Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think Paul knew much about what Jesus had actually said or cared. Paul's interest was in the crucifixion/resurrection only. He thought the resurrection was ipso facto evidence of the imminent resurrection and judgement of the dead - that Jesus was the "firstfruit" pending the final harvest.

He also had no reason to talk about Temple destruction prophecies to Gentiles with no connection to it. The Christian movement was already a rejection of the Temple institution, and he was already preaching a universal apocalypse anyway, so singling out the Temple in particular would have been superfluous in his pitches to Gentiles outside of Palestine. What did they care about the Temple?

outhouse

Im not sure paul believed a word of what he wrote.


I dont think a jew killer turned into a jew preacher. Maybe he figured iinstead of wiping them out, he could steer them instead of murdering them.

outhouse

not only that the tension was there to begin with, the people knew despite the fact they were going to loose, they would still be going to war.

it amazes me how people try and not place the context of the time when talking about the coming kingdom of god, life was so jacked for these poor jews, they were basically ready to commit suicide then live their lives in slavery to romans and the roman infected temple/bank

EarlDoherty

I'm not sure whether this is a tempest in a teapot, and I'm not sure I follow the thread or purpose of your argument (I may have missed earlier postings on it and where it's coming from), but I have no interest in getting involved in this. I've got bigger fish to fry.

But as to the claim in the final sentence of your above quote, I'll simply throw 1 Cor. 8:6 onto the pile:

"For us there is one God the Father from whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him."

Am I missing something here? I guess that makes this an interpolation.

Earl Doherty

Solo

Ehrman does not say it like that, but in fairness, it is easy to see how people would get that impression. He is all over the place. There is a chapter titled Aramaic Sources of (Some) Oral Traditions . He argues that this is evidenced by some Aramaic sayings, eg. in Mark. But to claim that the Aramaisms are themselves evidence of Aramaic origin of the traditions is transparent nonsense: Mark could have used 'Abba, Talitha cumi, Eloi, eloi...' simply as a technique of creating an aura of authenticity for his fiction scenes to woo and wow Aramaic speakers. Luke in Acts 1:18-19 uses the Aramaic word 'Akeldama' to support his fantastic tale of divine revenge in which Judas' gut was spilled by suggesting that the verity of this tale is evidenced by an Aramaic name for the place of ill--gotten gain where it supposedly happened. Ehrman evidently believes this story to be authentic (p 107), and overlooking that it is Luke's editorial comment, ascribes it to Peter's speech, which makes the suggestion even more absurd. An assertion that the place acquired a name among the general population in Jerusalem just a few days after it happened, is something one would expect from the likes of Benny Hinn, not a respectable scholar like Bart Ehrman.

Ironically, the only convincing argument he produces in the chapter is the one from John 3, he throws in as an obverse to a case he never made, which presupposes Greek as the language of the conversation to understand that "born again" was used by Jesus as a pun. Funny that Jesus can be quickly shown as a wit in Greek and not his native language.

Ehrman does make a bewildering statement about the Gospel traditions which he asserts "certainly go back to Aramaic originals [sic]" (p.91)

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is utterly erroneous that "there is no empirical doubt that Matthew and Luke used prior written sources" when Scholars themselves do NOT all agree with your claim.

This is the sort of thing that is quite Terifying on these threads. You come across as one who is NOT familiar with Scholarship or is making attempts to mis-lead.

Please, please, please. This is BC&H. Some here are now behaving as if we are in some kind of cult where we are to be brainwashed.

It is beyond all hope of reason when people admit that the author of gMatthew copied gMark but fail to admit that the author of gLuke could have copied gMatthew.

It is most reasonable and logical to deduce that the birth narratives of Jesus in gMatthew and gLuke MUST have been made up so it is therefore quite reasonable and logical that other events or all events could have been made up.

There is ZERO empirical evidence that the so-called common material in gMatthew and gLuke must have come from a common source.

Soon we may see people putting forward the ridiculous notion that similarities in the Septuagint and Hebrew Scripture MUST mean there was an EARLIER source!!!

EarlDoherty

I hope that all of you are following the postings on Vridar by Neil Godfrey relating to Bart Ehrman’s presentation of statements and arguments in my book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. (Sorry, I don’t know how to retrieve the actual link location of the Vridar posting to insert it here.)

What Neil has focused on in this posting ("Bart Ehrman’s false or careless assertions and quotations concerning Earl Doherty"), the first of several he plans on the same problem in Did Jesus Exist [I now notice he has just posted a second instalment], is Ehrman’s handling of my discussion of the ancients’ views of the universe and how one in particular influenced early Christian cosmology and their placement of their Christ Jesus’ sacrifice in the heavenly world. Here, as quoted on Vridar, is what Ehrman says:

Ehrman continues to repeat and underscore this aspersion — that Doherty is so simplistic as to speak of a single view of the world among ancients:

To begin with, how can he claim to have uncovered “the” view of the world held by “the” ancients, a view that involved an upper world where the true reality resides and this lower world, which is a mere reflection of it? How, in fact, can we talk about “the” view of the world in antiquity? Ancient views of the world were extremely complex and varied…

Neil points out that this is a direct misrepresentation of what I say in my book. Ehrman is discussing my page 97, which actually says (the square-bracket insertions are mine just made):

To understand that setting, we need to look at the ancients’ views [VIEWS, plural] of the universe and the various [i.e., MULTIPLE] concepts of myth among both Jews and pagans, including the features of the Hellenistic salvation cults known as “mysteries.”

