:

We need to take a step backward and decide the fundamental stuff. I recommend Argument to the Best Explanation for deciding whether or not the gospels were written as fiction or not. There is a thread on the topic here:

Bart Ehrman on the genre of the gospels (Greco-Roman biographies) and Neil Godfrey

I just went back and reread that thread. Your arguments were notably unpersuasive.

Toto · 07-11-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I always get the impression that Ehrman is speaking to a class of southern college students who have been indoctrinated into the idea that the Bible is the font of all knowledge, wisdom, and certainty. He knows that what he is telling them is almost too radical for them to absorb as it is, and anything more might provoke a riot.

Having a passing interest in these issues and no technical expertise at all I shall restrict myself to the tone of the quotation in the OP. As a university lecturer I was conscious of the resentment of students when they feel that they are being talked down to. In my opinion Ehrman is talking down to the reader. The tone, as you might, children, have noticed, is strongly reminiscent of that adopted by C. S. Lewis in the Narnia stories.

That quote is from an introductory textbook for undergraduates. You can find various lectures and debates on youtube with Ehrman, and he does not come across that way in person.

PhilosopherJay · 07-11-2011, 10:10 AM

Hi beallen041,

Are you saying that Hercules didn't actually kill his wife and three children and that was just a fictional plot point? By Zeus, I am shocked.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

I guess using this criteria we can verify that Sherlock Holmes both existed and was a cocaine addict, since this embarrassing fact would not have gotten written about unless it were true. We can also conclude that Anakin Skywalker actually was brought over to the dark side and actually existed. According to this logic, no author ever manufactures an embarrassing fact to drive a plot point or create drama or tension.

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2011, 10:45 AM

beallen041, by the way, feel free to bump that old thread.

beallen041 · 07-11-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi beallen041,

Are you saying that Hercules didn't actually kill his wife and three children and that was just a fictional plot point? By Zeus, I am shocked.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Jay, thanks for the heads up on Hercules, they never included that story in the cartoons I watched as a kid or on the Kevin Sorbo TV show, so it is not as multiply attested as we would wish, however, this may show the embarrassment more fully and therefore strengthen the idea that it is historical.

Steven Carr · 07-11-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

I guess using this criteria we can verify that Sherlock Holmes both existed and was a cocaine addict, since this embarrassing fact would not have gotten written about unless it were true.

Experimenting with cocaine?

'From a modern viewpoint this would be inconceivable, but in the late 19th century there was no moral, medical or legal censure on such exploration. '

'The retired Surgeon General of the U. S. Army extolled its fatigue reduction and mood-elevating properties, while others vigorously promoted cocaine as an anaesthetic, a cure for alcoholism and opium abuse. Freud’s endorsement of cocaine at the time was extreme, suggesting that its therapeutic use might even do away with inebriate asylums'

It became embarrassing later.

That what is written is embarrassing to later people is usually not embarrassing to the writer. People who write generally want to write the words they do write.

beallen041 · 07-11-2011, 04:07 PM

Steven, yes. To suggest that someone in the present can know the entire cultural matrix of a person in the past and assess whether they are or aren't embarrassed by something is a perilous task. It requires rigorous documentation and understanding of alternative practices within extant cultures of the time (especially in cosmopolitan eras like the present and in the Imperial Roman era), as well as certain knowledge of the intent of the writer.

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

I guess using this criteria we can verify that Sherlock Holmes both existed and was a cocaine addict, since this embarrassing fact would not have gotten written about unless it were true.

Experimenting with cocaine?

'From a modern viewpoint this would be inconceivable, but in the late 19th century there was no moral, medical or legal censure on such exploration. '

'The retired Surgeon General of the U. S. Army extolled its fatigue reduction and mood-elevating properties, while others vigorously promoted cocaine as an anaesthetic, a cure for alcoholism and opium abuse. Freud’s endorsement of cocaine at the time was extreme, suggesting that its therapeutic use might even do away with inebriate asylums'

It became embarrassing later.

That what is written is embarrassing to later people is usually not embarrassing to the writer. People who write generally want to write the words they do write.

IIUC Holmes is not mentioned as using cocaine in the very late stories by Doyle. Public opinion was by that time turning against such behaviour.

Andrew Criddle

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

07-11-2011, 10:45 AM	#76
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	beallen041, by the way, feel free to bump that old thread.

07-11-2011, 04:07 PM	#79
beallen041 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: S. Nevada Posts: 45	Steven, yes. To suggest that someone in the present can know the entire cultural matrix of a person in the past and assess whether they are or aren't embarrassed by something is a perilous task. It requires rigorous documentation and understanding of alternative practices within extant cultures of the time (especially in cosmopolitan eras like the present and in the Imperial Roman era), as well as certain knowledge of the intent of the writer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.