ApostateAbe

Short answer: Ehrman makes no argument that hasn't already been made many times in the past by the members of the "HJ" camp on this forum. But, it is a deft compilation of the best arguments (and counter-arguments) in favor of the conclusion that Jesus existed, as a human apocalyptic prophet who inspired the religion of Christianity. It is the only book of its kind, effectively refuting the core arguments of the mythicist literature, and it is intimately relevant to this forum (which justifies the number of threads devoted to the topic).

I ordered and read the paper copy of the book over the weekend. I have been anticipating this book before Ehrman even began researching, when he first briefly floated the idea "of writing a book on this" when he was a guest on the Infidel Guy's radio show, the same episode with the infamous pummeling of the Infidel Guy over mythicism, becoming a viral video. More than two years later, the book manifests roughly same spirit of hostility against mythicism, this time backing his accusations with strong detailed arguments.

When Ehrman first began researching for the book, he asked Robert M. Price for some literature. Price gladly consented, and he anticipated on his podcast that Ehrman's book would not be lightweight. Now that the book has been published, Price has become much more defensive, calling it a "rag," a "hack job," and using the pun "Errorman" against Ehrman (taking after some of Ehrman's past Christian critics and inspiring the vocabulary of a new camp of Ehrman's haters). Ehrman had it coming--Price's new-found hostility is appropriate to match Ehrman's merciless zingers against Price and other Jesus-minimalists (I will give an example shortly).

Though Ehrman is hostile against all mythicists, he grants more respect to Price, GA Wells and Richard Carrier, considerably less respect for Earl Doherty, and the least respect for Acharya S and Freke & Gandy. He is careful to evaluate the central arguments of each author individually. This is a fair approach, but it means that a vast array of other arguments will be omitted, so of course Steven Carr was right when he predicted that Doherty's "Top 20" silences would be ignored, the same as thousands of other mythicist arguments. More annoyingly, in my opinion, Steven Carr was right when he inferred (from the publisher's web preview) that Ehrman's book does not have an index (only a set of endnotes and a bibliography). If I had realized Steven Carr was right, I would have purchased the e-book instead of the hardback, just so I can do a word search.

Earl Doherty sarcastically inferred (also from the publisher's web preview) that Ehrman's "pivotal argument that 'brother of the Lord' has to mean sibling, case closed." Actually, the "James, the Lord's brother" passage in Galatians 1:19 is only the starting point, and Ehrman develops the argument in considerable detail, striking down the best counterarguments. On page 155, in response to one of three of Price's proposals to explain "James, the Lord's brother":

And he [Price] is certainly wrong to claim that this theory explains any rivalry between the "twelve" and the "pillars." This latter term is used by Paul in Galatians to indicate the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter, James, and John--two of three were members of the twelve. It is hard to know how these groups were in such a rivalry. Unless, of course, Peter and John were just internally conflicted.

Ehrman many times rightly accuses such mythicist arguments as being "scholarship of convenience," which is a better way of saying, "ad hoc," meaning that improbable arguments are made to explain evidence that would otherwise contradict the conclusion, and such explanations are accepted only by those who hold the conclusion.

Steven Carr wrongly predicted that Ehrman would not let "his readers know that he himself questioned the identification of Cephas and Peter." Ehrman discusses this personal scholarly matter (from 20 years ago!) on page 354, albeit in an endnote (his italics):

Earlier in my career I played with the idea that Cephas and Peter were two different persons, but now I think that's a bit bizarre--as most of the critics of the idea have pointed out! The most compelling reason for identifying them as the same person is not simply John 1:42 but the historical fact that neither Cephas nor Peter was a personal name in the ancient world. Peter is the Greek word for "rock," which in Aramaic was Cephas. And so Jesus gave this person--his real name was Simon--a nickname, "the Rock." It seems highly unlikely that two different persons were given precisely the same nickname at the same time in history when this name did not previously exist.