But Ehrman has not simply ‘misread’ one word, the surrounding context, and in many other places in my book, contains further material like this:

From the documentary record both Jewish and pagan (and there is more to survey), it is clear that much variation existed in the concept of the layered heavens and what went on in them, just as there were many variations in the nature of the savior and how he conferred salvation.

Neil and some commenters on his posting point out that Ehrman’s language (see above) also implies that this particular “view” of the universe (the Platonic one) I present is somehow my own laughable invention, whereas any undergraduate student of ancient thinking knows full well that this was a widespread (and even pre-Plato) type of cosmology about the nature of the universe. Unfortunately, much of Ehrman’s readership will not even be undergrads.

In the same posting Neil quotes this blatant non-sequitur on Ehrman’s part:

This view of things was especially true, Doherty avers, in the mystery cults, which Doherty claims provided “the predominant form of popular religion in this period.” (This latter claim, by the way, is simply not true. Most religious pagans were not devotees of mystery cults.)

Something that is a “predominant form” is not necessarily indulged in by the majority. Ehrman’s criticism here is based on this fallacy. I have not said that a majority of pagans were initiates into the cults. Besides, the presence of the word “popular” gives a different cast to things. If I say that the predominant form of popular music over the last half-century has been “rock and roll” that does not say that a majority of the population of all ages and ethnic groups around the world have been enthusiastic about rock and roll. Ehrman exhibits serious logical deficiencies here.

On the “view”/”views” matter, Neil suggests that Ehrman may have been “more careless than dishonest,” while one commenter puts it “we must first assume carelessness and not malice”. (Dishonorable or incompetent, take your pick.) But I think this is bending over backwards unjustifiably. It is admittedly hard to believe that Ehrman could have deliberately misrepresented my words, consciously falsifying my arguments in order to put me in the worst possible light. But what is the alternative “carelessness” due to? What else but a blatant prejudice against all things mythicist, a deliberate closing of the mind to anything that could possibly confer a positive light on the mythicist argument (shades of Dr. McGrath), a conscious attitude toward mythicism as a satanic expression of anti-religion held by people whose sole agenda is the destruction of Christianity? In other words, “malice” against myself and mythicism, and what I and other mythicists are perceived to constitute. (I don’t yet know if the language of his Huffington Post article is fully reproduced in the book, but that wouldn’t matter; those sentiments were offered in a promotion of the book and clearly illustrate the author’s mindset.) That malice has led Ehrman (and others both today and in the past) into a culture of misrepresentation and closed-minded condemnation, a litany of fallacious argument, a practice of misleading—even deceptive—presentation of both mythicism and the case for historicism, especially to lay readers who are at the mercy of their own trust in the reliability of ‘professional’ scholars with their proper credentials.

If we cannot trust a scholar to address and deal with the arguments of opposing viewpoints honestly and reliably, how can we trust them to be presenting and dealing honestly and reliably with the arguments in support of their own theories? And in fact, Ehrman has already been called out extensively on many of the book’s statements in defence of historicism, some of them blatantly insupportable.

Several months ago, when we were discussing the anticipation of Ehrman’s book on this forum, I said to Don that I would hardly be adopting toward Ehrman the same tone and style I often adopted toward some of those here who treat mythicism as a doormat. I would show, I said, respect toward a respected scholar who might be expected to handle the subject matter and its proponents with some degree of honesty and thoughtfulness. How naïve that was!

Robert Price has reacted to Ehrman’s book by calling it a “rag” and other derogatory labels. I won’t use that kind of language. Actually, it’s far worse. Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist is a massive failure of integrity, both professional and personal. This was a long-awaited book. First, from the time of its announcement over a year ago, for it was to constitute the work of a respected mainstream scholar who would devote an entire book to addressing mythicism and an attempt to effectively rebut it. But also long-awaited for several decades, for no one over that time had offered a full-length book to justify the widespread claim that historicism was a no-brainer and that mythicism had long been annihilated. To judge by quotes and comments (even by some not necessarily mythicism supporters), this book is a huge disappointment. One might even say a betrayal.

P.S. If my own reading of the book disproves or compromises this extremely negative evaluation, I will be the first to revise my estimation of it. I said in my first posting in this thread that I would be reacting to what others (on both sides) say about it, rather than to a reading of the book itself. Right now I am forced to mask my vision in the new cataract-free eye, since it contributes only a disturbing blur at monitor-screen distance, and I am having to rest frequently. But I found it impossible to remain silent on the sidelines until I am able to get a corrective reading lens and tackle the book itself. If anyone wishes to dispute my comments or evaluation of Ehrman on the basis of others’ quotes and criticisms, please feel free.

By the way, I trust that Abe would be willing to revisit his review of Ehrman’s book at some future point, after more comment is in.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...-earl-doherty/

Bart Ehrman’s false or careless assertions and quotations concerning Earl Doherty



http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/...dohertys-book/

Another Bart Ehrman mis-reading of Earl Doherty’s book

tanya

1. Google;
2. type "vridar"
3. click
4. highlight this with mouse http://vridar.wordpress.com/

5. right click, "copy"
6. in FRDB editor, right click, "paste" you see this: http://vridar.wordpress.com/
7. add [ url = , without any spaces, to http : // vridar . wordpress . com/ [ /url] ]-- again without spaces-- here is the link-- again no spaces [ / url ]
8. looks like this:
here is the link
finished...

andrewcriddle

This may be going off-topic, but the Odin connection seems questionable. The internet sites making the connection seem short of primary evidence. Did Odin really give gifts and punishments to children ? What is the source for this claim ?

Andrew Criddle