Tom Verenna

I have a lot of professional respect for Ehrman, but he is not as up to speed on many things. In many of his textbooks he relies on dated scholarship from when he was in Grad School (Talbert's What is a Gospel was excellent for its day, but dated when compared to Michael Vines, Mary Ann Tolbert, or even Roland Boer's volume of collected essays on genre--and some of these are dangerously approaching a decade old). It's a common phenomena, however. Ehrman is not alone among scholars whose busy agendas and work loads have hindered their abilities to stay on top of many issues.

Further, do not underestimate the belittlement of mythicism in scholarship from some circles--particularly in America. Mythicism is an annoyance more than it is a relevant issue. So some scholars, even the most ardent skeptics, just don't care enough about mythicism to look into it at all. So it is not a surprise to find that scholars only know about the term through ridicule or scoff or some internet blog, and know absolutely nothing about Carrier or Thompson, or even Price for that matter. Ehrman wasn't even aware of Price's books on the subject when he interviewed for the Infidel Guy some years back.

Still, I will give Ehrman some credit where its due. It is my understanding that he's been at this longer than six months. I know some of my colleagues have been in dialogue with Ehrman over the issue for at least as long but Ehrman has been talking about writing a book on the matter for a few years now. I suppose he doesn't have to rush, and hes the only scholar I know who can say that. He's too busy rolling around in his big pile of money. ;-)

Yes you are right. I apologize if what I wrote came off this way. I should be more clear: Internet mythicism is often lumped together with Zeitgeist/Acharya S and that is mainly because the latter used the former to promote. And, unfortunately, they also have the louder voices.

Doug Shaver

An argument can consist simply of a presentation of the evidence, and certainly ought to at least include such a presentation.

Solo

Why have a trial when the prosecutor has evidence to convict ?

Jiri

Chocky

Well, I hope so. I am writing my MA thesis on recent mythicism and I thought it was helpful for the research proposal to be able to say that a big-name scholar like Ehrman was actually writing on the topic. It's not encouraging at all that he didn't know about the above. :frown:

DCHindley

There is a difference between basic facts (this or that thing is said about this or that person in document/inscription X) and interpreted facts. Historical Interpretations do involve argumentative strategies. So, HJ proponents argue that this evidence supports a HJ. MJ proponents argue the opposite. Arguments, though, are only as good as the assumptions that go into them.

The Fundamentalist who assumes that the Byzantine/Received text NT is inerrant will argue that its evidence holds more weight, and thus proves the HJ. He can now sleep at night confident that his faith is confirmed, and contrary evidence from other sources such as papyri is the seed of the devil.

The Atheist who assumed that everything from antiquity is suspect simply because it was transmitted via Christian hands, argues that no evidence is trustworthy enough to prove a HJ. Now he can sleep at night no longer haunted by the injustices he feels he has endured at the hands of Christians.

DCH

Tom Verenna

Well, Ehrman is big name, but he's also sensational at times. Thomas Thompson is both well-known in his field and well-respected, even by those who oppose his perspectives. And his book The Messiah Myth is one of the best I've read on the subject.

yalla

Is this dinkum?
That a scholar such as Ehrman is not aware of Thompson's books?
Really?
I find that .....[I'm searching for a non-commital euphemism] ....interesting.

stephan huller

It wouldn't surprise me. Specialists in one field tend to have limited knowledge of things outside their comfort zone. Thompson is truly one of the great scholars of this generation. His wife, well, she's solid like an old table I guess.

I was surprised and pleased to see that the Messiah Myth has already been translated into Arabic and Greek. Maybe that's an encouraging sign that his works will have greater influence outside of the English language.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

I'm not sure whether we are arguing at cross-purposes.

My main point was that history of religion (Religionsgeschichte) is being used here to describe a specific type of academic approach to the study of religion. It is more specific than 'scholars interested in religious history'.

See Biblical Interpretation - History of Religion

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

When all else fails bring in the German. The only language for scholarship. So precise. Germans have a natural advantage for thinking clearly. Although it can be taken to absurdity a la Heidegger. Although he certainly had his brilliant moments too - "Geschichte im eigentlichsten Sinne ist der hochste Gegenstand der Religion, mit ihr hebt sie an und endigt mit ihr" Phänomenologie des Religiösen Lebens 60, 322, citing Schleiermacher