This is a strong point that deserved to be in the main text, because it means that the responsibility falls on mythicists to somehow explain this bizarre coincidence, as they typically agree with Ehrman's renounced proposition. Paul apparently met the Apostle Peter, and it is a problem almost equal to the problem of Paul meeting "James, the Lord's brother."

Chapter Six is titled, "The Mythicist Case: Weak and Irrelevant Claims." I agree with this chapter, except that the language is too strong. Bart Ehrman agrees with some claims of mythicists (i.e. the gospels are unprovenanced, contradictory and filled with miracle stories) and he counters that these claims are irrelevant. I would not say "irrelevant," but I would say that the claims are of limited relevance. If the gospels were instead strongly provenanced, consistent and plausible, the case for the historical Jesus would absolutely be a no-brainer. But, we need to accept the best explanations for the evidence we have, not wishing we had better evidence and dismissing all data that doesn't meet the high bar for what counts as "evidence," and on this point Ehrman emphatically agrees.

Ehrman concludes his book with thoughts about "The Mythicist Agenda," recounting his experiences at a Humanist convention. He tells that he was not surprised to learn that a good number of the people there are either mythicists or are leaning toward mythicism. And he also notices that virtually all mythicists are either atheists or agnostics. He guesses that mythicists are not driven by the probability of their arguments but largely by an intent to "undermine specifically the Christian form of religion." It was only a guess on his part, but I think he is right. This book, then, should be a wake-up call to the atheist community, which, as in almost all other activist groups, has allowed at least one improbable empirical theory to thrive, to the benefit of our wishful thinking, at the expense of both reason and activist ends. Mythicism is like the birtherism of the atheist community.

EarlDoherty

A preliminary and quick reply (more will follow later) to Abe's "review" of Ehrman's book. (It's more like a cheerleader squad's "rah rah rah". Shake those pom-poms, Abe!)

OF COURSE virtually all mythicists are atheists or agnostics, and it is a joke that neither Abe nor Ehrman can recognize the fallacy in putting forward this observation as though it's an argument against mythicists (or rather an open ad hominem that we are all Christianity-haters). How could a believer be a mythicist, since his faith would have to reject such a theory? Only atheists or agnostics could open their minds to judging the theory without prejudice. (Which doesn't mean that all atheists or agnostics are mythicists. There are closed-minded mythicism-haters even among declared atheists.)

Groan...

Earl Doherty

tanya

Thank you Abe, for sharing with us, your opinion about Bart Ehrman's newest book.

In my opinion, a useful book review should demonstrate two qualities:

1. It should reveal awareness of the key issues described in the book, and explain the extent to which the author had successfully addressed those points;

2. It should present the book to the reader of the review, to clarify whether or not one ought to proceed to read the text, oneself.

I am grateful for your review, Abe, but, honestly, it doesn't accomplish either of these two goals, in my opinion.

Instead of writing about (Ehrman's discussion of) Price, Doherty, Carr, Acharya, et al, why not focus on the significant bits of evidence, which Ehrman claimed he would be introducing, at least, that's what I took away from the Publisher's extracts, posted last week....I honestly have zero interest in Ehrman's opinion about those other authors. I want you to summarize EHRMAN's data and opinions, not waste my time reading your opinions about those other author's ideas. Whether you agree with Ehrman, or not, is also irrelevant. A good review, whether of Bambi, or Gulag Archipelago, will focus on the text itself, and not ancillary political issues.

Your review, Abe, does not fill me with a desire to go and absorb any more of Ehrman's text, than what I read last week.

Flesh it out, Abe, if you can (i.e. your silence suggests Ehrman's silence.) Give us some meat. We already have the bones. If Ehrman has been silent, let us know.

Where are these Aramaic documents, he mentioned in the publisher's extracts?

Explain, if you can, how this guy can write a whole book, called "Forged", and another one "Misquoting" and yet assume that the epistles of Paul are pristine?

Diogenes the Cynic

I had a very similar assessment of the book, and I share the consternation about the level of emotion some atheists invest in the mythicist position, as if the mere of existence of a historical personality behind the Jesus story is some kind of concession to religion.

