ApostateAbe

I think that is a wonderful idea.

Steven Carr

I didn't realise arguments had a best-by date on , and expired once the warranty runs out.

I guess there is no need for Ehrman to mention to his readers the existence of articles countering his present day views, even if he himself wrote them.


His readers buy his books in good faith, after all.

DCHindley

Strange thing is, in 2003 I wrote a "massive line by line refutation" of Ehrman's 1990 article (JBL 109: "Cephas and Peter", 463-74) and a rebuttal by Dale Allison in the same Journal in 1992 (JBL 111 "Peter and Cephas: One and the Same" 489-95). Well, I actually refuted a claim that Dale Allison had "demolished" Ehrman's claims "one by one", and in the process had to decompose both of their journal articles.

The curious may behold this "mother of all refutations" here. For those who are trying to size up Ehrman, I included some observations about the way Ehrman proceeded, which hints at a certain recklessness of his statements. In other words, I think he enjoys injecting a certain amount of "shock value" in his rhetoric.

Oh, what the hell, I'll repost my observations:

All in all, Ehrman's article was an interesting read. However, I encountered some rhetorical language that made me wonder.

Initially, Ehrman's language is straightforward. However, starting on page 467, Ehrman begins to suggest that those who propose the traditional equation of Cephas and Peter have not given the NT documents a "close" or "careful" reading, and suggests that this is due to them "prejudging the issue in light of John 1:42."

This kind of rhetoric continues, in even stronger language, in point E.3.b, where Ehrman states that "most commentators have simply overlooked, or rather chosen to ignore, what should seem rather obvious", reasoning that "any sensible reader [of Gal 2] would assume that" Cephas and Peter "were different persons."

Then in E(C2)a Ehrman chides those that hold that Paul cites "some sort of officially transcribed document of the Jerusalem conference in Gal 2:7-8" by saying that "[i]t is not surprising that such an idea occurred to no one for nineteen hundred years." This continues in E(C2)c where employment of circular reasoning by Ulrich Wilckens to "establish the likelihood that Paul is citing the earlier agreement of the Jerusalem council" by reason of the mere presence of the name Peter, and in spite of "characteristically Pauline words and phrases", "will scarcely do".

Then, on page 471 (E(C4) above), Ehrman implies that those who see the Cephas who heads one column of the parallel lists theorized in 1 Cor 15:5 as the Apostle Peter, have not given the issue as much "careful consideration" as he has. The answer, to Ehrman, is "[s]trikingly" obvious, and again suggests that other scholars have "overlooked" the answer due to "the blinders we normally wear when reading a text like this". These blinders are caused by their "previous knowledge", presumably, of John 1:42. In addition, another motive is implied by Ehrman's assessment (in E5) that "[t]he implications of this conclusion will be obvious to anyone who has worked at any length with the NT materials". In other words, the issue has been overlooked to avoid wholesale reevaluation of five traditional assumptions used to evaluate theories related to early Christian origins.

I did not see the need to overstate such figures, and felt that doing so ultimately detracted from an otherwise fine analysis. They tended to polarize rather than persuade, and I think the article would have had greater impact or at least acceptance had it been written in a less confrontational manner.

I don't know why Ehrman so casually dismissed the possibility that Gal 2:7b-8 is an interpolation, which to me seems a natural explanation for what, in the Nestle-Aland GNT, is an intrusive elaboration that uses the name PETROS when otherwise he always uses Cephas.

Heck, that is how just about everyone debates here!

DCH

Vorkosigan

DC, thanks a ton.

Vorkosigan

mountainman

Wasn't Doug Shaver mentioned as a coordinator some time back? (I cant find the thread atm)

Splarnst

Richard Carrier wrote a blog entry which is very critical this article: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

tanya

Thank you for that link. VERY INTERESTING article by R.Carrier. Well written, especially, his detailed explanation, (refuting Ehrman's new book's claim to the contrary) of Philo's attestation of Pontius Pilate, coupled with absence of reference by Philo, to either Christians or Jesus. I thought Carrier's photo of the stone carving, made by Pilate, was the nail in Ehrman's coffin.

yeah, a couple of days ago, reading over the extract furnished by Ehrman's publisher, I too wondered about Ehrman's claim to possess
Where are these sources?
This is an issue that ought to be verifiable. Either the sources exist, Ehrman is correct, or they do not, Carrier is correct.

There is no middle ground here. no fence to straddle.

Which is it? Some of you folks know a bit about this. Some of you know Aramaic (or Syriac). Which one of these two scholars is correct?

judge

Must be the mythical Q (maybe he is a mythicist)

Or some kind of Aramaic source proposed by various

aa5874

Before reading Richard Carrier I have already realized that Ehrman is NOT credible. He appears to be INCOMPETENT.

Adam

Maybe my Post #121 in "Bart Ehrman's new book - did my prophecy come true?" is not so far-fetched, after all, since nobody seems to be able to track down Ehrman's source. Yes, maybe Q, maybe L (equals Gospel of the Hebrews, according to James R. Edwards), but most likely the Passion Narrative.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....91#post7111691