Honestly, some of the arguments I see used by mythers (and I don't mean all arguments or all mythers) are just as tendentious and silly and improbable as anything I see from fundamentalists. Some of the attempts to connect every single element of the Gospel narratives to this or that pagan god based on vague associations are basically just making pictures out of clouds.

I sometimes feel like some people (atheists and theists alike) have difficulty detaching the Jesus of myth from any possible historical model or inspiration.

There is Santa Claus and there is the historical St. Nikolaos of Myra. We know that the "Christ" of religious faith did not actually exist any more than Santa Claus ever actually existed, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a Nikolaos somewhere, and the preponderance evidence suggests that there was. This conclusion does not imply the slightest belief in any of the supernatural claims of Christianity, any more than think St. Nikolaos really existed implies a belief in a workshop at the North Pole.

Diogenes the Cynic

He doesn't claim there are Aramaic documents, tanya, he claims that Aramaic words in Mark show an Aramaic oral source.

hjalti

Not only that, they can be dated to 1 or 2 years after Jesus' death!

GakuseiDon

Good review, AAbe.

The biggest surprise for me is how Price and Carrier have reacted. As soon as Ehrman announced his intention to write a book against the mythicists, I predicted that Ehrman's credibility would take a hit; and that did occur, with people explaining why Ehrman would not be able to objectively make such a case long before the book was released. But seeing the comments from Price and Carrier -- as the only two academics actively pushing this position -- is a revelation.

Did Ehrman give what he thought was the best case for mythicism, either one he came across or a list of reasons he feels supports one? Or advice to mythicists about what they need to do to give the best possible case?

aa5874

Now, you have confirmed that Ehrman employs logical fallacies. The existence or non-existence of Santa Claus and St. Nikolaos REQUIRES an INDEPENDENT inquiry and the results have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence an historical Jesus.

It is illogical to even think that if St. Nikolaos existed then Jesus most likely did.

We have Superman and Clark Kent so based on your logical fallacies Superman most likely was indeed based on Clark Kent or there must be an historical Clark Kent.

tanya

A. I have no idea how this sentence relates to Abe's review of Ehrman's most recent book. Are you attempting to offer intellectual support to Abe, for his review, which emphasizes gossip, instead of giving us data?

B. Your statement is utter folderol, Diogenes.

Allow me to change ONE word, in your sentence above, to demonstrate how nonsensical it is:

"I sometimes feel like some people....have difficulty detaching the Paul Bunyan of myth from any possible historical model or inspiration."

WHAT????

You mean to express the opinion, that since there had undoubtedly been some kind of French logger, whose heroic accomplishments served as inspiration for the story of Paul Bunyan, that therefore, we should consider the likelihood of an historical basis for Paul Bunyan? Hercules was a role model for healthy exercise, therefore, there is a high probability that his mother was human and his father divine?

A myth is a myth, Diogenes the creduluous. You cannot extract bits and pieces of a myth, and say, oh, this part over here is genuine, because I think it seems reasonable.....

You have data to support the supernatural activity of Jesus? NO? Neither does anyone else. All of the NON-supernatural activity of Jesus is just palaver, which could apply to ANYONE.

What is unique about Jesus, and that feature which DEMANDS our obedience, our faith, our shame, is Jesus' DIVINITY, not his wandering about Lebanon, searching for the Eastern bank of Lake Galilee, and then returning to the western bank to ascend a mountain.

If you seek to express agreement with either Abe's review, or Ehrman's book, the way to accomplish that accord, (since you also have Ehrman's tome), is to list, here, on the forum, Ehrman's link to these supposed "original" sources in Aramaic.

:huh:

ApostateAbe

Ehrman developed what he called "Two Key Data for the Historicity of Jesus" for Chapter Five, and they were (1) James, Peter and the multiplicity of sources attesting to them and (2) the crucifixion of Jesus against messianic interests and the multiplicity of sources attesting to it. After that, he focuses on the failures of the mythicist arguments. He didn't give advice to mythicists.